— Anon on /p/

well, not yet.

But this is:

(those are all full-res images. right click and "view image" to view fullsized)

Howdunit?

First, we have to carefully determine the center of the bodycap:

then we drill a hole:

We remove the sharp edges:

And polish, until it looks like this:

Then we cut a hole in a square of gaffers tape:

and cut a square of aluminium foil - slightly larger than the hole in the gaffers tape:

putting it together:

and place it in the body cap:

now comes the critical part: pinning the hole with a needle.
we need approx. 0.2mm diameter, exactly round shaped, and in the very center of the "lens".

When we failed to achieve that, it might look like this:

Almost done! We add an impromtu lens-cap :)

and mount the "glass" on the camera:

ok, looks good... but can it make pictures?
See the red blanket on the sofa behind the camera?
That's where I placed the test subject: a little marsupilami.

Surprisingly enough, I was able to actually see something like an image in the viewfinder, yet extremely dark.
It was merely more than a little aid to aim the camera.

I also got - surprisingly enough - a lightmeter reading from the camera which told me I should dial in 8 seconds for "perfect exposure, evaluative metered", so I did.
This came out:

well: here are exposures of 1,2, and 4 minutes, and their histograms:
1min:

possible improvements:
- really center the hole - mine is like 0.3mm off
- thinner hole - the needle had a diameter of .25mm by itself, yet we need a .19mm hole for perfect focus at this distance from the sensor
- increase focal length - when we go further away from the sensor, both our best pinhole diameter and the allowed errors increase
- thinner material - the hole should be as thin as possible, even aluminium foil is ~2x too thick
- better shaped hole - we do not have a circle here, as we literally *punched* through the foil

Python is my favourite programming language, but since it is designed to be readable, it is very hard to "codegolf" - where you want to express your program in the shortest possible way.

Last month, I hacked this in a codegolf session:
_='#)]1-::2-[l+l(tupni;`_`+"=_"=l;';l="_="+`_`;input(l+l[-2::-1])#'=_

Yes, this

• is a valid python program
• is a python quine
• is palindromic

and it's only 69 chars long!

I'll explain the quine in detail. First, lets get rid of the obfuscation by variable names. here is an equivalent version, with only renamed symbols:
X='#)]1-::2-[Y+Y(tupni;`X`+"=X"=Y;';Y="X="+`X`;input(Y+Y[-2::-1])#'=X
You'll see, that there are only three statements: first, X gets assigned the string '#)]1-::2-[Y+Y(tupni;`X`+"=X"=Y;', and then Y gets assigned the string 'X=', concatenated with repr(X).

Well, repr(X) adds the '' around the contents of X, thus Y will now yield exactly the first half of this program.
All we have to do, is to output Y, and Y backwards.

A common golfing trick is to use input() instead of print(), in order to avoid newlines (a newline at the end would render this quine non-palindromic, so we'd need to insert one before, which would require an additional newline to be printed, etc).
Of course, input() does raise an exception, but stderr is ignored by codegolfing rules.

So this is what we do: input(Y+Y[-2::-1]) displays Y and Y reversed (and thus, the whole program).

All what's left now, is to ensure the contents of X is the code part of the program reversed and without X=' - this part is added by the #'=X padding comment at the end, which itself requires X to start with a #.
No more magic involved :)

This palindromic quine scored 1st place in the python section of anarchy codegolf http://golf.shinh.org/ - can you do shorter? ;)

http://operationleakspin.org/

Try it!

Congratulations! You have proven yourself nerdy! You have officially beaten the ultimate nerd riddle. That's pretty impressive! And I'm not only telling you that, because I was programmed to do so... you are awesome! You are the 18th person, who solved the riddle.

The Elan/100, like its predecessor the 10/10s, works with an optional Barcode Reader E accessory. This was an experiment in simplifying the camera’s user interface for novices. Or, to be less charitable, an expensive gadget-driven idiot mode.

Basically it works like this. You get a booklet of barcode settings, each illustrated by a photo. (the scanner shipped with a small booklet of barcodes, EOS Photo Files, but Canon also sold a companion volume - EOS Barcodes 101 - stuffed with even more useful and exciting barcode settings!) The photo will be of a typical setting - a backlit item or a flower or a landscape or whatever. You look at the item you want to photograph, flip through the book until you find a similar photo, scan the barcode from the book and then input the barcode into the camera. The barcode is then used to program the camera.

Hacking the barcodes.

