Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:How much more crap do I need? (Score 1) 316

So what you are saying is that it is a really expensive watch that has to be put on a charger every day.

Doesn't sound like a very good watch to me.

I like my solar Casio. It has survived everywhere I've taken it. Up in the mounts and scuba diving in the ocean. It doesn't need to be recharged. It tells time and has a compass. It does that job very well without me having to do anything more than put it on.

Comment Re:I've got a solution ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H problem (Score 1) 150

What you mean me using all that water in the first world is not stealing water from poor people in the third world?

That is big news. Someone needs to tell the UN and all their little SJW, tree hugger buddies about it.

You know though an extra 73 Billion gallons per year in the first world will have an impact on the 3rd. The tech for water capture will be made cheaper and make it's way into the 3rd. The extra food and manufacturing that will come with a drop in the price of water will result in more goods and services which too will find its way into the 3rd.

You don't make people's lives better by showing up with a tanker truck full of water. You make it easier for them to get water on their own and they will.

Comment Re:Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 1) 50

I'm not too worried about that. Not least because an important part of the "portrait" aesthetic that they're going for, here, is the more flattering portrait perspective. Which is achieved by shooting from a decent working distance. The focal length on phone-cams is far too short to even come close to filling the frame with a well composed portrait that doesn't over-emphasize noses and whatnot. There's no hard and fast rule about distance, but generally you don't shoot decent looking portraits from arm's-length selfie distances.

Further: it's going to be very difficult for software-faked shallow depth of field to handle things like stray hairs, raggedy clothing textiles and other detailed bits against exactly the sort of complex backgrounds that photographers use shallow DoF to throw out of focus in the first place. To the casual observer at relatively low resolution, the faux shallow DoF may appear at least more interesting than no treatment at all, but to an eye that looks at such things even occasionally, it's going to ring false. Further, it's going to be extra-not-good if there's an attempt to apply it to video, looking for a more cinematic result from control of DoF (racking focus, that sort of thing). No, there won't be anybody who bought a $1000 85/1.4 for their Canon or their Nikon suddenly wishing they hadn't because their phone can do the same thing. Just isn't going to happen.

Comment Re:Waiting for the "just as good as a dSLR comment (Score 1) 50

The problem isn't the 'bokeh' of the tiny lens and sensor. That's a discussion about the quality of the out-of-focus area rendering. No, the problem with the tiny sensors and tiny lenses with their very small apertures is that they cannot produce shallow enough depth of field in the first place to even produce an out of focus background in the first place. Basic physics. So there's no point trying to compare the OoF rendering quality (is the bokeh harsh? smooth?) of that tiny platform to a larger format sensor with a quality fast prime lens, because simple physics makes that comparison pointless. That's why they're faking this in software: because there's no physical way to do it with the tiny camera. Light doesn't work that way.

Comment Re:Have fewer babies. (Score 1) 150

Yes, yes. You're either actually a fool, or just pretending to be one so you can score some sort of lazy rhetorical points with an imaginary audience of lower-information-than-you audience.

If you do the things that make you a first-world country, you'll have fewer babies and need fewer resources (like water) so you don't have to chase your tail trying to squeeze water out of the air. As usual, everyone is so paralyzed by political correctness that their afraid to point out that places like India are suffering a culture problem, not a water problem.

Comment Re:Air into water (Score 2) 150

California has a similar problem. Farming eats up the bulk of their water usage but they sell water to the farmers anywhere from 1/10 to 1/4 the price that they charge people in the cities. Then they wonder why the farmers are growing dumb ass things such as rice in the desert. Hint rice doesn't grow in the fucking desert.

Comment I've got a solution (Score 2) 150

My solution:

Step 1 go up to Home Depot.
) Step 2 buy a length of hose for $10
Step 3 connect one to each of the hundreds of millions of air conditions that dot the planets.
Step 4 collect the condensation instead of letting it run down the drain.
Use said water for toilet flushing, growing crops etc.

I get 5-10 gallons a day off my AC during the summer. It probably averages out to 2 gallons a day for the whole year.

That would be 200 million gallons of water per day or 73 Billion gallons per year assuming my 2 gallons a day as the average multiplied by 100,000,000 homes. sized air conditioners globally. 1 Billion dollars to retrofit 100million air conditioners. The hoses would last 10 years.

Price per gallon. 1.4 cents per gallon

Oh wait they wanted in Liters. ok. That would be 0.36 cents per Liter. 5.5 time under what they wanted.

Pay up bitches.

Comment Re:Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 2) 50

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) 50

'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) 150

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) 150

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

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire