Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment If they are Doctoring, WHY do they work there? (Score 5, Interesting) 206

As a former photojournalist, I can saw that you simply blacklist them and/or fire them from being a contributor/stringer/staffer at that image bureau. There are ethical standards in the professional photography world, and it is nothing bad to those of us who upheld our high ethical standards to see someone get fired for unethically altering images and cheating and breaking the rules. I doubt this is as much a problem from a "who altered their photos?" problem as it is the photographers are submitting larger files (even if lossy down converted into JPG from RAW) and Reuters is having problems handling so many large files in their infrastructure and pushing photos out in distribution to their newsroom client "on the wire" servers. I know in my past when dealing with AP, if you uploaded a file that was too large they either rejected it, or WORSE, applied their lossy compression using whatever software they saw fit. When what your image looks like is everything to a shooter, and when a perfect images is ruined by crap third party compression due to file size, the lesson is hard learned and PJ folks are pretty savvy getting the best bang per MB.

Comment Surely, you can't be serious... (Score 1) 40

I am serious, and I am sure no one in the Government has ~ever~ monitored this web site's traffic or users ever never... (I always assume I am always logged by some alphabet agency and added to some bad-list for checking out the very cool stuff at throughout the years...) It sounds like John just accidentally sent out logs on a USB archive stick. I am sure the recipient considered it value-added. (don't see any politics going on here either, not taking the troll bait)

Comment 24/7 access does NOT = "unfettered" access (Score 0, Troll) 459

This agreement that took years to reach, is all carrot and no stick. Once the other nations release their sanctions (current sticks), they won't put them back on and if Iran continues to make nukes, they still won't reinstate them after the US gives the Iranians 100 Billion+ $ (which they will likely promptly buy arms and weapons systems from China and Russia with)... It is very important to note that 24/7 access does NOT = "unfettered" access... this deal has notice being given to Iran for the when and where they will inspect... (probably days to weeks in advance) UNFETTERED means any time anywhere no notice... HUGE difference. This was a total cave in and we were better off before any deal. Giving up everything to the opponent is not a metric by which you can claim it is a "good deal". Love him or hate him, Bibi was right, this is a very bad deal...

Comment Re:"as a Service" = you have to buy it Every Year? (Score 1) 189

I appreciate you not assuming my intent and being objectively respectful. Thank You. Yes, I left things unsaid and I meant not Troll or Flame in my comments, but I do not have a entirely positive opinion with this choice by MS. I believe this is a slippery sloping direction in which I predict MS will head into OS subscriptions (considering their tract record of late with office). Yes, I know you can buy non-subscription based office apps also... I have used MS DOS with Windows 1.0 through Windows 8.1, and I am expressing my opinion and predicting Microsoft will eventually be making this a subscription OS model eventually for more $$$, (but I will endure the low moderation the ad hominem attacks for expressing so)... I am predicting over time the MS will eventually have trial versions (or full versions with limited time use) of their OS' on new hardware, like Norton and McAfee and MS Office currently do, and the customer can pay more to keep using them...

Comment Re:suckers (Score 1) 141

Not really, this is about more taxes and greater profits.... For example, the cost of a 1lb can of R-12 was $0.50-$0.99 when I was a kid... today they are about $10.99- $15.00+ per 1lb can for the now carcinogenic and flammable "replacement" R-134A... To be perfectly honest, we could all be using less than $0.50 worth of propane/butane/isobutane/ethane blends as our everyday refrigerants and suffer near ZERO ozone depletion and save terrific sums of money. We are allowed to buy and handle gasoline and use propane/natural gas open flame appliances in our homes, but on noes, you can't let people use a small amount of hydrocarbon refrigerants in their cars (which run on gallons of hydrocarbons) because they are flammable and virtually free in cost... Let's charge them 2000%+ markup on a rather carcinogenic and still-flammable man made "replacement" and also tax the hell out of it. (I knew a guy who easily modified his car to utilize propane as his A/C refrigerant and his air was very cold and extra cheap to refill should he ever have a coolant leak.) This is a real life example of chemical companies and government working together to ban a cheap effective product and replace it with an inferior replacement at stupid crazy tax and obscene profit levels... Every space shuttle launch put more potent and persistent ozone-destroying chlorine compounds directly into the atmosphere per launch than everyone's cars combined in over a year... While I agree and condemn that chemically CFCs do destroy ozone, there are virtually free of cost non-carcinogenic replacements (hydrocarbons like propane and butane and ethane and methane) that we were Not allowed to use, because terrific taxes could not be collected, nor significant profits made making them. Propane is R-290 and Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon) R-12 are nearly compatible, with R-12 having a 100 year atmospheric lifetime and Propane having a 12 year atmospheric lifetime as well as being naturally occurring and non-toxic and non-ozone depleting... ) 99 out of 100 reasons for it always have to do with $ in truth.

Comment Re:suckers (Score 1) 141

Not really, this is about more taxes and greater profits.... For example, the cost of a 1lb can of R-12 was $0.50-$0.99 when I was a kid... today they are about $10.99- $15.00+ per 1lb can for the now carcinogenic and flammable "replacement" R-134A... To be perfectly honest, we could all be using ) 99 out of 100 reasons for it always have to do with $ in truth.

Comment Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W) (Score 4, Interesting) 597

I'm not buying it. Voltage x Amperage = Wattage. So long as Wattage stays the same (think 1,800W hair dryers here), your Amperage must proportionately increase if the Voltage drops... This can only be accomplished by using LARGER wires to deliver the Amps... This is why wires on your car battery or golf cart are so large... Imaging the COST of wiring a home with large (lower Voltage) conductors like that... Ask yourself why Europe uses a ~230V/240V electricity in homes and how much cost savings there must be by delivering all the wattage at half the conductor size compared to the North American 120V household standard... Smarter people than us have all thought this stuff through many decades ago... Tesla is trying to push battery tech and if it were affordable and better than a $500 gas generator, we'd already have it installed. Cool technology, way too expensive and I'm not rewiring my house.

Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson