search results matching tag: scanning

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (155)     Sift Talk (14)     Blogs (15)     Comments (656)   

Jessica Rey - The Evolution of the Swimsuit

Lann says...

You know what else you don't see on (US) beaches. The right for a woman to omit a top. I'm all for women wearing what they want. I personally find less more comfortable when it's really hot and a full suit better when it's cold. I don't see covering up any more dignifying that showing more. Also, who wears a swimsuit for power?

Covering up isn't going to solve the issue with how the male brain reacts to scantly clad women. I really doubt the result of said brain scan would be the same in a culture where women's breast and other body parts were not fetishized to the point where they HAVE to cover them (or the other way around)

Vintage bathing suites have been in style for a long time. She's not really doing anything new or revolutionary. The designs are cute but I've seen similar designs all over the web.

Obama is NOT the 'Change' We Believed In

Unmanned Craft Flying Nightly Over Quincy Massachusetts

Unmanned Craft Flying Nightly Over Quincy Massachusetts

Colber Report 5/1/13: The Word - N.R.A.-vana

Darkhand says...

If you are truly curious I hope you'll read everything.

TLDR Post Inc:

It's basically pragmatism and the slippery slope. You're making a registry of all the citizens who own guns. I mean have you ever applied for your firearms license before? Have you ever purchased a handgun? It's pretty crazy.

I wanted to purchase a handgun about 10 years ago after I got held up. It took me over 6 months to get my permit. Then it took me about another month to be able to purchase a handgun.

The Process:
In order to get your firearms id card you have to apply for it. Part of the process involved me having a sit down "evaluation" with a detective that was basically an interrogation for about 30 minutes.

Then once that detective says "this guys not crazy" He takes his form and all my information and mails it to the FBI. Then I had to wait about six months for the FBI to say "this guys not crazy and/or a terrorist.

When I have my Firearms ID card I can buy a shotgun or a rifle if I want that's no problem. But if I want to buy a handgun (which I did) I have to go back to get a handgun permit. Luckily since I was applying for my firearms permit they also gave me one (read one) permit to buy a handgun. I could buy one handgun; If I wanted more I had to apply for ANOTHER permit. Not another Firearms ID Card just another Handgun permit.

So I take my permit and I purchase said gun. I can't purchase the gun after 5:00 PM because the NIC office over at the FBI closes and they have to call it in. Even AFTER they call it in I still had to wait like 6 days before I could pick it up.

I receive a copy of the permit (and a receipt) , the dealer gets a copy, and the last part gets sent to the FBI. Once the FBI confirms they have a copy of the permit (which includes the serial # that is on multiple parts of the gun) then and only then am I allowed to pickup my firearm.

So even if I sold it to someone everyone would know know who it belonged to beforehand.

I'm not sure how much more gun control you can have. The "gun" that needs the most "control" are handguns because they are used in almost all gun related crimes if you look at the stats.

I wont' get into hypothetical situations about how citizens could perform those checks or whatever. I just want to show how regulated things are already. The idea that I could purchase like 10 handguns and then re-sell them all to someone else and NEVER have it traced back to me seems almost impossible. Heck I doubt I could even get approved to own that many handguns!

Also:

I'm not a "giant conspiracy" kind of person. But I feel like with the way government has been going with Guantanamo, stop and frisk, not really enforcing a lot of anti-trust laws, not really prosecuting some of the big banks responsible for what happened, etc etc etc I just feel like there really an upward swing for government control and collusion with protecting their own interests and not the interests of the people.

I don't see the government as an instrument of the people anymore it just seems to be wealthy people patting each other on the back.

What happened in Boston really upset me where people were just pulled out of there houses at gunpoint because there "could be" a terrorist nearby.

I believe that Obama has a good reason for trying to put these tools in place and he has no motive behind it he is just trying to protect the American People in his own way. But I don't believe gun control will help at all and all it will do is put more of a hindrance on law abiding citizens. I'd equate these laws to Anti-Piracy solutions? Ala Sims3 and Diablo etc etc. It just punishes the actual customer NOT the criminal.

If you told me there was a way to ensure program the registry of gun owners could only be searched if the striations from a bullet were scanned that was used in a crime or something like that I'd be fine with it. But there really is no way to do that.

