Forgot your password?

Comment: Single-pixel what? (Score 1) 49

by PopeRatzo (#48482539) Attached to: Single Pixel Camera Takes Images Through Breast Tissue

Maybe it's because I've been drinking since 10am, but I just cannot wrap my head around how these single-pixel cameras work.

Any nice person out there feel like explaining it so a stupid person can understand?

Bonus points if you explain why a chicken breast was involved. Seriously, maybe I have brain damage because I've read the summary three times and it might as well be written in Middle Egyptian for all I'm getting.

Comment: Re:Bathtubs are dangerous too (Score 1) 148

The problem is a completely different one. Namely that judges don't know jack shit about technology. Which means we'll get two things at once, on one hand judges that will buy into the hype and believe anything thrown at them concerning how Mr Evilhacker killed my beloved Granny (who just happened to leave everything to me, but that's not the point now), and on the other hand we'll get judges that simply cannot wrap their mind around just exactly this happening and letting actual people who used this vector for murder go because they just can't even imagine how this should work.

Comment: I can't help it. I am looking forward to it. (Score 1) 148

I pity the fool who gets to bite it, but apparently it is a necessity that people can die from something before anything remotely resembling safety and security gets implemented.

Then again, why should I pity someone who has no idea what he is doing but feels the pressing urge to do it anyway?

Comment: Re:Maybe it's catching up with them now, though? (Score 1) 152

by Opportunist (#48481961) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed

Can we agree that they BOTH make horrible decisions when it comes to game quality? Both companies are guilty of buying out good studios with a well established franchise and then milk it 'til the cow's dead.

Frankly I don't care which of them is worse, NEITHER of them sees a dime of my money until I have very good reason to believe something changed for the better.

Comment: Re:Idea (Score 1) 239

The problem is also the distribution of wealth. As you correctly identified it, you being able to buy a TV is worth jack (for the economy) if you have no need for one because yours is already top of the line. But there's others who would want one but can't afford it.

To pull a blunt example, if you have 100 bucks and so do I, we can both go and buy a DVD player for 80. If you have 180 and I only have 20, you can buy one, but it's rather unlikely that you'll buy two.

Now, of course someone will butt in and say "but he'll buy something else for the 100 he has left". Ok. Then multiply the whole spiel by 100 and have the first person furnish his mansion while the second can't even buy a couch for his one room apartment. The point is that the first person will have money left over after he has everything he can sensibly buy (in both, goods and services, you don't need two haircuts, do you?) while the second person WOULD buy more stuff if he just COULD.

What is currently needed is a way to sensibly and fairly distribute the wealth we have. I'm all for someone who works better/harder to get more/better goods and services, but for the sake of the economy we have to enable more people to spend and become a part of the demand side.

Comment: Re:Idea (Score 1) 239

Since we're far from having a shortage of workforce, I highly doubt the world as we know it would grind to a halt just because 10% of the people are lazy dicks. So let them do nothing. If they're content with just barely getting by with no form of "luxury" whatsoever (no car, no cable TV, no vacation, a tiny apartment...), let them be.

If you want more than existence, if you want to actually live, you better work.

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow