And if I didn't have a rule against up-modding ACs, this would have gotten a point...
LOL!

OK, Obviously I wasn't clear enough...

And - I'm just as surprised as anyone that this hit the front page. (Seriously?! Wow - I've only done that once before! that's COOL!)

OK, No, the customers aren't being ass-hats, No, they aren't trying to sell pictures, no, there is not a sripper pole/orgy/druggie bus, and - No, they could care less about selfies, but, if you allow selfies, you have to accept all photos. There will be drinking. Lots of drinking...

What they don't want is pictures taken of them, nor of the other passengers riding along with them, in a - comprimising position. They are willing to lose their own cameras, because they prize their passengers privacy (NOTE PAX, NOT Customer people do NOT pay to ride, it is strictly by invitation only!) and they consider it rude to ask for phones. Not like it matters when you can hide a camera in a button, pen, whatever... The reason they /want/ to keep their own cameras is for no other reason than if some drunken ass-hat douch-bad, Beiber wanna-be decides to do something criminal to someone else on the bus. No more, no less. they not only have no intention of using the footage for anything else, they don't even plan to review it, unless there is a reported incident, and they'll probably just hand it to the cops.

People will be asked to not take pictures, but their may be some very famouse people riding along with some very attractive (non-professional) other passengers, and - well, people will be people. There is a "Guido" on board, but by then it's too late.

We have tried single source, high intensity (250W NIR and 125W IR LEDs) to the point where it was starting to become visible, and it works, only in the immediate area of the LED cluster. There are indeed mirrors all over the bus, and a white light (RGB, I know) LASER show device, and a fogger, but that won't be enough.

One (several) of the comments suggested strobing and varying the LEDs, We'll try that next. It seems to make sense. We also like the idea of selectively targeting the CCDs, but - well honestly, I have no clue how. I know in theory how, and that it does work in movie theaters, and on the occasional boat, but it's above my skill set. I'm that good, but, in other areas. (I'm good, not God.) I'm checking out a link that was posted.

They understand that they won't get every camera, but they obviously want as many as possible.

And for the losers who say "No, it can't be done, and you're an idiot for asking!" - well, let me quote Capt. Tagon "Never tell me what *you* can't do as if it's something *nobody* can do."

For the rest of you who are actually trying to help, one nerd to another, Thank you.

I agree. This may be what we are looking for. We did use a single high intensity source, and what it took to bloom the CCD was - extreme. I'll play with several high intensity IR LEDs, fluctuating and strobing and see what happens. Thank you.

Actually not. For example, There are several theater protection systems that use active lasers, looking for CCD, but that's not real practical here.
Unless someone knows somethign I don't. Hence the reason I'm asking...

Right, The Rock Star is the owner.
And, they would rather their own cameras didn't work, if that will prevent others from working. Confiscating them really isn't an option. (They're just too damn easy to conceal anyway.)

Actually, yes. That is exactly why they want it. And yes, they only intend to use their own cameras if there is a criminal investication, and the disc cycles every four days, and the passengers know this.

Don't forget Adobe Creative suite. $ per operation, I would so rather run After Effects, or any of the high horsepower Creative suite under Windows. (And I would pay even more to get a Linux version.) the Apple hardware just plain costs too much!

If you're unashamed of your past (harmless) behaviour it's harder for people to "use it against you".

This is not how it works. Not even close.

Political operatives dig something up - often something entirely harmless, something that neither you nor any of normal people would even consider to be shameful - and they blow it up until it crushes you. Take, for example, "Dean Scream," or Swiftboating of Kerry, among many other. The defining characteristic of such attacks is that they are, generally, dishonest, and influence the uneducated audience, forcing the candidate to take defensive posture - which never helps. The attack itself may be an outright lie, or a lie constructed upon some foundation of a real event, or a real event that is completely misrepresented.

Besides, a person who has nothing to be ashamed of in his past is either a saint or a narcissist. I am not aware of *anyone* who'd manage to live from cradle to grave without making an unfortunate mistake somewhere.

They could not possibly want to "watch" everybody. You'd have more watchers than watched.

You are presuming that the watcher is a human. This does not need to be so today. Even existing, crude algorithms are capable of analyzing your writing, determining what languages you are familiar with, what level of education you likely have, and other things. The software can watch for certain key words and alert humans. The software can compare the manner of writing that you use to post on different web sites and determine that you are the owner of both accounts. The software can take data not only from scraping the public blogs, but also from intercepts of IP when they are available. It is already possible to watch everyone's online activities - the question is only in how much hardware the government is willing to buy with your own tax money to monitor what you do.

My point is that you *don't* hear about those things as often as you do with bitcoin, and I was wondering why.

You probably do, but you simply don't pay attention. (Those examples are just from the top of a random Google search.) A bureaucrat takes cash bribe for a favor ... stop the presses!

On top of that, I would think that a large number of cash transactions are successful, and invisible to the government. (All drugs are sold and resold for cash, modulo the extinct Silk Road.) The proceeds are then carefully and accurately laundered through a network of businesses; and those operations are not ran by fools, like in this case. The underground economy is alive and well, and its size far exceeds the entire supply of BTC in the world.

If anyone comes to you and says something along the lines of, "I've got some drug money to launder, I need $30,000 in bitcoins..." don't say yes. I mean, Jesus Christ, how fantastically stupid do you have to be to go for that?!

On the other hand, one has to be fantastically naive to expect a similar magnitude of business from people who only want to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks. BTC attracts criminal proceeds like honey attracts flies. In essence, there is hardly any legal use of BTC (outside of pure speculation and experiments.)

One would be better off buying that TV or that subscription with an inflating currency than with a deflating one. Credit cards also give you insurance, and protection, and a small kickback, and a grace month during which you own the item but haven't paid for it yet.

The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video.

And, of course, there is no way to connect GG to a much larger battery that hangs on the policeman's belt, alongside with his Taser, his firearm, and a ton of other stuff?

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Slashdot's content is produced by the people (you and me and 3 million others.) We are supposed to write comments on this Web site. So a better analogy would be: you go to a concert, but the performers are singing protest songs because their manager threatens to disband the group. You may not like it... but admission is free, so you cannot demand your money back. If you walk away and ignore the event, the band will be soon gone.

Slashcott is a boycott of Slashdot. No visits, no submissions, no comments next week. A Google search brings up enough entries to get started. For some strange reason, Slashdot's own search returns nothing...

Ineffective campaigning at its "best".

Well, thanks to your interest, the campaigning just got a little better!

Either mining remains profitable, or miners will stop mining.* At the point where they stop mining, the difficulty goes down until mining becomes worthwhile again.

Can you imagine what a rollercoaster this will be? Price of a commodity is set at an exchange with a simple phone call or with an electronic contract. This price is set and is changed (as need be) easily and effortlessly, with lag that today is measured in milliseconds. However in BTC land in order to send the message to BTC Gods you have to close up your business, fire your workers, and sell (to who?) all your equipment. Then maybe enough other miners do the same, and within a year the network realizes that something is wrong and the difficulty drops. Then you are free to re-buy all your miners, rehire the workers, and reopen the company - until the next dip. This is insane.

Yes, in principle this is self-balancing. It's just not self-balancing on human scale of time and effort.

There is another catch here. As mining becomes more and more corporatized (which is necessary to run 100,000 miners in Iceland, for example) you get concentration of mining power in one pair of hands. Or in several, but still highly countable, pairs of hands. Those guys can not only outmine all the hobbyists - they can also outprice them, as they buy power in bulk and in a region that is known for cheap power. Hobbyists will have to surrender their 50% of hashing rate - and what do you have then? A 50% attack that is only not happening because of the honor of the businessmen who run the pyramid?

there are many hobbyist miners who will operate at a loss just for the sheer love of it. No, I'm not kidding.

They are irrelevant in every sense of the word. Their influence scales only proportional to their investment, like a gold miner who washes sand in a coffee cup.