The barcode reader wasn’t a very popular feature. In fact, it really was a fundamentally flawed concept from a marketing standpoint - the only people who’d really want such a feature would be rank beginners. However, because of the cost of building the system, only fairly costly midrange cameras supported it. So Canon quickly dropped the barcodes - the 10/10s and the Elan/100 were the only ones bearing this dubious capability. However, there is one handy thing about it. And that is tied to the key word “programmable,” the hacker’s favourite word.

Basically, inquisitive people have figured out how the barcode system works and have written small programs so that you can write your own custom barcode programs. These programs let you design your own custom PIC modes - sometimes even accessing camera functions not available through the camera’s external buttons and dials. You then print out your custom barcodes on your PC or Mac (the camera uses Interleaved 2 of 5 formatting). This can be lots of fun to play with if you happen to be a geek.

See http://photonotes.org/manuals/eos-elan/#barcode for more - fantastic website and yeah I'm ignoring his copyright notice here, but hey I do not care for US or whatever law and I think it is fair use ;)

Since this was not funny enough, I wrote:
for i in range(1,101):print('','fizz')[not i%3]+('','buzz')[not i%5]or i

This works because not casts to bool and (True, False) == (1, 0).
It also exploits short circuit evaluation and the fact that the or matches against the result of + due to evaluation order, where '' would yield False.

I guess I should give perl another try someday to get this in a half line :)

Wer "Postal" mochte, wird "War Inc" lieben.

Total bescheuerter Film. Also wirklich.
Minus 5 Sterne.

Aber so bescheuert er auch ist, er ist herrlich sarkastisch was die globale Situation angeht. Und dabei nur ein ganz klein bisschen überspitzt.

Im Gegensatz zu Postal hat die weibliche Begleitung auch keine Anzeichen starker Angewiedertheit gezeigt, aber das kann daran liegen dass es eine andere ist ;)

They played a short audio sample of a movie and I had to guess the title of the movie.

Well, what should I say... I knew the title in the first two seconds because I heard "Verpasst du auch nem Mann ne Fussmassage?" - And that's of course the german wording in one of the best scenes in one of the best movies ever made - Pulp Fiction

Lucky me they picked this one ;) I won a CD and now... back to work :)

— -- Jonathan Gardner jgardner@jonathangardner.net

>> it's real. We've determined by looking at our traffic stats that people are doing Google searches for "facebook login" and coming upon RWW. They see the FB Connect button and assume that RWW is the "new Facebook."

Sigh.

The Internet Is Hard.<<

The Article where it all started: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_...

TL;DR - Version of the story: http://www.inquisitr.com/61333/there-are-some-seriously-stupid-people-on...

>>stupid AOL users, we should've cut you guys off when we had the chance<<

>>So I just thought of a pretty good literacy test for deciding whether people are allowed to internet<<

>>I don't know what's scarier: the idea that this thread is a sign of the end times, or that it's a sign of the status-quo<<

>>Won't somebody please think of the children<<

>>To all the dorks who thought this was Facebook:
Shut down your PC, turn off the monitor, unplug everything, pack it all into the box it arrived in and bring it back to the shop. You are too thick to ever be let loose on a computer.
I console myself with the hope that Darwin was correct, and natural selection will take its course.<<

Yes, what you design looks good, but there is a reason that you've never seen tilted text with a drop shadow and a gradient on a website.

Yes, you can slice your psd and it will display in your browser, so obviously it is possible to implement what you design?
really? Think about it...
just look at the "code" you generate with this method.
And ever thought of *dynamic* content being displayed? And no, I won't constuct an image and slice it on the server side..

Heck, do you realize what evil hacks are necessary just to get the rounded borders on this page? Tons and tons of clientside Javascript render these. Yes, on the client. Yes, on every pageview. No, there is no compatible way of doing this with HTML/CSS until all browsers out there know CSS3.
Billions of billions of billions lines of Javascript get interpreted by home computers every day, wasting energy and computing time just because you guys want rounded borders and did not know how complex this is to implement.

If you feel adressed by this text: You may call yourself designer, but please dont call yourself webdesigner. You'll lie to yourself, to your customer, and that poor little bastard who'll have to translate your .psd into HTML/css will curse you, use evil hacks, will get blamed for things not working and taking too long. He might kill you.

Real webdesigners know what's possible and work with what they have. Sadly this is practically limited to HTML4 und CSS2, but things will soon get better with HTML5 and CSS3.