Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:The Police State expands (Score 1) 17

And "privacy experts are concerned!" And the useful idiots think that Mrs. Clinton is their friend.

For decades it's been: "But if we vote 3rd-party/write-in the wrong lizard might get in! We'll just keep voting for the same 2 of them will eventually listen to us!"

"Doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results is one definition of insanity."


Comment Re:Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score 1) 349

Yeah I felt bad for my treatment of Bernie supporters after seeing that video. I'm a right-winger but believed in the general validity of Bernie's "revolution" before the Chicago riot. That Bernie was pretty much honest and his supporters saw the same problems I did but just had wrong, misguided solutions. And after the riots I said "fuck these people." Hillary's deception absolutely worked on me. I blamed Bernie's people for the riots she paid for.

Comment Re:Anti-Secrecy Organization?! (Score 1) 314

Hillary got full questions from CNN and topics from Fox. When one side gets questions ahead of time and the other does not, that's rigged. Even if all candidates got the questions ahead of time, if the audience was not informed of that, they were deceived.

I know having chatted with you for weeks about this stuff, it won't matter. You have made up your mind that "dems are good" and that's it. I don't think there's anything you won't deny or handwave away. We could have Hillary on tape looking directly into the camera and saying "I'm selling the nuclear launch codes to Iran for $5, so that I may profit that $5, and I don't care if they then nuke everyone, and you all die in nuclear fire" and David Thornley would be right there to say "well that doesn't mean the Iranians will nuke us, and Trump said mean things about women."

Comment Re:Follow the money... (Score 1) 425

Obamacare reformed the healthcare system.

Obamacare was designed to fail so that the ultimate goal...full government-run, single-provider healthcare...could be rolled out in the US. It was a "Trojan horse" but without any real subterfuge other than propaganda ops shouting down anyone who tried to point this out.

My monthly bill went from $500 per month to $150 per month.

You seem to be the exception rather than the rule. If we actually met IRL you'd be the first person I've ever met whose medical insurance rates went down for a comparable level of coverage due to the ACA.


Comment Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 2) 25

'Bokeh' is used when referring to the quality of the out-of-focus background (or foreground) of the image, not the fact that it is out of focus. Shallow depth of field images have blurry elements. By definition. But different lenses render that OoF area differently. Some lenses have a jittery, doubled-up, or ring-like pattern, or render OoF highlights as oblong smears or as hard circles. It just depends on the lens design. So when we talk about this, it's about the quality, not the quantity or existence of blurred areas.

Think of it like this: every lens of a given format, focal length and aperture will produce essentially the same mount of OoF areas. It's just physics. The focal plane is where it is, and the meaningfully in-focus area (say, on the subject's face) is going to be a given depth (for a given display size and resolution). Period.

But that's like saying all pianos can play a middle C note. They can. But some sound twangy or harsh, while others sound more pleasing to the ear. Likewise with the OoF rendering by some lenses. With the piano we can say "it plays middle C, but the tone is harsh" - and with the camera, we can say that the lens when wide open can render shallow DoF and thus blur the background, but the bokeh is harsh (or, creamy, or busy, or smooth - whatever... it's the "tone," the visual quality of the blur rendering, generally considered to be more appealing the more creamy it is - though sometimes harsh, nervous bokeh is desireable for certain cinematic moods, etc).

Sorry, pet peeve. "Shallow depth of field" doesn't mean "has bokeh." That's like saying the car's suspension has ride. All cars do! But what's the quality of the ride? More like a sports car, or a limo? Better bokeh usually comes from much higher quality glass, and more of it in the design of the lens. Big, fat, fast prime portrait lenses are built - among other things - to play that visual note more elegantly than cheaper lenses do, even though they both hit the note when told do if they can achieve the same aperture at a given focal length.

Comment Re:Paradox (Score 1) 96

Flying a drone is not considered as if you are holding the camera. If you could fly in such a way that you only film your property, it would be allowed.

This is what doesn't make sense. You are allowed to photograph public areas, and not just your own property (as long as you don't use a drone). They're putting hobbyist drones in the same category as CCTV cameras and other devices which are left in place to record continuously. Most of the drones affected by this law are not the expensive, semi-autonomous sort which can fly on their own using GPS waypoints, and even those only fly for a short time before the batteries are depleted. You can't just set them up to fly around and record for an extended time while the operator is not present. They require an active pilot. Most of them require line-of-sight, though some might be equipped for FPV. Either way, their presence is obvious from the noise, and the operator has to be fairly close by. To say that these drones would make lousy "surveillance" devices is a massive understatement. A person could accomplish much more effective and privacy-invading "surveillance" by hiding a cheap, disposable smartphone in the bushes. No hobbyist drone is going to be recording anyone surreptitiously.

