Do you, or anyone else here, have any experience with using a slide duplicator on a macro lens with a digital camera, DSLR, for 25 mm slide duplication?
Especially I wonder if you've got advice on picking a useful level of resolution when digitizing slides. I seem to recall that a 35 mm slide contains around 10 megapixel data. If correct, is it at all useful to digitize at a higher resolution for general purpose usage, eg display on a computer or showing slideshows with a digital projector.
Otherwise I'm currently leaning towards digitizing at 4K resolution as a default, given that 4K is 8.2 Mpx.
How does dynamic range come into play? I seem to recall that slide film has a high dynamic range in general.
As other's have mentioned, the lies about WMD where rather quickly dispelled, and doesn't compare to moon landing conspiracy. As far as I understand the WMD fraud was successful insofar that the administration was able to use it as a pretext to go to war, but it was also quickly debunked.
I think you're missing the point that Armstrong tries to make. While he indeed starts with your selective quote, he then goes on to say that it is rather unlikely that the government would get away with a fraud of that scale. If nothing else, then simply because of the amount of people involved in the moon landing, and third parties that then and still to this day are able to confirm that the moon landing actually happened.
My experience is also that people who trust the tales of a conspiracy over a wide array of substantial counter arguments are simply not open to actual counterfacts from others. It's like fake news, the conspiracy supports their believe system, and rational arguments to the contrary simply isn't effective.
Still I agree that conspiracy nuts need to be confronted. Perhaps though, not so much in an attempt to convert the believer as to stop them from spreading the conspiracy to others.
Yes, regularly. Some archaic code has a surprising longevity. Personally at least once per month I end up with a case where I wonder why some code was implemented or for what purpose. Context that is rarely documented in the source code, but is often exposed at least implicitly through commits, commit messages, date or authors.
I strongly advice against abandoning revision history just because it is easier to just start fresh from a single git commit of the current state of the code. Especially so for code that has been in use more than a couple of years, where the developers may have forgotten the purpose or who did what.
Surely you can convert the svn repository to git with history intact? We did that when we migrated from cvs to mercurial. If it is too complicated to do directly from svn to git, maybe it is easier to convert via mercurial, i.e first from svn to hg, then from hg to git?
As a swede this is a bit embarrassing to me. I have a few friends who's bought into this completely, and of course bought the book. All without even a hint of critical thinking. It is hard to tell your friends they've been conned.
I can understand it to some extent. Here's someone, who claims he is a behavioral expert and scientist, and who offers a seemingly plausible simple method to understand yourself and other people, and how to use that method to efficiently interact and work with others. Who wouldn't want that?
Unfortunately the books are still sold. I've considered printing stickers that warns about the nonsense and sneak it on to copies in book stores. How else can we stop the proliferation of this junk?
Well, some/many Japanese believe that blood type determines a lot about your personality, and Americans believe in Myers-Briggs types, and I'm sure there are local equivalents everywhere else too, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
I always thought of Myers-Briggs as being about identifying the things you are less comfortable with and learning to address them. It's about identification of tendencies, not blaming a Gremlin.
It has always struck me as odd when somebody insists Myers-Briggs has been "debunked". It asks a lot of questions about what amount to boundaries of your comfort zone. Of course as we age that zone changes, ideally, but sadly not always, by expanding.
Naming various borders of your comfort zone is useful if you want to push them back. If M-B has a failing, it is that its advocates never seem to suggest that being dead center on all axes is an ideal to strive for.
"Debunked" is probably overstating it, but Myers-Briggs has been shown to have fairly significant statistical deficiencies and its predictive claims are largely pseudoscientific. It's not complete garbage, but there are personality trait models like Big Five and HEXACO that are more robust and have more research behind them, but even those are not as strong predictors as pop management literature makes them out to be.
I suppose the issue with centrality is that not only can it indicate that you are both good at being an extrovert and good at being an introvert (when appropriate), but it can also indicate that you are bad at being extroverted and bad at being introverted when arguably called for by context.
I think what MBTI lacks is an appreciation of context - sometimes it's good to be Thinking, sometimes it is good to be Feeling. What individuals need to learn is 1. when each is appropriate and 2. if they're bad at doing one or the other, getting better at it.
If it is useful in expanding your comfort zone, it's useful, full stop. If it's useful in helping to get along with people who are different from you, it's useful, full stop.
If it's not useful to you, that does not mean it is not useful to anybody else.
1. We all have specific preferences in the way we construe our experiences, and these preferences underlie our interests, needs, values, and motivation
2. The MBTI is an accurate measure of #1
There's also an implicit claim that each of the 4 dichotomies are well represented by a binary value.
There are far more claims made about it by Meyers and Briggs, but those 3 are baked into the MBTI test.
People have definitely had their comfort zone expanded by following advice in horoscopes, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to "believe" with regards to horoscopes.
I have never encountered anyone who claimed either of the above. The test results indicate a spectrum on each axis.
Horoscopes are useful to people otherwise inclined to get stuck in a rut. Likewise, the I Ching. You don't need to believe either one for it to be useful. Not believing is an intelligent response, but not everybody is so equipped. Intelligent people get stuck in ruts, too.
Well you are the first proponent of the MBTI I've encountered who has disagreed with those two statements. We clearly have very different experiences.
When I took the MBTI in secondary school, it was stressed that the specific point was to discover which of the 16 types you were, and that knowing which type you were would be helpful in life.
That is sad. Maybe criminally negligent, for the school. I slotted, initially, neatly into "architect", but I saw all the other slots as other ways to be, and to explore being.
As ("even") Heinlein said, specialization is for insects.
I did not say it was useful or useless, just that I do not believe in it (in fact, I don’t disbelieve it either), my comment was more pointing to the assumptions of cultural ontology in the parent comment.
If something as blatant as these colors was legitimately an inherent part of human psychology, how would it be that they were only discovered in the past decades? Wouldn't philosophers have noticed it thousands and thousands of years ago?
The article starts by stating fairly that the book's author is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and UC Berkeley.
The article author's homepage says:
> I'm an independent researcher with background in Economics, Mathematics, and Cognitive Science.
Since I don't have any prior knowledge of the area, I'm sure either of them could convince me of their argument. So I'm inclined to believe the published Berkeley professor over the unaffiliated independent reviewer.
Credentials play no role in this fight. There are plenty of examples of credentialed people fabricating and lying. The author documents the lies pretty soundly.
One way to think of this is as an experiment itself. That is, do your friends have an increase in happiness and life enjoyment having read the book? If so, it may be worth tolerating if only for the placebo effect.
Can anyone now give a reasonable ETA for the HTTP/3 RFC:s?
I see that the WG charter has one milestone in May 2020, and Daniel Stenberg of curl has mentioned early 2020 before. In addition, AFAIU, both Chrome and Firefox have implementations ready, though still behind flags.
Is it likely that we'll see actual deployments and a wider rollout already in 2020?
I fail to find any specific references to these policies forbidding use of executables not embedded in the apk. Not saying it's wrong, it's just news to me. Does it apply only to apps published via Google Play?
"An app distributed via Google Play may not modify, replace, or update itself using any method other than Google Play's update mechanism. Likewise, an app may not download executable code (e.g. dex, JAR, .so files) from a source other than Google Play. This restriction does not apply to code that runs in a virtual machine and has limited access to Android APIs (such as JavaScript in a webview or browser)."
Is it possible for the states they traveled through to revoke their drivers licenses? I mean they've presented ample evidence that they've intentionally exceeded speed limits on average over the entire route.
I think they can also be brought up on criminal charges in most states they passed through. Their radar detectors and, especially, their jammers are strictly illegal in many, if not most states in the US and yet they just gave the authorities pictures of their illegal setup with their names and faces and testimony that they used said illegal setup to enact willful and flagrant violations of the law. I really do hope the authorities come knocking holding a warrant with this article as the justification for issuing it.
It looks like radar detectors are legal in most US states and territories. Virginia and the District of Columbia are the two exceptions and the NYC->LA route wouldn't pass through either.
I note that the example skipped one crucial step, to scan for available devices. Scanning and enumerating available devices, and selecting a device, is a step where potentially sensitive information is exposed.
Will scanning for and getting a list of all available devices be something that a websites can do through the api? Or will the api delegate scanning to the browser, much like the file selector api, where the browser is only exposes the final user selection, the selected file, rather than letting the webapp have access to the entire file system? I.e in this case a list of all available bluetooth devices?
No, as you can see in the video the browser lists available devices and the user then selects from that list. The website only ever sees the device the user selects (if any); it can't read the list itself.
IIRC there _is_ a separate standard that allows websites to scan for nearby Bluetooth devices but it's via a completely different API with its own separate permissions system.
If an extending class does not implement a method which is implemented by its super class, a call to that method on a instance of the extending class will invoke the super class' implementation of the method.
The super class implementation of the method may perform something that is entirely correct even for the extended class, or it may do something that is inconsistent with the assumptions of the extended class. Either way, there is no way for the compiler or runtime to determine if the omission of the method in the extending class is intentional or a mistake.
This is one reason to prefer Composition over Inheritance, especially in Java.
At work we're migrating to openjdk obviously. But I'm curious what is the cost of a commercial Oracle JDK license? Is the price per server, per cpu/core, per users?
At least Azul charges $12k per year for basic package (0-25 servers). Oracle won't be any cheaper or few times more. That will be no-go for most mid-size and small projects.
Especially I wonder if you've got advice on picking a useful level of resolution when digitizing slides. I seem to recall that a 35 mm slide contains around 10 megapixel data. If correct, is it at all useful to digitize at a higher resolution for general purpose usage, eg display on a computer or showing slideshows with a digital projector.
Otherwise I'm currently leaning towards digitizing at 4K resolution as a default, given that 4K is 8.2 Mpx.
How does dynamic range come into play? I seem to recall that slide film has a high dynamic range in general.