Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Statistics without control group? (Score 2) 706

I did some basic stats on this.

There are in Canada about 11 suicides per 100,000 people per year. The Ashley Madison list contains 33 million names. So, on an average year with 33 million random people there are over 3,600 suicides, equating to 10 per day (based on Canadian stats)

So these 2 are well within normal expected rates of suicide for this size of a group. Unless I've bollocked up my stats somewhere in which case please tell me.

Comment Wait a moment... (Score 1, Insightful) 213

So, you put a video online that someone else made, onto a service that someone else pays the bandwidth fees for and you're bitching because you aren't getting any money from it?

What exactly do you think your ten minutes of time in downloading the video from one place and uploading it to another are worth?

Submission + - What is the real resolution of the Lytro Illum camera? Answer: Not much

jolyonr writes: The Lytro Illum light field camera has been around for a while now but only just fell to a price I could justify. I was impressed that they claimed it would be able to export 4 megapixel images after processing the light field image. Not surprisingly they weren't as sharp as I would have hoped. In fact, they were clearly heavily interpolated. So, I started to investigate what the real resolution of the Lytro Illum is, because other than "40 Megaray" there's no real description of it anywhere.

It turns out the true resolution is tiny — 0.4 megapixels at best. And it seems the Illum carries a 40 megapixel 1" sensor — meaning there is a 100:1 ratio of sensor resolution to light field resolution.

We would need a 400 megapixel sensor to get a true 4 megapixel image out of a light field camera. Is this really the future of photography?

More details here: http://www.everyothershot.com/...

Comment "advanced and complex techniques" (Score 1, Insightful) 181

Such as "shooting in portrait"

Well.. sorry to say this but this particular advanced and complex technique has been used by every idiot with a smartphone recording videos for years.

Also... 6k video scaled up isn't 8k. it's 6k video with some random pixels thrown in for marketing reasons.

Comment Slightly connected.... (Score 1) 152

This reminds me of a question I had about securing a linux server.

We all know it's quite good practice to move the SSH connection from port 22 to some arbitrary high port. But of course if attacker finds nothing on port 22 he's just going to start port scanning until he gets it.

Way better would be for port 22 to respond as a valid SSH server but to reject ALL username and password combinations EVEN THE CORRECT ONES.

Only drawback I can see is when I forget I moved the SSH port and get confused when my password doesn't work. But apart from that...

This seems so obvious that I am sure something already exists to do this. Sadly my primitive google-fu didn't find it.

Jolyon

Comment Re:7.7 mohs hardness? (Score 1) 247

You're wrong in two different ways, which I kind of admire :)

Firstly, you have something that is between 7 and 8, so for arguments sake you call that '7 and a half' (this is regularly done).

Then you take another sample, and that scratches the '7 and a half' pieces, and not the 8, so it's between 7 and a half and 8. But that's a completely different scenario to arbitrarily assigning a '7.7'

There is another method of measuring hardness, the vicker's system which does indeed follow a linear scale, so you could potentially use the vicker's hardness of the specimens to determine an approximate decimal value for the hardness of your chosen sample. But that's completely stupid because the whole POINT of this is to show a relative hardness between two samples, ie to be able to measure it by scratching one piece against another. So my comment stands, the '7.7' value is pulled out of someone's ass and has no scientific merit.

The second problem is you then compare with software revision numbers... which are of course numbers pulled entirely out of someone's ass. And of course, version 5.9 is usually less than version 5.10 etc. so again you have no way of saying 'version 5.5 is about half way between version 5.0 and version 6.0 in features.'

Comment 7.7 mohs hardness? (Score 1) 247

The Mohs scale of hardness is a relative unitless scale comparing things to ten common minerals. There is no '7.7' on this scale. 7 is Quartz and 8 is Topaz. So all you can say with any accuracy is that it is between 7 and 8. Maybe it is closer to Topaz in hardness than Quartz, but even so, there's no way of calculating a '7.7' so they just pulled that number out of their ass...

Which makes me wonder how accurate the rest of what they say is.

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...