Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Can someone please answer (Score 2) 406

by smooth wombat (#49154835) Attached to: Is That Dress White and Gold Or Blue and Black?

I said elsewhere that this is a scam for the following reasons.

Her Tumbler account (Swiked) shows the initial photo asking what color is the dress. A day or so later she posts a second picture of someone wearing the blue/black version, stating:

this is the dress as i saw it on the day of the wedding. blue and black. It's just that one photo bUT it's so weird???!??

Here's the thing, she does not say the second photo is the same dress ON THE DAY of the wedding, only that the photo shows what she saw.

What most likely happened was she took the first picture on a different day and because it's white/gold, it took on the cast of the lighting to give a blue hue and her friends had a disagreement over the color which started the whole thing, especially if someone is red/green colorblind.

Second, if you look at the top edge of the dress in the first picture you can clearly see what would be considered "virgin" light, i.e. light which is not reflected but directly falling on to the dress. If the claim is that our eyes are fooling us because of the bright background or because we can't be sure what the lighting situation is, this light should produce a different color under it, just as light shining across a rippled surface can produce different colors.

Except it doesn't. There is no transition from the slice of light to the shaded portion. It's one continuous tone. In fact, as the picture shows, there are multiple shadows of different angles and lighting conditions which should produce different colors, but they don't. For instance, under the cape/shawl toward the upper right, the area under the shadow is darker but not a different color.

Further, if our eyes are being deceived by the bright background, covering up all but a small portion of the dress should reveal the true colors because then there would be nothing to confuse us. Except that doesn't work either, the dress stays as white/gold with a blue hue.

And finally, if you look at the edging in the middle of the picture then down to the lower left corner (our left), you can see shadows under the gold edging. If the dress in the picture was blue/black you would not see such distinct shadows as are shown in the picture.

So, the dress in the original picture IS NOT the same dress she shows a day or so later but is the same style.

One final thought. The opposite of blue on the color wheel is gold and the opposite of black is white. However, if you look at what is blue and black in the "good" picture, they are not the correct parts. The bodice is blue which means in the reversed portion the bodice of the original picture should be gold and the edging should be white. Except that is not what is shown. The bodice is white and the edging is gold.

And for the record, I am not red/green colorblind. I pass all the Ishihara color tests without issue.

Comment: Re:Why Not? (Score 1, Interesting) 319

by smooth wombat (#49127019) Attached to: Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP
They borrowed it from Republican Mitt Romney who referenced Republican Newt Gingrich.

Which makes sense when one considers the voodoo Republicans have with trickle down economics (witness the wonderful state Kansas is in) or that swallowing a small camera can somehow lead to being able to perform a gynecological exam.

Comment: Re:Whoa (Score 1) 129

by smooth wombat (#49089385) Attached to: Delivery Drones: More Feasible If They Come By Truck

Both companies seem to have a penchant for holding packages. Previous package for UPS was delivered at 3 AM to my local facility. We don't get our UPS deliveries until after 12 noon.

Apparently it's not possible to load a package at a hub on to a truck within five hours but instead takes over 24.

Then there's my current FedEx delivery. Shipped on Monday, to be delivered on Wednesday.

Nope, some excuse about them having problems at their sorting facility because of weather. Delivery now for Friday.

I guess government workers being told to take their time getting to work when the weather is bad is absolutely outrageous, but when a private company uses weather as the excuse for not doing their job, something they're paid to do, well that's okay.

Comment: To quote Sheldon Cooper. . . (Score 4, Funny) 132

by smooth wombat (#49088037) Attached to: Resistant Bacterial Infection Outbreak At California Hospital

Sheldon Cooper: To a hospital? Full of sick people? Oh, I don't think so.

Penny: Okay, well, your friend and his mother are there. We're going!

Sheldon Cooper: I can't.

Penny: Oh, don't tell me you're afraid of germs.

Sheldon Cooper: Not all germs. Just the ones that will kill me. The same way I'm not afraid of all steak knives; just the ones that might be plunged in my thorax.

Leonard Hofstadter: Ah-uh, fine, I'll tell Howard you didn't come because you're more concerned about your own well-being than his.

Sheldon Cooper: I would think he would know that.

Penny: Okay, you know what? You are unbelievable. You buy all these superhero T-shirts but when it's time for you to step up and do the right thing, you just hide in the laundry room.

Sheldon Cooper: Fine, I'll go. Just for the record, my Aunt Ruth died in a hospital. She went in to visit my Uncle Roger, caught something, and bit the dust a week later. The two of them now share a coffee can on my mother's mantel.

Comment: Re:Good for them (Score 5, Insightful) 216

by smooth wombat (#49065865) Attached to: Valve Censoring Torrent References In Steam Chat
it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.

False. The Constitution applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do regarding speech. An employer or business is free to censor within certain bounds such as preventing their employees from talking about an upcoming product, internal financial figures and so on.

Further, this is Steam's property. They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property. You know those signs which says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Guess what, they're not censoring your right to walk around barefoot. They are only saying on their property you can't do so.

Finally, anyone who didn't think their comments regarding how to not pay Steam for the games they developed wouldn't get censored is an idiot.

Comment: Re:More draconian punishments, still no security (Score 1) 101

by smooth wombat (#49039669) Attached to: US Gas Pump Hacked With 'Anonymous' Tagline
but that negligence shouldn't be overlooked.

What negligence? You mean someone left their door unlocked and they deserve to have their stuff stolen? You're blaming the victim?

As I said in my initial post, how about people not steal other people's stuff or go places they shouldn't be? Or is personal responsibility being cast to the dustbin of history?

You can try to spin it all you want, but in the end it comes down to one thing: people doing things they shouldn't be doing in the first place. If it were done to them they would be screaming bloody murder, yet when they do it to someone else, "Oh well, they shouldn't have left their door unlocked."

Comment: Re:More draconian punishments, still no security (Score 2) 101

by smooth wombat (#49038733) Attached to: US Gas Pump Hacked With 'Anonymous' Tagline

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, people could not commit a crime or go somewhere they're not supposed to be.

You know, personal responsibility, do unto others and all that other crap I keep reading on here about how we're supposed to be caring and understanding of our fellow humans.

If you think it's acceptable for someone to do whatever they want to someone else's property/equipment and not expect to be penalized, then I will be sure to do the same to you and expect the same treatment.

Comment: Re:uh... (Score 0) 215

by smooth wombat (#49013517) Attached to: Silk Road Drug Dealer Pleads Guilty After Federal Sting
there is also a certain amount of logic to the view that if those substances weren't illegal, none of that shit would have been going on at all,

Right, because legalizing something instantly removes the criminal aspect. Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.

Of course the real issue people will say is, "The government shouldn't be involved with this. People should be free to drink/smoke/inject what they want." Then, in the next breath they say, "Oh, btw, the government needs to provide money to treat these people."

Apparently just like the banking industry or Wall Street firms, government regulation is evil until the government is needed to intervene, in which case no amount of taxpayer money is sufficient.

Here's the deal. You want to legalize this stuff, go for it. However, don't expect anyone to pay for what you do to yourself. If you don't want government intervention you can't be a hypocrite and expect it to intervene on your behalf. If you can afford to buy drugs you can afford to pay for your own treatment.

I know they're evil words but personal responsibility comes into play in this situation. Everyone knows what happens to people who use various drugs, yet if one is going to ignore reality then there is no reason for anyone to come to their rescue because they ignored science (see the current and ongoing measles and whooping cough outbreaks).

Comment: Why need money? (Score -1, Troll) 51

by smooth wombat (#48998715) Attached to: GnuPG Gets Back On Track With Funding

Maybe I'm missing something, but it is repeatedly said that everything should be free.

So how is it that this guy needed money to continue his work? Isn't it free? Why would he mysteriously need money when everything is free?

Free things don't cost anything so are we sure he's not pocketing the money?

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.

Working...