Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Holographic movies (Score 1) 86

by TheLostSamurai (#33304860) Attached to: Inside the Lab of One of the World's Last Holographers

True that you can store whatever resolution of holographic data (the diffraction pattern) you want. True that higher resolution leads to higher quality. But you conveniently omit the fact that resolution of 1000x1000 is barely sufficient to get a hologram of two dots. Gigapixel resolution is needed to store holographic equivalent of a thumbnail image in quality that allows one to recognize the content. The rule of thumb is resolution roughly 1000 times higher than respective 2D image for similar quality.

An AC below spoke of Zebra Imaging. I used to work there making holograms and can assure you that you really have no idea what you are talking about. First, you are trying to compare the resolution of a hologram to the resolution of a monitor. In the holography Zebra does, 1024x1024 resolution is accomplished in 0.7mm. You can do the math for a 3ftx2ft hologram as to the amount of data in the full size hologram.

Why still no holographic data storage, which is hmuch easier than holographic display

Holography IS data storage. The reason it is not commercially viable as say media for your pc is because the machines that create these holograms are not anywhere near consumer grade. Also, the physical media is not as durable as most current storage solutions.

Comment: Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score 1) 794

by TheLostSamurai (#31446564) Attached to: Bill To Ban All Salt In Restaurant Cooking

As for my personal opinion, I would never approve of abortion unless the mothers life were in danger, but unless my sperm are involved it's simply none of my damn business, nor is it the governments.

Is murder fine as long as nobody in your immediate family is killed? Why should your tax money pay to put that guy away? He didn't kill your family...

As soon as the law defines abortion as murder and a fetus as a person, you might have a point. Until then you are simply trying to impose your select moral values on a society by wanting to have the government enforce them for you.

If society were run by an individuals morals, I would be able to kill you if I felt you wronged me in an egregious fashion, because those are my morals.

Laws are not in place to determine moral write and wrong they are there for societal stability.

Comment: Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score 1) 794

by TheLostSamurai (#31444448) Attached to: Bill To Ban All Salt In Restaurant Cooking
As far as drugs go, you should be able to do whatever you want to yourself, I agree. However, the selling of drugs should be regulated and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes. Not only would this greatly reduce drug related crime but it would be a huge boon to our national economy.

As far as abortion goes, your argument is that the government has a duty to protect all of its citizens including unborn children. The problem is that babies are not people. They are indeed humans, at which stage is debatable, but as far as the government is concerned unborn babies are not citizens of this country yet and therefore outside the governments purview. The mothers life takes precedence as she is an actual citizen of this country. Be aware that many times abortions are to save mothers who may not otherwise survive childbirth.

As for my personal opinion, I would never approve of abortion unless the mothers life were in danger, but unless my sperm are involved it's simply none of my damn business, nor is it the governments.

Comment: Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score 2, Insightful) 794

by TheLostSamurai (#31444120) Attached to: Bill To Ban All Salt In Restaurant Cooking

Funny, I've found that to be the exact same thing most hypocritical about Democrats. You can scoop a fetus out because it's your body, but by god if you try to put salt on your food we'll throw you in the fucking slammer.

Actually, I don't think that's hypocritical at all. Democrats want big government. They want the federal government to intervene in all avenues of life, and to adhere to that position must accept the laws the fed makes whether good or bad overall. They also happen to want the federal government to make abortions specifically legal.

Republicans on the other hand, want the government completely out of their lives, which is why it is hypocritical to then want the federal government to interfere with issues they believe are morally correct. You can't have it both ways, it's all or nothing.

BTW, this is why I will never consider myself affiliated with ANY political party. Issues need to be dealt with logically, not ideologically.

Comment: Re:Go go Nanny State... (Score 0, Flamebait) 794

by TheLostSamurai (#31443040) Attached to: Bill To Ban All Salt In Restaurant Cooking

Do you really want the government telling you what you cannot eat?

Stay out of my bedroom, welcome to my kitchen?
--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.

I hope your sig is meant to be facetious.

Do you really want the government telling you who you can marry and what you can and can't do with your body?

I've always found that to be the single most hypocritical thing about republicans.

Comment: Re:Copyright BS (Score 1) 605

by TheLostSamurai (#30582842) Attached to: Court Orders Shutdown of H-1B Critics' Websites
The answer to your question: The Berne Convention [wikipedia.org], which affixes copyright on anything written down anywhere. Really. This comment is copywritten by yours truly thanks to that rule and that fun text at the bottom of the page, and as such if I were wealthy and a complete jerk I could sue someone for infringement if someone decided to plagiarize me.

Comment: Re:Threats are threats (Score 2, Insightful) 806

by TheLostSamurai (#30465202) Attached to: Student Banned From Minnesota Campus Over Facebook Comments

As is noted, this was posted on facebook for all the world to see. If it were truly a threat it would either be in a much more personal venue or you would likely be able to see a pattern of other such public statements.

Oh, that's right. People would NEVER post legitimate threats on a a publicly-readable site.

FTA you linked: "Detailed Horrific Slay Plot on Web Diary"

I believe a detailed description of how someone was going to horrifically slay a person/persons is a slight bit different from an ad-hoc remark venting frustration.

Here's the main problem, yours and the university in question:
People are so afraid of their own damn shadows that they refuse to apply critical thinking to even the most simple of circumstances.

Seriously, try actually processing information before reacting with reckless abandon.

Comment: Re:Threats are threats (Score 3, Informative) 806

by TheLostSamurai (#30462574) Attached to: Student Banned From Minnesota Campus Over Facebook Comments

Yes, but how do you know the difference?

Even small statements made online are not devoid of context. If there is a rash of this behavior and a reoccurring pattern of such statements then yes, they should be taken seriously. However, if a student who has no history of violence or even anti-social behavior* makes an off-the-cuff statement such as this it should be taken in the appropriate context of an upset person venting frustration.

As is noted, this was posted on facebook for all the world to see. If it were truly a threat it would either be in a much more personal venue or you would likely be able to see a pattern of other such public statements.

*yes I know this is overly generalized and not really a valid way to assess anything about a person.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...