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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:no sense (Score 2) 1023

Yes, 5 is enough to see what happens

Again, there are only two countries making more money and with lower unemployment: Norway and Switzerland. And if you're considering just median income (to account for income inequality), there's just Norway. I hope you aren't under the impression that those countries' populations or economies (both with a population less than NYC, and dominated by oil or banking, respectively) generalize to the US.

Ten years ago, I walked into a McDonalds in Zurich. The cost of an extra value meal was (in USD equivalent) about $12 dollars. As a poor grad student, I couldn't afford it. I suspect its more expensive now. (One source puts the cost of a Big Mac in Switzerland at about $7.50; again, that's without the fries and a drink.). The well-off Swiss population can afford such things. To the average working class American, a price increase of that magnitude would make a McDonalds meal a rare luxury. (Especially if that person has kids, who don't earn any wage, minimum or not.)

You can argue all you want that if we just raised the minimum wage, had universal health care, guaranteed a universal basic income, etc., etc. that it would raise everyone's standard of living at some point in the future such that we eventually become like the Swiss and the Norwegians. But please don't pretend that the price increases that are the natural result of raising costs (of which wages are one of the largest for restaurants), to say nothing of the lost jobs that are now too expensive, wouldn't have a real and negative impact on the lives of poor people right now -- even if that negative impact isn't so bad as "the end of the world."

Comment Re:no sense (Score 5, Informative) 1023

This scaremongering makes zero sense, there are plenty of countries with higher income than USA and they don't starve from unemployment, rather the opposite.

Citation needed.

You're correct only if by "plenty" you mean 3-5. There are 5 countries with higher median income than the US: Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Denmark.

There are 3 countries with higher average wage than the US: Luxembourg again, Switzerland, and Ireland (according to the OECD). (Though this depends on who you ask: according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the US is flat-out No. 1 for average income.)

All but 2 of those (Norway and Switzerland) have higher unemployment rates than the US.

Comment Re: Is a JPEG at 0% compression a RAW image? (Score 4, Informative) 206

Is a JPEG at 0% compression a RAW image?

It would be close but not exact. The way you would get close is to set the 8x8 quantization matrix to all 1's. In JPEG compression, the image is divided into 8x8 blocks, discrete cosine transformed, elementwise divided by an 8x8 quantization matrix, rounded to the nearest integer, and then (usually) Huffman encoded. The primary problem with being perfectly lossless is that the DCT produces a fractional result. So even if you set the quantization matrix to all 1's, the rounding step would lose information.

Care to enlighten me as to how one sets jpeg compression to 0%?

It's not easy to do in most image editors; even the highest (12) quality setting in Photoshop has quantization. You can do it in ImageMagick, however.

Also, no, RAW formats are not simply uncompressed, but largely unprocessed data as well (certainly less processed than what you get from an out of camera tif or jpf.)

Raw formats are indeed compressed; they're just losslessly compressed.

Finally, there is a true lossless JPEG format, though it is distinct from the usual JPEGs.

Comment Re:Doctoring? Not likely. Probably a workflow issu (Score 1) 206

Bet you anything they've a managed workflow system and their solution can't deal with raw files.

It's actually worse than that: they aren't merely saying, "Don't send us raw files" (Note no caps -- "raw" isn't an abbreviation); they're saying "Don't send us anything that was even *processed* from raw files." It's as if the raw processing algorithms in the camera are somehow sacrosanct, but the equivalent algorithms run in Lightroom is suspect.

In fact, I think it would be harder to doctor a RAW format because all image sensors have random imperfections, their own physical "fingerprint" that can be traced back to a specific camera. (These imperfections are fixed in processing. All serious cameras have a built-in imperfection reference map created during manufacture and testing. More serious cameras let you update this manually too) Not to mention doctoring a RAW would require inanimate knowledge of the imaging sensor.

I'm not sure what you're talking about by "imperfection reference map" -- do you mean dust delete data? That isn't built-in; you need to take a reference photo of something white in order to generate that. Some software processors also have hot/dead pixel detection.

Otherwise, there is definitely nothing in serious cameras (I assuming that the Canons and Nikons that the vast majority of photojournalists journalists use are "serious") that has any sort of built-in calibration for random imperfections in the sensor. While I have no doubt that, given enough samples and enough time, you might be able to find a way to "fingerprint" a camera, in most cases, sensor noise (whether photon-shot noise, readout noise, or others) is going to significantly overpower any sort of unique characteristics.

Comment Re: Germany wants a lot... (Score 4, Interesting) 728

They're weeds. You need to cut them down and drive them out.