Sorry it was long but it's not really something I can just say something short.

I'm sure people will says "Well what are your guns going to do against tanks and helicopters and xyz xyz". First I'll point to Iraq and Afghanistan and how well those "wars" went. Everyone can agree it was a disaster and we probably made a lot of terrorists by just killing people innocent or not. The same thing would happen here in America.

Would the government actually TRY to take over? I don't' believe so because it's not in our best financial interests. Everyone wants to stay wealthy and some sort of civil war would be horrible for our economy. But I believe over time constantly just eroding our rights will just lead to that. People got pulled out of their homes at gunpoint and screamed at by police in boston and they were just like "Well the police are just trying to keep us safe!" I just find that creepy.

There's a saying blah blah blah doesn't go out with a bang it happens with a whimper. I'm not going to make myself look smart by googling the quote.

Anyway that's my whole post sorry if it's long but I'm tired. I would have put it in the discussion section but I'm not at the appropriate star level.

ChaosEngine said:

Can I ask what is the objection to background checks for guns?

Is it a slippery slope concern? i.e. first, it's background checks then it's <something-worse>.

Is it simply a principled stand? That you feel you should be able to sell or buy a gun from whoever you like?

Or is it a pragmatic stance? The old "criminals will ignore the law anyway"?

I'm genuinely curious as to why someone wouldn't want some controls on something as dangerous as a gun.

Search Only Within Videos That I Have Upvoted (Sift Talk Post)

lucky760 says...

That's a great idea, however it'd tax the database too hard to cross-reference a video search with just your (or anyone's) votes. This is because there are millions of vote records in the database and scanning through those is too tall a task for the system.

April’s Top 10 MMORPG in North America (Videogames Talk Post)

Animated short film - Shelved

A rarely known dirty trick of war: Spiked Ammo

MonkeySpank says...

I contracted for non-invasive inspection with ARDEC back in 2001. We have the technology to scan these bullets at an extremely fast rate (1000+ bullets/sec) using Photoelectric Effect and Compton Scattering and single out the bad powder using electron density and Z effecitive. We can definitely help the insurgence avoid these traps if politics weren't in the way.

notarobot (Member Profile)

oritteropo says...

Thanks for the links

Wow, a 10 Megapixel 8x10 non-scanning back!!! That's at once impressive and oddball... but makes a bit of sense when he explains it.

I feel a little bit the same about the impossible project, but as someone who likes film and has an sx-70, I wish them well

How it Feels (through Glass)

Deano says...

You're still getting a little too excited. This is a simulation. None of this is final. But even the promise of this does not obviate the need for a phone, The interface certainly does not have the richness of a phone. And I've not seen them suggest this is a phone replacement.

There are areas where it will struggle:

Simply being able to see a large amount of information from the device and without interfering with normal sight. With my phone I can read quickly and then be back in the real world by looking up. I don't see myself reading reams of data with this thing. I'd love to try though!

The interface is different/more limited. You lose haptic feedback and long-presses to expose different functionality. I'd love to see how good a feature-rich note-taking app will work. Voice-recognition is the most likely use.

But voice recognition remains difficult and performs variably.

And nothing to say of how slow it might be to change networks, adjust settings etc. Many things might be locked down to ensure a smooth experience for the average user.


So, integration (or how Glass will be useful).

Glass will serve as a nice entry-point into the phone experience. You could open the notifications in Glass but you might want to focus on recording some video.
Or you hover on a film poster and have IMDB open up the details on the phone. You might have a lot of these moments in a day. Imagine building up a list of pictures, quick ideas/notes, something useful someone said and then take your phone out only when you sit down. Everything is there for review. Glass might be a very good inbox.

I could instantly sync my photos. It's thus backed up on the phone straight away (and later on the net) and could be auto-shared - I don't need to issue copious voice instructions. Same with video. Glass will gather data but you might want it to hand stuff off to the phone. And net access isn't always guaranteed.

Looking up real world objects, scanning barcodes, even raw data and have it converted into usable data. You could hold up your phone but it's a nicer experience to have a document rendering onto your phone while you look at a page of data or even take a phone call. And you don't have to get the phone out of your pocket. Multi-tasking for the win!

I view pdfs and spreadsheets on my Note 2 all the time. I've not scanned much because it seems hit and miss and there's no cool software to do much with it. This would be amazing with my laptop. I often get printed documents or scraps of paper. Being able to instantly scan and digitise on the go would be almost revolutionary.

The point is Glass will be a very useful *extension* of the device you are already carrying around. Which people will be carrying around for many years to come.

I hope it's cheap as chips because getting it pinched off your face would be fun

xxovercastxx said:

I'd like to hear what sort of integration you have in mind, because I can't think of one that would be useful.

Glass is literally an Android phone in a new form factor. I haven't seen Glass doing anything yet that my phone doesn't do, the lone exception being attach itself to my face.

If they can solve the battery problem, I think they could bring Glass to market by 2015. That's not to say more traditional phones will be instantly be replaced but Glass will be able to fully replace the phone of those who do purchase it.

The last roll of Kodachrome.

lurgee says...

this is also very nostalgic for me. my father had the box at a time projector when i was a kid the later he purchased the carousel version. every xmas we would have slide shows. my brother is slowly scanning the tons of slides that my father shot along with the collection that my my grandfather shot.

More CSI bullshit: Digital Zoom

vaire2ube says...

1.8 gigapixel ARGUS-IS. World's highest resolution video surviellience platform by DARPA.
1 million terabytes a day saved forever.

The ARGUS array is made up of several cameras and other types of imaging systems. The output of the imaging system is used to create extremely large, 1.8GP high-resolution mosaic images and video.

The U.S. Army, along with
Boeing, has developed and is preparing to deploy a new unmanned aircraft
called the “Hummingbird.” It’s is a VTOL-UAS (vertical take-off and
landing unmanned aerial system). Three of them are being deployed to
Afghanistan for a full year to survey and spy on Afghanistan from an
altitude of 20,000 feet with the ability to scan 25 square miles of
ground surface.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e95_1359267780

the equivalent of 100 predator drones looking at one place AT ONCE ... hahah they stole my idea

UFO's Caught On Camera By International Space Station

PancakeMaster says...

Skipping off the atmosphere or perhaps colliding with the many many tons of garbage spinning around the earth at incredible velocities? Have you seen the high-res radar scans of all the crap up there? I'm amazed the ISS doesn't get pelted more often...

gwiz665 said:

I would however add, that something flying away from Earth's gravity does pique my curiosity.

Someone doesn't want Big Brother watching over him anymore..

Sagemind says...

First of all, I am Canadian, not American.

1. Don't tout constitution. I don't care if some lawmaker wrote something down once or in this case, didn't write something down. I don't think government should have the right to film the people it serves.

2. It doesn't matter to me if some person films me in a public place. Or if I end up in the background of some photo snapped by someone else. That's not what I'm referring to. I don't think authority should engage in wholesale documentation of the populous whether through film, internet spying, mail scanning, phone tapping or otherwise.

3. I don't honestly expect that someone will charge me with something I did previously and unrelated. Use something to base a character judgement on? -Maybe. I don't put it past officials/government to use footage unjustly to make a case win in their favor.

4. Of course they can't store up all that footage. I know it's on a loop. And I know all about storage sizes. (don't insult me) BUT, some reels do go missing, get set aside, or get replaced. And many of them are reviewed. I've seen it done in retail stores time and again. (and I may ad that at one place I worked at, the owner would sit there for hours just spying on people and splicing out sections of girls on the film. If it can happen in the private sector, it can happen in the public sector.

5. The fact that people "Have No Right To Privacy" is bullshit. As I have stated, Just because some lawyer wrote something down, or didn't write something down doesn't give them any right over me and how I choose to live. Just the same as I don't have to respect someone higher up in a hierarchy just because they are higher up or make more money than I do. (Insert Grumpy Old Man Syndrome here). I don't trust lawyers, or at least the majority of them (especially corporate ones). I truly believe that they are the downfall of society.

That's all I'll say on the matter. Cheers!

shatterdrose said:

(Only applies to Americans)

Unfortunately you have very little understanding of the US legal system.

A) Under the Constitution you HAVE NO RIGHT to privacy... Period.

B) By US law, any previous offenses cannot be used against you...

C) They don't even store that video...

D) Most CCTV's aren't even monitored...

E) Again, you HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY...



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists