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:Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 1) 34

Yeah, yeah. That's what the word means. But since it was fashionably inserted into discussions among actual photographers, it's been used in the context of discussing the quality of the blue, not the existence of the blur. It's useful - it's a succinct word that conveys that specific meaning. Trying, here, to preserve that clarity (if you'll pardon the pun) instead of letting it dumb down like so many other terms do.

Comment Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 4, Interesting) 34

'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:Have fewer babies. (Score 1) 109

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:Have fewer babies. (Score 3, Insightful) 109

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.

Comment Re:2nd amendment (Score 1) 101

The rights protected by the Second Amendment don't grant you protection from prosecution when you destroy someone else's property (with a gun, or a chainsaw, or fire, or your fists). It's a federal felony to shoot at an aircraft, and the FAA now considers any drone (or RC plane, etc) over 9 ounces to be an aircraft.

And for what it's worth, the FPV hobby in the US is essentially now illegal. Operators cannot fly unless they are observing the aircraft with their own un-aided eyes at all times.

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 1) 149

So, what is "militarization," to you? Presumably you don't consider the classical police night stick to be an example of militarization. But using one to disable a violent person is a risk to the officer's life, and being able to disable that same person from twenty feet away, using a tazer or a beanbag so that the officer's life isn't at as much risk ... that's "militarization" to you? Is the fact that a cop is carrying a sidearm militarization? No? Why not?

Comment Re:Asking too much` (Score 2) 67

The point isn't that they're a developing nation. They're not. It's that they spin things with that sort of description whenever they have to explain away things like selling poisoned baby food or grain shipments full of melamine. Pretending they don't have the technical chops to perform sophisticated industrial espionage, because, you know, they're just a simple farming community ... such nonsense.

Comment Asking too much` (Score 2) 67

This reminds me of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's 2015 comment (in the wake of an obvious wave of government- and business-oriented hacking out of a well known government facility in China) that they couldn't possibly be responsible for such things, since as just a developing nation, they didn't have the sophistication.

Obviously the laziness of users around the world who don't change default passwords is a different problem, but shipping stuff configured and documented in a way that makes not securing it the default mode in the hands of users is just ... laziness.

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 3, Insightful) 149

dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.

So, you'd be in favor of cops not being allowed to wear body armor. Because, after all, the job is risky, and it's not fair to give them any sort of advantage that might save their lives while they're acting on your behalf and dealing with someone who wants to kill them.

Your absurd false dichotomy (the police must either allow themselves to be killed, or they are baby killers) shows that you are either pretending to have given this no actual thought, or you really can't muster the critical thinking skills to think this through. Here's an idea: go, right now, today, and ask your local city/county cops about their ride-along program. Do it for a week or two, in a rough urban area. Report back.

Comment Re:It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fut (Score 1) 149

police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.

No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when something starts), then they become warriors if the circumstances require that. Which is why they carry weapons.

Comment Re:Halfway There (Score 1) 417

It's not "gun controllers bringing it up", it's manufacturers working on them. What do you have against manufacturers developing new products?

I have absolutely nothing against manufacturers developing new gun safety products and offering them on the market. The concern with these "smart" guns is that they'll be mandated by law. This has already happened in New Jersey. The 2002 Childproof Handgun Law says that three years after "smart" guns are available for sale in the US, all guns for sale in New Jersey must be "smart". The law doesn't require that the guns be in any way reliable or have obtained any significant market share, just that they've been available for sale. So if these actually make it to market people in NJ who want reliable guns are screwed. And if any other states, or Congress, passes a similar law, then all of us are screwed.

Actually, I'd have no problem with smart guns if they were really reliable. And there's a really simple reliability screening test we can use: offer them to military and law enforcement personnel. Cops in particular should see a lot of value in smart guns because cops occasionally get shot with their own guns. However, they also need their guns to be extremely reliable, and big departments and the FBI have the institutional resources and motivation to seriously test them. So, once the technology reaches a level where police are not only willing to use smart guns but actively want them then it's fine to mandate them for civilians.

Of course, thanks to the NJ law, civilians are going to fight like hell to keep these things off the shelves, which means that the years of refinement needed to make them reliable is never going to happen. Not in the US, anyway.

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 0) 149

Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?

So, when the police show up to serve a warrant and get shot and killed, you're cool with that. When they show up to serve the same warrant and protect themselves with better technology, that's them being an "occupying force," and evil. Gotcha.

Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?

You mean police in neighborhoods with wildly higher crime rates, who are targeting the criminals that commit crime there? Right. Gotcha.

and don't care about the plight of your brothers and sisters

If you cared about your "brothers and sisters," you'd be all for reducing the crime in those areas. But you're not, so your entire pious hand-wringing display is as phony as your pretending you don't understand the real issues in play.

Comment Re:It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fut (Score 5, Insightful) 149

This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.

The robot didn't do anything. The police controlling the robot used it to deal with the guy remotely so they didn't have to lose any more lives approaching a guy who was promising to do more killing. How is that a single bit different than shooting him from 500 yards away? It's not. Not a bit.

The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys"

Why should someone apologize for telling the truth? If it was your job to deal with an armed, violent person, and you were handed a tool that allows you to do that with less of a chance of you being killed while doing your job, are you really saying you wouldn't use that tool? Let me guess, you think it's unfair for the police to wear body armor, right? Yeah. Right.

Slashdot Top Deals

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.