Comment Re:Population control (Score -1, Offtopic) 215

So, that's it: how to save the world: bring people out of poverty, give them education, and give them access to birth control.

You don't need the totalitarian bullshit.

But that's hard to do, and besides, it doesn't give TPTB ever more control over people's lives and yet another excuse to pick their pockets at gunpoint while not doing anything that actually addresses the 'problem' but merely transfers wealth to those they favor.

You expect any politician worthy of the name to work to empower and lift people out of poverty? Maybe if we had some statesmen instead of politicians, but Trump!/Clinton!

We're SO hosed!


Comment Re:Have fewer babies. (Score 1) 89

The point is to stop being a third-world country so that - just like throughout the developed world, families don't feel the need to have so many babies to use as slave labor on the farm. There's a reason that countries like the US, or Germany, have their resident populations shrinking. Because people living more prosperously have fewer babies. And thus use far less in the way of resources like water (and especially, use it less wastefully than those who are doing old-school agriculture in a more primitive way). Prosperity makes for smaller families, which relieves stress on resources. So: India needs to stop carrying on like a third world country. Culturally, legally, governmentally, financially, agriculturally. And they will start having fewer babies. And need less water (and food, and energy, and everything else).

Comment Re:What are we forgetting... (Score 1) 192

Big asteroids are a valid concern, and very long-term I do believe humans should work at establishing a human presence on other worlds (starting with the Moon), however asteroid bombardment should *not* be a factor in driving humans to inhabit other worlds.

It would be far, far easier for us to improve our capabilities for detecting large asteroids, and then deflecting them, than to figure out how to live on Mars. Dealing with asteroids is not that hard: first we have to actually invest some resources into looking for the damn things. We do a little of that right now, but not nearly enough, as the strike in Russia a couple years ago proved. This isn't hard; we just need more probes in orbit, or perhaps in Solar orbit closer to the Sun (to spot ones that we can't see from here because the Sun's light drowns them out). Second, we need to develop the capability of deflecting them. With good enough detection, this isn't hard: you just send a big craft up there with some engines (probably ion engines) and a lot of fuel and run them for a long time to push it into a slightly different and safer orbit. If you have enough forewarning, it's not that hard, because a little movement will make a big change in trajectory over a long time. The key here is having enough forewarning; if your detection efforts are so lame that you have very little warning, then you're not going to be able to avert disaster.

Simply put, it'd be a lot easier and cheaper for us to invest in some space-based telescopes optimized for detecting Earth-crossing asteroids than to develop all the technology and infrastructure needed for establishing a colony on Mars. And the end result is better too: instead of some small colony on Mars surviving while the bulk of humanity perishes, along with the most livable planet for humans, we can keep our planet and the entire human race intact.

But if we're too stupid and short-sighted to invest in some telescopes, then maybe we deserve to be wiped out like the dinosaurs.

Comment Re:People ARE what we are sending (Score 1) 192

Not really.

Hawaii is a really nice place for humans to live: the weather is perfect, it's lush and beautiful, there's all kinds of fun things to do like swimming, surfing, scuba diving, exploring rain forests, etc.

If you found yourself magically transported to Hawaii in prehistoric times, perhaps with a small group of intelligent people, you could pretty easily survive there by living off the land. There's wood for making huts and burning, there's extremely fertile land for farming, there's vegetation that can be eaten, there's fish in the ocean nearby that you can fish, you don't have to worry about freezing to death, the air is clean, etc. Or, in modern times, if you can afford it, it's a great place to live too, especially if you can afford a nice house on the beach.

Mars isn't like that at all. You can't go outside, you can't breathe the thin atmosphere, you'll get radiation sickness, you can't easily grow food, there's no liquid water (humans tend to like bodies of water), etc. Maybe if you really like living underground in an artificial habitat, it'll be a nice place for you to live, but if you like being outside, it'll really suck. I suppose if you could make the underground habitats big enough and Earthlike enough (with giant artificial forests and lakes), it wouldn't be so bad, but that'd be quite a project. It'd be a lot easier to just stop messing up this planet so much.

Comment Re:Have fewer babies. (Score 2) 89

It's called education and prosperity. If it weren't for immigration (and immigrants having lots of children), countries like Germany and the US would have shrinking populations. Once a population reaches a better level of creature-comfort prosperity, and aren't living a hand-to-mouth agrarian lifestyle, they stop having so many babies.

Slashdot Top Deals

An egghead is one who stands firmly on both feet, in mid-air, on both sides of an issue. -- Homer Ferguson