For unknown reasons, my google pages (when logged in) were showing up in slovenian. It actually took me a bit of searching just to figure out which language it was; very annoying.
I've tried, a couple of times, to get it fixed, with no success. But yesterday, I finally managed it. When I found the page where you set it, it was set for English, but there was a separate setting (for docs, I think) that was for slovenian. So, I changed that, flushed my browser cookies from google, restarted my browser, and things were finally back to normal. Yay.
20130719
20130716
Non-interchangable SLR?
I ran across this article about a new, lensless camera earlier today, and am a bit confused about its terminology.
To start with, I think what they're starting with is a pinhole camera controlled by an LCD screen. That is to say, they open a hole in the LCD lattice to be the pinhole. That would explain what they mention about infinite depth of field (a characteristic of pinhole cameras).
And I think there's something there about opening multiple pinholes at once to get a better image (an interesting idea, for sure).
But where complete confusion sets in, for me, is when they start talking about single pixels as the sensing element behind the LCD array. They must be using a weird definition of a pixel, because one pixel using the normal definition gives almost no information. Try reducing down any picture to height and width of 1 to see what I mean. I won't say there's no information there, but it's a damned small amount.
So I think what they're actually talking about is a single DSLR-like sensor, and possibly doubling that to two sensors. That would make some sense.
Other than that, I think it's a pinhole camera with an array of "pinholes". One limitation, if that's so, is that you'll be limited in exposure length, I believe, because two opposing polarizing elements don't stop all light. Don't believe me (and it's certainly counter to what I heard in physics class in high school)? Well, variable neutral density filters work by taking two one-stop polarizing elements, and rotating one of them. All of them go from two stops to eight (which is a nice range), but even at eight stops, you can still take usable pictures (heck, I've got a ten-stop filter that still allows usable pictures).
Anyway, it's an interesting idea, and I'm curious to see what they do with it. Thinking about it, something like this would probably be perfect for a cell phone camera, where space is very constrained. Hmm...
It also just occurred to me... Maybe what they were referring to, in using the word pixel, was a specific spot (any specific spot) on the LCD "screen"ing the sensor. If so, the article was not well phrased. It's also a bad term to use, because pixel is short for "picture element", and the screen blocking the sensor does not have any picture elements in it.
To start with, I think what they're starting with is a pinhole camera controlled by an LCD screen. That is to say, they open a hole in the LCD lattice to be the pinhole. That would explain what they mention about infinite depth of field (a characteristic of pinhole cameras).
And I think there's something there about opening multiple pinholes at once to get a better image (an interesting idea, for sure).
But where complete confusion sets in, for me, is when they start talking about single pixels as the sensing element behind the LCD array. They must be using a weird definition of a pixel, because one pixel using the normal definition gives almost no information. Try reducing down any picture to height and width of 1 to see what I mean. I won't say there's no information there, but it's a damned small amount.
So I think what they're actually talking about is a single DSLR-like sensor, and possibly doubling that to two sensors. That would make some sense.
Other than that, I think it's a pinhole camera with an array of "pinholes". One limitation, if that's so, is that you'll be limited in exposure length, I believe, because two opposing polarizing elements don't stop all light. Don't believe me (and it's certainly counter to what I heard in physics class in high school)? Well, variable neutral density filters work by taking two one-stop polarizing elements, and rotating one of them. All of them go from two stops to eight (which is a nice range), but even at eight stops, you can still take usable pictures (heck, I've got a ten-stop filter that still allows usable pictures).
Anyway, it's an interesting idea, and I'm curious to see what they do with it. Thinking about it, something like this would probably be perfect for a cell phone camera, where space is very constrained. Hmm...
It also just occurred to me... Maybe what they were referring to, in using the word pixel, was a specific spot (any specific spot) on the LCD "screen"ing the sensor. If so, the article was not well phrased. It's also a bad term to use, because pixel is short for "picture element", and the screen blocking the sensor does not have any picture elements in it.
Fili-busted?
I haven't been talking about it, but I've been following what's been going on with the filibuster in the Senate for a long time. And frankly, it's been a mess for a long time.
The filibuster is supposed to be a measure to restrain extreme actions, and in that light, I'm in favor of it. But the GOP has abused it in hitherto unseen proportions, to the point that it's being used to stop governing (yes, all those nominations unfilled do represent a serious problem. And despite the noise made about unfilled nominations under Bush, he got almost everything he wanted. Obama, on the other hand, has fewer nominations filled now than Bush did after two years in office). It begs the question, how can the government run with no one to make decisions?
