Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Well, stalkers, it is my new facebook profile picture. And most recent blog post. As to the timing, this is just when I scheduled it with my brother-in-law, who by the way is awesome and works in the salon next to Coldstone in the University Mall for you Provo folk. Ask for Christian. I'm not just saying that 'cause we're related either, I have loved all of my haircuts from him. </plug>

And will that nickname make me have more answers? Because my daughter has been asking too many questions recently.

TheAnswerIs42 wrote: Because my daughter has been asking too many questions recently.

No such thing as too many questions. Just too few answers.

It depends on the questions. Recent conversations:

"I want to go down the slide!" <goes down a slide at the park> "Mommy, what's a slide?"
The . . . thing you just went down. That you have been using in a sentence for two years.

"What's outside?"
The . . . place we are right now. When we aren't indoors.

<Watching a new movie> "Mom! What's going to happen?"
I don't know.
< 5 second pause > "What's going to happen now?"
Still don't know. But maybe if you listen, we might find out . . .
"Mommy, what's happening!!"

Or, the other day, she was watching an animal documentary with Dad while I rested on the couch in the other room. So she ran in to me and asked "What are the elephants doing?"

"Mommy, what are we doing?"
Watching Daddy play softball.
"Why?"
Because we love him.
"Why?"
Because! <trying not to laugh>
< growl face > "No! You're supposed to talk first, then smile!" (Which I guess means, answer my question!)

But the other night she asked if we were going to fly to the moon next, and so that cuteness made up for some of the other questions.

I like your haircut! I tried to like it on facebook, but facebook is very broken today.

This is pretty neat. It's not out in stores yet, but it's a camera with which you can change the focus after you've already taken the picture. The link goes to a page with lots of sample photos. You can click on something in the background in a shot and then that is in focus while the close-up stuff goes out of focus, and vice versa when you click on something in the foreground. I'm trying to understand the "science inside" link on their page. It must be a combination of slick algorithms and the hardware of the camera taking a series of images at all levels of focus, resulting in an entirely different data structure for the image than any .jpg.

Digit wrote:It must be a combination of slick algorithms and the hardware of the camera taking a series of images at all levels of focus, resulting in an entirely different data structure for the image than any .jpg.

If this is the same thing my brother pointed out to me a few months ago, you've got the right idea. They showed an unprocessed version of the image and it was basically a ton of tiny versions of the image, at different depths of field.

From what I understand it's basically collecting all the data. Instead of collecting where the light is at one point, it collects it at all points so that you can process the focus later. But I could be totally off. That's just what Yellow told me.

Their photo gallery is packed into an Adobe Flash .swf file. If the final file the camera creates for the user is to be continuously interactive as opposed to just letting you pick your focus while it's still in the camera and then dispensing a regular .jpg (which would seem much less attractive to potential buyers), I could see that (.swf) being a good choice, since most people have Flash on their computers and very likely nobody would have whatever software is required to directly handle whatever their custom data structure is.

Holy crap. Combined with 3D photos this could result in seriously awesome stuff. Like, alternate reality stuff.

Yeah, it could be pretty cool. One current hurdle is that it takes 256 pixels to create a single pixel in the final image, meaning that currently it has a resolution of around 0.3 megapixels. But for some uses, a tiny resolution isn't such a big deal.

Laser Jock wrote:Yeah, it could be pretty cool. One current hurdle is that it takes 256 pixels to create a single pixel in the final image, meaning that currently it has a resolution of around 0.3 megapixels. But for some uses, a tiny resolution isn't such a big deal.

Is that the number of frames of depth each shot is divided into from their site? It would be good if their algorithm could detect that if everything in the shot is pretty much at one depth, like a picture of a wall, it doesn't need as many practically identical frames.

Oh my goodness gracious, did I really tell the guy who was interviewing me for an administrative position that I'm not very organized?! Sheesh. Hopefully my "very impressive" (according to him) writing samples were good enough to gloss over that little mistake.

back from the bahamas and now enjoying time at universal studios. universal rocks!

I'm in Las Vegas! In the airport!

I'll be home tonight, hooray. Kansas ended up pretty nice, though.

You guys! I got a new job today!

TheBlackSheep wrote:You guys! I got a new job today!

Hooray!

TheBlackSheep wrote:You guys! I got a new job today!

Congrats!

YOU GUYS.

Today I put my three-year-old sister to bed. She asked for a story, telling me she wanted "the police one. In my backpack." I searched her backpack and found a board book about a spider, a picture book about a kitten, and an Encyclopedia Brown book, which I figured one of her sisters must have put in there. I brought all three back to her, fanned them out, named them, and asked which one she wanted.

"That one," she said. She was pointing to Encyclopedia Brown.

I read her a chapter, which she listened to quietly, though she often sat up to see the pages better. She insisted I read the solution as well, and then, upon my getting up to leave the room, she asked, "May I read this to myself?"

My three-year-old sister had me read Encyclopedia Brown to her. I'm even more amused and proud than I was when the next oldest sister, then about four, asked to watch the six-hour Pride and Prejudice.

Well of course. Encyclopedia Brown is better written than Pride and Prejudice.

Imogen wrote:back from the bahamas and now enjoying time at universal studios. universal rocks!

I hear that I really missed out not trying the Butter Beer in Harry Potter Land. I did go on the ride in the big castle building and that was fun. Another good one is the thing where Christopher Walken is Frank Kinkade leading you through the production of his B-movie, ending with you in a little subway shaking and crashing with flames shooting at you. We didn't know it was going to be quite so scary and had our daughter along, who was four at the time. If she wasn't fine five minutes after getting out of there I'd feel worse about laughing at her bulgy-eyed expression.