No, you need to expose them. You need to let them spew whatever drivel they want out in public, and then publicly refute them. If you make their words illegal, then you drive them underground to persuade others in private, giving them an excuse never to expose their lies to the sunlight of public refutation.

And people certainly do like banned things; it makes them feel that they're learning some secret information that the powers that be have ulterior motives for concealing.

Comment Re:About CVS Only! Not SVN! (Score 2) 245

(2) permanently delete those files that I know I will no longer need.

I'm confused. The entire purpose of an archive database is to KEEP things, forever, so you can go back to them when you need to. If you have files that you expect to delete, maybe they shouldn't be going into the database.

No you're not; you're being patronizing. I am a photographer. I take lots of photos. The negatives are over 30 MB each. A single day's shooting can be dozens of GB. And while I expect to delete many of them, I don't know which of those will be deleted until I've gone through and worked with them. But I want them in an archive immediately, so I can have them tracked, versioned (the XMP sidecars/DNG headers are plaintext), backed-up, remotely accessible, etc.

The funny thing is, despite pretentious boosters of one modern VCS after another arguing that their lack of a feature is a feature in and of itself, and that I'm stupid for having different needs than them, ancient CVS does *exactly* what I need it to do. (Proprietary Perforce is even better, though I'd prefer something open source). So until its competitors catch up with its state-of-the-art 1990's technology, I'm going to keep using CVS.

Comment Re:About CVS Only! Not SVN! (Score 3, Interesting) 245

CVS should die though, yes. Move to SVN or Git depending on your particular needs.

My particular needs are to (1) check out only a subset of files, because those files are binary and very large, and (2) permanently delete those files that I know I will no longer need. Unfortunately, neither SVN nor Git meets those needs, but CVS does. (And as much as I like SVN, rebuilding the entire repository doesn't count for (2)).

Comment Re:Some appointments are forever! (Score 1) 366

The burns were extremely severe. And they were her fault.

That lawsuit was premised on hot coffee being a "defective product," such that the McDonald's would be strictly liable. But most of us are aware -- and expect -- that coffee is routinely made with boiling water. Moreover she shouldn't have put it in her lap. When she did, and it spilled, her insurance should have been on the hook for the damages, not McD's.

I'm quite sorry for her -- I've stupidly spilled coffee in my lap, and it hurt like hell. But that was my fault, and no one else's.

Comment Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score 1) 225

Seriously, your stuffed-full-of-mail strawman is still a strawman, and a rather absurd one at that. Do you think that the NYSE has a little mailslot out in the front door, so that if you send a letter, the postman just tosses it in, and if 9,999,999 others send a letter, they keep piling them in the little slot until they're piling up so much in the hallway that no one can push the front door open with all the mail? Is that really the image that you have in your head?

The basis of the criminal law is intent: they presumably intended to cause damage to Paypal, and had no legitimate reason for their action. Note that I say *presumably* -- their intent must still be proven to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. This bears no relation to sending a letter of complaint. And their intent -- and taking actions upon that intent -- is all that matters for the criminal law. For most crimes (homicide generally excepted) the attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime is subject to the same penalties as the completed offense.

Comment Re:Six months from now (Score 5, Informative) 494

There is a common myth that the high cost of health care is due to uncompensated obligatory emergency room care. Like many myths, it provides comfort to the general public, who are always looking for easy explanations for the complex problems of the world. But like all myths, it has the downside of being false.

In particular, the percentage of a hospital's expenses spent on uncompensated care is about 6% (in 2011, 5.9%)

The mandate to provide emergency care to all those that show up in the ER was part of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.

Turning back to the first link: what was the percentage of uncompensated care in 1985, before the Act? 5.8% So as a result of the treatment mandate, the percentage of hospital's uncompensated care went up all of 0.1%. (From then to today; there was a spike up to 6.4% the year after the Act was passed).

Undoubtedly, uncompensated care is a problem. It's just a rather small problem. Far bigger is the lack of market forces that removes any incentives to inefficiency.

As a side matter; I'm very sorry to hear that about your wife -- there is definitely a significant need for improvement in the system for helping people with pre-existing conditions.

Comment Re:Ethanol is simply not good enough (Score 3, Informative) 330

True, but that doesn't mean that (certain) food isn't more expensive than it otherwise would be, but for so much corn going to ethanol production. For example, as to corn itself, while the commodity price has dropped dramatically over the last year, it's still twice as high as it was in the early 2000's.


Moreover, the cost of corn is the primary cattle feed in the U.S. As a result, the price of beef largely tracks that of corn, and has likewise more than doubled since 2000.


Slashdot Top Deals

I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best. -- Oscar Wilde