Because of that unprecedented level of obstructionism (and yes, it is unprecedented, despite what some might say), it's been depressing watching Reid refuse and refuse to do anything about it. Yes, GOP failure to follow through on negotiated deals is a problem, but hardly a surprising one.
So it's good to see at least some serious recognition of the problem; maybe something will be done.
I think what's needed to end the abuse, but preserve the power, is something to the effect of limiting the number of filibusters available in a legislative session. Of course, as the House has shown, something can be voted on as many times as desired, so a straight numerical limit can't really work. And man, would things get bogged down if the debate turned into "is this the same bill as last time?", so allowing reintroductions of bills to not count against the limit wouldn't work either.
But Sen Udall had some ideas for improving things, which I liked. Disallowing filibusters on motions to proceed to discussion (wait, we can't stop discussion on whether to discuss something?) is a good idea. Putting the onus on those wishing to continue debate rather than those wishing to end discussion is another good idea. Another one that just occurred to me would be disallowing any lawmakers from entering the chamber once a filibuster starts. That makes it an endurance challenge for everyone. Another Udall suggestion would be to force anyone wanting a filibuster to make their motion, and reasons, public, to force accountability. There's also a limit on post-cloture debate for non-Supreme Court nominees. The last suggestion I have trouble summarizing, so here it is from Merkley's web site:
Let's hope that, at the minimum, those limits can be put in. That still won't be close to a panacea, but it would help.
And McCain's offer seems pretty ridiculous. Whatever happened to 'elections have consequences'? Especially considering that Obama's majority is larger than Bush's was.
The filibuster is supposed to be a measure to restrain extreme actions, and in that light, I'm in favor of it. But the GOP has abused it in hitherto unseen proportions, to the point that it's being used to stop governing (yes, all those nominations unfilled do represent a serious problem. And despite the noise made about unfilled nominations under Bush, he got almost everything he wanted. Obama, on the other hand, has fewer nominations filled now than Bush did after two years in office). It begs the question, how can the government run with no one to make decisions?
Because of that unprecedented level of obstructionism (and yes, it is unprecedented, despite what some might say), it's been depressing watching Reid refuse and refuse to do anything about it. Yes, GOP failure to follow through on negotiated deals is a problem, but hardly a surprising one.
So it's good to see at least some serious recognition of the problem; maybe something will be done.
I think what's needed to end the abuse, but preserve the power, is something to the effect of limiting the number of filibusters available in a legislative session. Of course, as the House has shown, something can be voted on as many times as desired, so a straight numerical limit can't really work. And man, would things get bogged down if the debate turned into "is this the same bill as last time?", so allowing reintroductions of bills to not count against the limit wouldn't work either.
But Sen Udall had some ideas for improving things, which I liked. Disallowing filibusters on motions to proceed to discussion (wait, we can't stop discussion on whether to discuss something?) is a good idea. Putting the onus on those wishing to continue debate rather than those wishing to end discussion is another good idea. Another one that just occurred to me would be disallowing any lawmakers from entering the chamber once a filibuster starts. That makes it an endurance challenge for everyone. Another Udall suggestion would be to force anyone wanting a filibuster to make their motion, and reasons, public, to force accountability. There's also a limit on post-cloture debate for non-Supreme Court nominees. The last suggestion I have trouble summarizing, so here it is from Merkley's web site:
Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Establish a Conference Committee: Reduces the steps to establish a conference committee from three motions to one, and limits debate the consolidated motion to 2 hours
Let's hope that, at the minimum, those limits can be put in. That still won't be close to a panacea, but it would help.
And McCain's offer seems pretty ridiculous. Whatever happened to 'elections have consequences'? Especially considering that Obama's majority is larger than Bush's was.
20130715
He's guilty, guilty I tell you...
I heard, last night, about the verdict in the Zimmerman trial down in Florida being handed down. Frankly, it's nauseating that someone can get away with killing an unarmed kid like that. I saw a couple of interesting takes, one pointing out that a police officer doing something like that would probably lose his badge (and it takes a lot for that to happen, given who does the enforcing, and such). Another mentioned that two armed people could easily end up in a duel, where both are just standing their ground. Crazy.
Of course, this is the same state that, in a badly executed anti-gambling law, defined a slot machine as anything that can be used to play a game of chance for money. Wonder how many cell phones and computers have been seized already, pursuant to that.
