Lesson: don’t make prank videos. Lesson two: don’t watch prank videos.
So, it turns out the extended cuts of the LOTR movies were completely color-corrected from their theatrical cuts. Here’s a thread showing how they look side-by-side, and it’s pretty interesting to see what does and doesn’t work.
This place has the best names for their adoptable pets:
Not sure if this has been posted or not, but here is a 24.9-billion-pixel photo from the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai. This is both amazingly cool, and super scary. You can literally zoom in on a person’s face from miles away.
Edited to fix that the photo was taken from the top of a building and not a satellite.
Pretty sure that’s just from the top of a building, not a satellite.
Why do you find it scary?
You’re right, it was actually taken from the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai. For some reason, the article I read said it was taken from a satellite.
It’s scary because this really shows off the surveillance technologies that governments have and can use against people. Big Brother is watching you from miles and miles away.
That is not what this shows. It shows a good example of giga-photo techniques. That’s where you take lots of photos with a zoom camera and stitch them together. Think of it as the panorama function on your phone, but way more so.
It’s not government surveillance technology, it’s technology and techniques anyone can purchase for purposes of entertainment and promotion: http://www.omegabrandess.com/products/Gigapan/GigaPan-EPIC-ProV
It is very not-useful for surveillance, as it takes hours to take a single image like this, and maybe days worth of computer time to crunch it together into a single image like this.
You know what is better for surveillance? CCTV cameras. For long range viewing, any camera with a zoom lens.
This is not scary. You are scared about the wrong things.
I’m still uneasy about any technology that lets people view me from miles and miles away. It’s one thing to know this technology exists in theory, it’s another to see an actual example of it.
It’s called a telescope. Invented literally hundreds of years ago. How can a telescope, or a camera with a zoom lens, be something you only knew about theoretically, and real life examples of it make you uneasy?
Either you’re being intentionally obtuse, pedantic, or just an ass.
It’s the level of distance and detail that I only knew about theoretically. But since you’re the expert on what I should and shouldn’t be creeped out about, I’ll just go and let you continue on with your god-complex.
No, I’m really not being intentionally obtuse. You said this was government surveillance technology, and I pointed out it was commercially available, both in terms of the hardware and software required to put it together.
Once I pointed that out to you, I presumed you’d feel differently about it. It’s just a camera with a zoom lens being pointed in lots of directions.
I didn’t mean to say this shouldn’t creep you out because telescopes and zoom lenses can’t be used for creepy purposes, I mean this example of zoom lenses shouldn’t creep you out because it isn’t being used for government surveillance.
If this is the first time you’ve ever seen an example of a zoom lens on a camera taking a photo of someone from a long way away? Well, I think in this case you’re just mistaken. You know all wildlife photography uses lenses like this? Every photo you’ve ever seen of a bird in flight uses lenses with, probably, higher levels of zoom than this photo.
In this case it feels like you are being intentionally obtuse, and not acknowledging that this is super old and super common technology.
Do you believe this poll?
I was going to post this in he Wrestling thread, but this Wrestle Kingdom ad is made by Tobyfox and it’s pretty great.
It’s true though isn’t it? Last I knew most political polling was done through old school wired telephones and only old people have wired phones so the demographics are inherently skewed.
Not for a number of years now, at least, for reputable political polling. These days, it’s more common for polling companies to dial in to mobile-phone-only exchanges and use those results combined with traditional landline polling, of course with some statistical weighting to ensure consistency of results. Many others(including, most notably, Rasmussen) use online polling as well. Depending on the poll, sometimes field workers are also sent out to get opinions on the ground.
Still might be skewed older because I seriously don’t know anyone under 35 who actually answers their phone unless it’s from a very small list of known numbers. I suppose the weighting can account for that though.