I wish I had something deeper to saw, but I'm frankly shocked. The idea that an armed man can initiate an encounter, and then kill someone without repercussions is absolutely horrifying. I suspect it'll take an undercover officer getting killed to get rid of the law.
Anyway, I hope there will be an appeal to overturn it. We'll see.
Update: This Tom Tomorrow comic is brilliant.
And the Daily Show was killing it (no pun intended).
Of course, this is the same state that, in a badly executed anti-gambling law, defined a slot machine as anything that can be used to play a game of chance for money. Wonder how many cell phones and computers have been seized already, pursuant to that.
I wish I had something deeper to saw, but I'm frankly shocked. The idea that an armed man can initiate an encounter, and then kill someone without repercussions is absolutely horrifying. I suspect it'll take an undercover officer getting killed to get rid of the law.
Anyway, I hope there will be an appeal to overturn it. We'll see.
Update: This Tom Tomorrow comic is brilliant.
And the Daily Show was killing it (no pun intended).
A study in contrasts
I was looking something up on IMDB earlier, and saw a mention of the upcoming Seventh Son. For some reason, I couldn't play the trailer at IMDB, so I went to Apple's trailer site. And the first thing that caught my eye there was the sequel to How to Train Your Dragon (which I didn't know was in the works, but I'm happy to see it. We just watched the first one again yesterday).
So I had to watch the trailer for HtTYD, and it was basically one long sequence of Hiccup and Toothless flying (plus an odd couple seconds at the end of Hiccup taking off the mask he was wearing earlier; couldn't figure out what that part was doing there). Cool to watch, but gave nothing away, as far as what the movie's about.
Then I searched for, and watched, the Seventh Son trailer. I should point out, here, that the reason I was curious about the movie was to see if it was related to Orson Scott Card's book (though the picture didn't look promising, as far as that was concerned, there was still hope. I think the movie, though, is actually based on The Spook's Apprentice, which I hadn't heard of before tonight). I haven't read that one in ages, but loved it in high school.
As expected, no relation. But what was interesting was the contrast. Whereas HtTYD2 was one long scene, Seventh Son probably had fifty cuts in its two and a half minutes (actually, that was a WAG; I decided to watch again, and got up to 140. I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a few, too; although I am cheating a little bit: that 140 is counting cuts where several cuts probably came out of the same sequence, and might be together in the final. Still, the point remains that about the longest anything stayed on screen in that trailer was about three seconds). Interestingly, though, the Seventh Son trailer did show a fair bit more about the movie, and what's going on in it.
Anyway, will definitely watch HtTYD2. Might watch Seventh Son on blu-ray, when the time comes. It has potential, but I'm in no hurry (of course, I now see that it's still half a year off; I guess I'll be waiting quite a long while).
So I had to watch the trailer for HtTYD, and it was basically one long sequence of Hiccup and Toothless flying (plus an odd couple seconds at the end of Hiccup taking off the mask he was wearing earlier; couldn't figure out what that part was doing there). Cool to watch, but gave nothing away, as far as what the movie's about.
Then I searched for, and watched, the Seventh Son trailer. I should point out, here, that the reason I was curious about the movie was to see if it was related to Orson Scott Card's book (though the picture didn't look promising, as far as that was concerned, there was still hope. I think the movie, though, is actually based on The Spook's Apprentice, which I hadn't heard of before tonight). I haven't read that one in ages, but loved it in high school.
As expected, no relation. But what was interesting was the contrast. Whereas HtTYD2 was one long scene, Seventh Son probably had fifty cuts in its two and a half minutes (actually, that was a WAG; I decided to watch again, and got up to 140. I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a few, too; although I am cheating a little bit: that 140 is counting cuts where several cuts probably came out of the same sequence, and might be together in the final. Still, the point remains that about the longest anything stayed on screen in that trailer was about three seconds). Interestingly, though, the Seventh Son trailer did show a fair bit more about the movie, and what's going on in it.
Anyway, will definitely watch HtTYD2. Might watch Seventh Son on blu-ray, when the time comes. It has potential, but I'm in no hurry (of course, I now see that it's still half a year off; I guess I'll be waiting quite a long while).
Sochi
Speaking of dysfunction (and heading downhill towards third-world status), I thought I'd written before about corruption surrounding construction of the Sochi Olympics site. I think what I thought I'd written about before was an article talking about there being as much as $30B in graft involved in the construction. Given an initial estimate of $12B for entire construction, it just blew my mind that a number like that was even feasible.
I can't find that article now, but I just ran across a newer article on the ongoing theft in the Economist. It neither confirms nor corroborates the specific figure I'm remembering, but certainly shows that the spirit of what I'm remembering is correct.
Of course, there are two other big issues to go with it. The first is, why host the winter olympics in one of the warmest places in Russia? And two, how much money was spent in bribes to the IOC to land the Olympics in the first place?
Kind of makes you feel sorry for the Russian people, doesn't it?
Also, the talk in the first article of how corporatist policies sunk the USSR kind of begs the question of where the US is going, as many people are trying to raid the US treasury for everything they can take, as well. And having a disturbing amount of success, as can be seen by the size of corporate bailouts, and what those companies have suffered since (nothing, aside from a small amount of public shaming and a few toothless regulations).
I can't find that article now, but I just ran across a newer article on the ongoing theft in the Economist. It neither confirms nor corroborates the specific figure I'm remembering, but certainly shows that the spirit of what I'm remembering is correct.
Of course, there are two other big issues to go with it. The first is, why host the winter olympics in one of the warmest places in Russia? And two, how much money was spent in bribes to the IOC to land the Olympics in the first place?
Kind of makes you feel sorry for the Russian people, doesn't it?
Also, the talk in the first article of how corporatist policies sunk the USSR kind of begs the question of where the US is going, as many people are trying to raid the US treasury for everything they can take, as well. And having a disturbing amount of success, as can be seen by the size of corporate bailouts, and what those companies have suffered since (nothing, aside from a small amount of public shaming and a few toothless regulations).
Dysfunction competition?
The interactions between the House and Senate have had an interesting reversal of late. It used to be that the Senate would say, in conference, "You've got to take our version of this bill, because this is all we can pass".
It was, more or less, a tacit admission that the Senate was fundamentally broken.
But now, the House can say the same thing. In fact, I think the House is a bit more broken than the Senate, right now. Just no interest in governing from the majority there. Seriously, how many times do we need to have Obamacare symbolically revoked?
Is it really any wonder that there hasn't been a budget passed in several years?
So where does that leave us, as a country? Heading downhill towards third-world status, unfortunately.
It was, more or less, a tacit admission that the Senate was fundamentally broken.
But now, the House can say the same thing. In fact, I think the House is a bit more broken than the Senate, right now. Just no interest in governing from the majority there. Seriously, how many times do we need to have Obamacare symbolically revoked?
Is it really any wonder that there hasn't been a budget passed in several years?
So where does that leave us, as a country? Heading downhill towards third-world status, unfortunately.
Taking off the chrome?
I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to Chromebooks; they're just too limited for what I'd want to do (plus, they probably send a lot of user data (think browsing history, in particular) back to Google, and I wouldn't go along with that). But they are kind of interesting, and this update on their sales is kind of intriguing, on a couple of levels.
The first is that they're growing. The second is that sub-$300 is a notebook market segment; I wouldn't have been surprised had that been too low to be considered its own segment for desktops, let alone notebooks. I wonder how sales of the iPad mini compare to notebooks in that price range.
The last reason that it's interesting is that Apple's profit on a Mac (all segments, not just notebooks) averages out at about $250, which is close to the total price on these notebooks. Strong evidence right there that Apple will never directly compete there (though my guess is that the iPad mini outsells by a significant margin every unit in that market segment, combined, and at a higher profit margin).
The first is that they're growing. The second is that sub-$300 is a notebook market segment; I wouldn't have been surprised had that been too low to be considered its own segment for desktops, let alone notebooks. I wonder how sales of the iPad mini compare to notebooks in that price range.
The last reason that it's interesting is that Apple's profit on a Mac (all segments, not just notebooks) averages out at about $250, which is close to the total price on these notebooks. Strong evidence right there that Apple will never directly compete there (though my guess is that the iPad mini outsells by a significant margin every unit in that market segment, combined, and at a higher profit margin).
20130714
What is a fair wage?
Via Crooks & Liars, lowpayisnotok found a site that McDonald's put up to help its employees with budgeting. It might shock you to learn that, on that site, McDonald's implicitly agrees that it doesn't pay its employees enough money. In fact, it implies that they need $15/hr, even after assuming they have ridiculously cheap healthcare and no heating bills (and rent that is absurdly cheap for any city).
Maybe this can be the start of some real work to get big companies to actually pay a living wage. Kudos to all involved in this.
Maybe this can be the start of some real work to get big companies to actually pay a living wage. Kudos to all involved in this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)