No, I think you're deluded. Porn depicts the beautiful human body engaged in sex. It's natural and beautiful thing. Not all women are exploited by porn, and watching it surely doesn't create sexual offenders. I think bad parenting is more to blame, could be wrong on that, but I'm afraid not.
It's a non-puritanical one, deal
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 1
"Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not"
Cigarettes and booze kill, porn is just the depiction of the beautiful human body engaged in sex. This is a hard concept for most Americans to grasp, being a puritanical society itself.
If you don't like it, and think it's morally questionable, well then use another search engine. Going public and having 100,000 puritanical American stockholders imposing their victorian views might not be the best thing you know.
Let's give Z an interesting name in the experiment... hmm... yes, let's call it, Adobe. And let's call the product "PDF", the viewer "Acrobat" and force everyone who wants to read it to download the free reader from the then awfully slow Internet...
Yes, of course this business model could never work.
Amazing that a company like Adobe could have pulled this off! Must have been a really good product in that they didn't have control over the OS so they couldn't bundle any program and spread it that way. It had to be truly a great product. If the OS manufacturer had pushed their own version, one might say "Hmm, but what about other products out there?" Here we have an independent third party coming up with their own product and it was succesful. This is a good thing.
This invites a couple of questions which are at the root the same:
I) As a consumer, WHY DO I CARE about the "poor products" ?
II) IF these products are so much better, IN WHAT SENSE?
A product is only "better" if it is a better match for the needs of the customer. If, from the point of view of the consumer the products are equivalent, the consumer doesn't care about what happens to the non-preferred product. Nor should he/she care.
Yet another example (actually, the same I've been using for other things here): the OS comes integrated with a free, fully functional HTML document viewer. Hey, it even includes scripting capabilities, or the ability to run full Java applications if I want. There's even a pletorah of free/cheap HTML authoring tools to design my documents. It's free, and it's everywhere!
Why would I, the consumer, ever look for a non-integrated, expensive solution for my documents?
Personally, I rarely do. 99% of the time, for me typical document creation (Word/Powerpoint) is functionally equivalent to HTML, and so I use HTML.
Wow, Microsoft is so good and caring to everyone. They have decided on a better standard, and will ship the client software to everyone, all because it's better for them! God bless Bill Gates. They have, once again, decided on software that is good for us and we will see that it's a great product and adopt it. Amazing, and the fact that Microsoft controls the OS market has nothing to do with the proliferation of xdocs. Nothing at all. Not one bit.
But I'm not a typical case. For the typical case, HTML is wholly inadequate for their documents, and they need MSOffice, OpenOffice, StarOffice or whatever they choose. They pay the money, install the gigabytes of software, run the bloated thing and produce... a memo.
Word could be technologically speaking more complete than any HTML authoring tool, but from my point of view it suffers of "featuritis". From the point of view of the typical Office user, HTML lacks crucial features. From the point of view of the typical publisher, BOTH technologies are completely inadequate.
The point is that "better product", functionally speaking, is mostly decided by the consumer according to their needs, and it usually means that which satisfies their minimum requrirements for the minimal price with the minimal effort.
If they can make do with Office they don't care about PDF. If they can do with HTML they don't care about Office products. If they can do with Explorer they don't care about Netscape.
Why should they? A personal hovercraft would be really nice, superior technology, but why should I have to pay 200K for one if I can happily make do with a car?
This is very true. Microsoft provides everyone with very cheap products. Of course they do have an illegal monopoly as determined by the court. And, if you studied economics, this means that their market is a cash cow for them. They can easily offer cheaper products and beat out competitors this way. IE is cheaper than netscape, same with xdocs. This is what's great about a monopoly, you reap the benefits of the monopoly by jacking up prices(this was established in court) then provide cheap if not free products/services to rid yourself of competition ie keeping a monopoly. You're exactly right. The consumer is getting a free and adequate product. At the same time, other companies are not allowed to innovate. Microsoft can innovate within the windows market, but others cannot because Microsoft controls what is / what is not bundled.
You are both correct and incorrect.
Internet Explorer 1-3 was a rushed piece of crap. It was even buggier than Netscape, messy, and lacking features.
Also, it was not integrated with the OS in any way, and it was tremendously unpopular. Nobody used it.
Internet Explorer 4 came tightly integrated with the Win98 OS, quickly became very popular, and is considered in general to be Netscape's "killer".
It was also a well-featured, polished product. Much, much more stable than Netscape, in spite of being a more complicated product tightly coupled with the OS.
Since this is the one that took the market share from Netscape, and this is the one that is considered an anti- competitive case, versions 1-3 are as irrelevant to the discussion as they were to the market.
The key is anti-competitive. Microsoft was found guilty of using its monopoly powers to displace competitors like Netscape by bundling its browser with the OS.
You seem to be unfamiliar with certain expressions of the English language. Expressions of the form "Subject X MAY have done Y, but Z is still true" are used not to question the validity of Y, but to point out that the result Z is not affected by whether it's true or not.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
If you were able to comprehend written English you would know that I was not referring to Z, but the qualifier "may have".. This brings into doubt Y, when in fact it's a fact that Y actually occured, so "may have" is incorrect.. if we're talking about proper use of English, of course.
You should really look up "anti-competitive." On the plus side, at least you have 2+2 down.
Ok, let's say some other company, let's call it "Company Z" decides to create a competitor to the PDF format. It's completely open, the software to create PDF files is free. But wait, how are they going to spread their viewing application code to users? Oh no! They can't! In theory you would like to say "This is the best product out there so people will use it." So Company Z puts it on the web but no one downloads it.. even though it's the best product! Heaven forbid! Now let's say Microsoft decides to put their competing version, xdocs, on every PC. They can do this because they control the OS. Company Z doesn't. So in other words, Microsoft is using its momentum in the OS market in order to provide a competing product to users. It may be nice, but what about the even better products which don't have the luxury of bundling software with the OS?
Is that why Netscape crashed even more than Internet Explorer, in spite of it being a simpler, less integrated (and therefore less interacted with) product?
Microsoft may have unfairly given advantage to its product, and there are competitors in the market which would have fared better otherwise, but Netscape sucked by its own efforts.
Better product? Hmm, I seem to remember Microsoft rushing IE out the door and creating an extremely buggy product.. In fact both were equally buggy.
91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.
92. Microsoft similarly withheld a scripting tool that Netscape needed to make its browser compatible with certain dial-up ISPs. Microsoft had licensed the tool freely to ISPs that wanted it, and in fact had cooperated with Netscape in drafting a license agreement that, by mid- July 1996, needed only to be signed by an authorized Microsoft executive to go into effect. There the process halted, however. In mid-August, a Microsoft representative informed Netscape that senior executives at Microsoft had decided to link the grant of the license to the resolution of all open issues between the companies. Netscape never received a license to the scripting tool, and as a result, was unable to do business with certain ISPs for a time.
You neglected the main point of my comment: the user demographics are different. For Average Joes, PDF is a read-only format, and it's not the Average Joes that Microsoft has to convert, it's the content producers.
How are they going to convert the content producers over to xdocs when few users have the client applications to view the xdocs format? Microsoft will bundle the client xdocs software with its OS, then go to the content producers and say "look everyone is using it" and presto xdocs can easily compete with pdf. But this relies on Microsoft bundling the xdocs viewers with the OS. Something they have done in the past as you acknolwedge, so it's not far fetched to claim that they will use their monopoly powers again.
Yes, Microsoft played dirty. Yes, it integrated Internet Explorer with the OS awfully. Yet Netscape 4.x was so bad that I preferred Internet Explorer IN SPITE of its integration (and the "browser crashes the computer for no reason" part).
Of course they played dirty, just read the conclusions of the anti-trust judge. MS hid API's from Netscape so their software wasn't as good.
In other words, to be a "killer" it has to be able to compete with PDF in the first place. It has to be either better, or cheaper, and probably both.
All this time I was wondering how Microsoft beat Netscpe in the first place. I thought it had to do with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows as opposed to free market market principles. Thanks for pointing this out.
#1) They used Sun's JRE as opposed to IBM's JRE which is much faster.
#2) They claim there's no way on linux to monitor performance without affecting performance. If they had a clue they would know about sar. This casts them in doubt re: using linux effectively as a whole. They miss a very basic thing, you cannot trust these monkeys, they don't have a clue.
So to get a 3-sphere, you start with a 3-ball (solid baseball) and glue all the outside edge together at a single point.
I was with you up until this sentence. Maybe I'm being dumb here but I can't visualize this. Could you elaborate? With a disc you have edges to glue together so it's easy to think of glueing the edges together to form a 2-sphere. But with a 3-ball(solid baseball), you don't have such edges.. well you have the ouside of the 3-ball. So do you peel all the edges off like an onion and connect the resulting pieces at one point so you have a bunch of connected 2-balls ranging from small(center of 2-ball) to large(edges of 2-ball) connected at one point?
This thing is still a huge hack. Only a few HTML sites can be displayed on phones.
People don't realize why WAP was developed in the first place and why WAP is here to stay... WAP is a wireless protocol providing reliable transport over a wireless medium. Something TCP/IP can't do over the airwaves, sorry. Wap 2.0 supports WML which is optimized for small screens. It does exactly what this does.. but better. C'mon, rolling tables into 1 dimension is a hack. WML accomplishes this much better with decks. If you're familiar with WML you'd know this.
In the future WAP 2.0 will support XHTML.. and HTML is merging into XHTML. Then, and only then, can we have one markup on websites and display it properly for all situations on both wireless devices and wireline devices.
So, don't be surprised if carriers are using WAP for a long, long time despite all the FUD and bullshit.
Sorry man, no can do. They outnumber us. They're the baby boomers remember, they are the product of the post-war generation that f*cked like rabbits. They have the numbers and they have always had the power. Only when they die off in significant numbers will we be able to have more say in government. But the average lifespan is increasing every year so this will be awhile. We could line them up and execute them Pol Pot-style.
Then the boomers will retire, taking up more taxes and providing no output. Then you think things are bad now. Just wait. If you invest now you will have to wait 20-30 years to get your returns back. We are so screwed.
You miss his point. In Europe the lady would have received just enough to cover her medical bills($20,000). Then the company would be fined for a good sum as a form of punishment.
This discourages petty lawsuits. The potential 'reward' for a petty lawsuit in the USA hovers in the millions of dollars. In Europe, your reward would be far less, hence less incentive to file a petty lawsuit. You can, of course, always file suit to cover medical bills. What did this lady do to deserver $1million? Nothing, if anything it should have gone to the state.
MMS) Questionable.. believe you can send an email with the video to the phone, but the question is will carriers allow you to do this, probably not. MMS is geared towards phonephone multimedia sending. Pretty useless, I know.
Actually, you are wrong. The pictures(640x480x24bit) can be mailed to any e-mail adress, transfered to your box via bluetooth and more, in.jpg format.
Let's say you want 5" x 7" prints of your photos. At 640 x 480, the pixels per inch will be 640/7 or 91 ppi horizontal, 480/5 or
96 ppi vertical.
With my Nikkon 775 which was around $300, I get 1600 x 1200 resolution.
This gives me 228 ppi horizontal, 240 ppi vertical.
You approach photorealistic quality at 300 ppi. If I were to get 5 by 7 prints, the photos your camera would produce
wouldn't be tolerable. Not even talking about the fact that my camera uses 32 bit color.
Add in the fact that it probably doesn't have flash and other nice
camera features like red eye, etc... you'll have to conclude that it's no replacement
for a digital camera.
My digital cam works fine. It has superiour picture quality. Why would I want a phone that takes crappy pictures and can only be sent to other people who have an MMS-capable phone?
Umm, except that's a small part why it's such a nice material. Water and debris simply slide off the glass because it's truly flat. Therefore it would help quite a bit.
Republican party: the party of fraud, says court
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
Looks like Katherine Harris et al settled out of court rather regarding fraud allegations.. That is after a judge threw out ol Kathy's request to get the charges dismissed. Great.. so they steal office by fraud then get rid of anyone who disagrees with them.. Kinda like the FERC and Enron connection, scientific advisers... Nice banana republic, americans.
et al? I'd like to use a freeware j2ee like jboss but if it doesn't perform then that could actually cost me more. Should I go with resin? Are they both scalable, can anyone compare jboss and other non-freeware j2ee's?
WAP uses decent encryption so if you use WAP you shouldn't have any problems. SMS messages, on the other hand, are unencrypted so avoid those.. try using an instant messenger over WAP, no probs.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think you're deluded. Porn depicts the beautiful human body engaged in sex. It's natural and beautiful thing. Not all women are exploited by porn, and watching it surely doesn't create sexual offenders. I think bad parenting is more to blame, could be wrong on that, but I'm afraid not.
"Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not"
Cigarettes and booze kill, porn is just the depiction of the beautiful human body engaged in sex. This is a hard concept for most Americans to grasp, being a puritanical society itself.
If you don't like it, and think it's morally questionable, well then use another search engine. Going public and having 100,000 puritanical American stockholders imposing their victorian views might not be the best thing you know.
yuo=spot on the money, wish i could mod you up. been programming for years on Solaris and it handles thousands of threads just fine.
Let's give Z an interesting name in the experiment... hmm... yes, let's call it, Adobe. And let's call the product "PDF", the viewer "Acrobat" and force everyone who wants to read it to download the free reader from the then awfully slow Internet...
Yes, of course this business model could never work.
Amazing that a company like Adobe could have pulled this off! Must have been a really good product in that they didn't have control over the OS so they couldn't bundle any program and spread it that way. It had to be truly a great product. If the OS manufacturer had pushed their own version, one might say "Hmm, but what about other products out there?" Here we have an independent third party coming up with their own product and it was succesful. This is a good thing.
This invites a couple of questions which are at the root the same:
I) As a consumer, WHY DO I CARE about the "poor products" ? II) IF these products are so much better, IN WHAT SENSE?
A product is only "better" if it is a better match for the needs of the customer. If, from the point of view of the consumer the products are equivalent, the consumer doesn't care about what happens to the non-preferred product. Nor should he/she care.
Yet another example (actually, the same I've been using for other things here): the OS comes integrated with a free, fully functional HTML document viewer. Hey, it even includes scripting capabilities, or the ability to run full Java applications if I want. There's even a pletorah of free/cheap HTML authoring tools to design my documents. It's free, and it's everywhere!
Why would I, the consumer, ever look for a non-integrated, expensive solution for my documents?
Personally, I rarely do. 99% of the time, for me typical document creation (Word/Powerpoint) is functionally equivalent to HTML, and so I use HTML.
Wow, Microsoft is so good and caring to everyone. They have decided on a better standard, and will ship the client software to everyone, all because it's better for them! God bless Bill Gates. They have, once again, decided on software that is good for us and we will see that it's a great product and adopt it. Amazing, and the fact that Microsoft controls the OS market has nothing to do with the proliferation of xdocs. Nothing at all. Not one bit.
But I'm not a typical case. For the typical case, HTML is wholly inadequate for their documents, and they need MSOffice, OpenOffice, StarOffice or whatever they choose. They pay the money, install the gigabytes of software, run the bloated thing and produce... a memo.
Word could be technologically speaking more complete than any HTML authoring tool, but from my point of view it suffers of "featuritis". From the point of view of the typical Office user, HTML lacks crucial features. From the point of view of the typical publisher, BOTH technologies are completely inadequate.
The point is that "better product", functionally speaking, is mostly decided by the consumer according to their needs, and it usually means that which satisfies their minimum requrirements for the minimal price with the minimal effort.
If they can make do with Office they don't care about PDF. If they can do with HTML they don't care about Office products. If they can do with Explorer they don't care about Netscape.
Why should they? A personal hovercraft would be really nice, superior technology, but why should I have to pay 200K for one if I can happily make do with a car?
This is very true. Microsoft provides everyone with very cheap products. Of course they do have an illegal monopoly as determined by the court. And, if you studied economics, this means that their market is a cash cow for them. They can easily offer cheaper products and beat out competitors this way. IE is cheaper than netscape, same with xdocs. This is what's great about a monopoly, you reap the benefits of the monopoly by jacking up prices(this was established in court) then provide cheap if not free products/services to rid yourself of competition ie keeping a monopoly. You're exactly right. The consumer is getting a free and adequate product. At the same time, other companies are not allowed to innovate. Microsoft can innovate within the windows market, but others cannot because Microsoft controls what is / what is not bundled.
You are both correct and incorrect.
Internet Explorer 1-3 was a rushed piece of crap. It was even buggier than Netscape, messy, and lacking features.
Also, it was not integrated with the OS in any way, and it was tremendously unpopular. Nobody used it.
Internet Explorer 4 came tightly integrated with the Win98 OS, quickly became very popular, and is considered in general to be Netscape's "killer".
It was also a well-featured, polished product. Much, much more stable than Netscape, in spite of being a more complicated product tightly coupled with the OS.
Since this is the one that took the market share from Netscape, and this is the one that is considered an anti- competitive case, versions 1-3 are as irrelevant to the discussion as they were to the market.
The key is anti-competitive. Microsoft was found guilty of using its monopoly powers to displace competitors like Netscape by bundling its browser with the OS.
You seem to be unfamiliar with certain expressions of the English language. Expressions of the form "Subject X MAY have done Y, but Z is still true" are used not to question the validity of Y, but to point out that the result Z is not affected by whether it's true or not.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
If you were able to comprehend written English you would know that I was not referring to Z, but the qualifier "may have".. This brings into doubt Y, when in fact it's a fact that Y actually occured, so "may have" is incorrect.. if we're talking about proper use of English, of course.
You should really look up "anti-competitive." On the plus side, at least you have 2+2 down.
Have fun modding another post of yours up to 2!
Ok, let's say some other company, let's call it "Company Z" decides to create a competitor to the PDF format. It's completely open, the software to create PDF files is free. But wait, how are they going to spread their viewing application code to users? Oh no! They can't! In theory you would like to say "This is the best product out there so people will use it." So Company Z puts it on the web but no one downloads it.. even though it's the best product! Heaven forbid! Now let's say Microsoft decides to put their competing version, xdocs, on every PC. They can do this because they control the OS. Company Z doesn't. So in other words, Microsoft is using its momentum in the OS market in order to provide a competing product to users. It may be nice, but what about the even better products which don't have the luxury of bundling software with the OS?
m #va):
Is that why Netscape crashed even more than Internet Explorer, in spite of it being a simpler, less integrated (and therefore less interacted with) product? Microsoft may have unfairly given advantage to its product, and there are competitors in the market which would have fared better otherwise, but Netscape sucked by its own efforts.
Better product? Hmm, I seem to remember Microsoft rushing IE out the door and creating an extremely buggy product.. In fact both were equally buggy.
And may have played unfairly? No, it's a fact that they did play unfairly. This is not a hypothetical situation according to a certain judge: (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.ht
91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season. 92. Microsoft similarly withheld a scripting tool that Netscape needed to make its browser compatible with certain dial-up ISPs. Microsoft had licensed the tool freely to ISPs that wanted it, and in fact had cooperated with Netscape in drafting a license agreement that, by mid- July 1996, needed only to be signed by an authorized Microsoft executive to go into effect. There the process halted, however. In mid-August, a Microsoft representative informed Netscape that senior executives at Microsoft had decided to link the grant of the license to the resolution of all open issues between the companies. Netscape never received a license to the scripting tool, and as a result, was unable to do business with certain ISPs for a time.
You neglected the main point of my comment: the user demographics are different. For Average Joes, PDF is a read-only format, and it's not the Average Joes that Microsoft has to convert, it's the content producers.
How are they going to convert the content producers over to xdocs when few users have the client applications to view the xdocs format? Microsoft will bundle the client xdocs software with its OS, then go to the content producers and say "look everyone is using it" and presto xdocs can easily compete with pdf. But this relies on Microsoft bundling the xdocs viewers with the OS. Something they have done in the past as you acknolwedge, so it's not far fetched to claim that they will use their monopoly powers again.
Yes, Microsoft played dirty. Yes, it integrated Internet Explorer with the OS awfully. Yet Netscape 4.x was so bad that I preferred Internet Explorer IN SPITE of its integration (and the "browser crashes the computer for no reason" part).
Of course they played dirty, just read the conclusions of the anti-trust judge. MS hid API's from Netscape so their software wasn't as good.
In other words, to be a "killer" it has to be able to compete with PDF in the first place. It has to be either better, or cheaper, and probably both.
All this time I was wondering how Microsoft beat Netscpe in the first place. I thought it had to do with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows as opposed to free market market principles. Thanks for pointing this out.
Which I could mod this up.
#1) They used Sun's JRE as opposed to IBM's JRE which is much faster.
#2) They claim there's no way on linux to monitor performance without affecting performance. If they had a clue they would know about sar. This casts them in doubt re: using linux effectively as a whole. They miss a very basic thing, you cannot trust these monkeys, they don't have a clue.
So to get a 3-sphere, you start with a 3-ball (solid baseball) and glue all the outside edge together at a single point.
I was with you up until this sentence. Maybe I'm being dumb here but I can't visualize this. Could you elaborate? With a disc you have edges to glue together so it's easy to think of glueing the edges together to form a 2-sphere. But with a 3-ball(solid baseball), you don't have such edges.. well you have the ouside of the 3-ball. So do you peel all the edges off like an onion and connect the resulting pieces at one point so you have a bunch of connected 2-balls ranging from small(center of 2-ball) to large(edges of 2-ball) connected at one point?
Meant to say "Wap 1.x and above support WML"
This thing is still a huge hack. Only a few HTML sites can be displayed on phones.
People don't realize why WAP was developed in the first place and why WAP is here to stay... WAP is a wireless protocol providing reliable transport over a wireless medium. Something TCP/IP can't do over the airwaves, sorry. Wap 2.0 supports WML which is optimized for small screens. It does exactly what this does.. but better. C'mon, rolling tables into 1 dimension is a hack. WML accomplishes this much better with decks. If you're familiar with WML you'd know this.
In the future WAP 2.0 will support XHTML.. and HTML is merging into XHTML. Then, and only then, can we have one markup on websites and display it properly for all situations on both wireless devices and wireline devices.
So, don't be surprised if carriers are using WAP for a long, long time despite all the FUD and bullshit.
Sorry man, no can do. They outnumber us. They're the baby boomers remember, they are the product of the post-war generation that f*cked like rabbits. They have the numbers and they have always had the power. Only when they die off in significant numbers will we be able to have more say in government. But the average lifespan is increasing every year so this will be awhile. We could line them up and execute them Pol Pot-style.
Whoops, the logarithmic inflation-adjusted chart is here: here.
The dow realistically will continue to slide until 2012:
0 7/ Charts/SP500/DJ1800Inf_20811.gif
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Exchange/98
Then the boomers will retire, taking up more taxes and providing no output. Then you think things are bad now. Just wait. If you invest now you will have to wait 20-30 years to get your returns back. We are so screwed.
You miss his point. In Europe the lady would have received just enough to cover her medical bills($20,000). Then the company would be fined for a good sum as a form of punishment.
This discourages petty lawsuits. The potential 'reward' for a petty lawsuit in the USA hovers in the millions of dollars. In Europe, your reward would be far less, hence less incentive to file a petty lawsuit. You can, of course, always file suit to cover medical bills. What did this lady do to deserver $1million? Nothing, if anything it should have gone to the state.
2 ways.
WAP) Provide it on a web server and goto the URL.
MMS) Questionable.. believe you can send an email with the video to the phone, but the question is will carriers allow you to do this, probably not. MMS is geared towards phonephone multimedia sending. Pretty useless, I know.
Let's say you want 5" x 7" prints of your photos. At 640 x 480, the pixels per inch will be 640/7 or 91 ppi horizontal, 480/5 or 96 ppi vertical.
With my Nikkon 775 which was around $300, I get 1600 x 1200 resolution. This gives me 228 ppi horizontal, 240 ppi vertical.
You approach photorealistic quality at 300 ppi. If I were to get 5 by 7 prints, the photos your camera would produce wouldn't be tolerable. Not even talking about the fact that my camera uses 32 bit color.
Add in the fact that it probably doesn't have flash and other nice camera features like red eye, etc... you'll have to conclude that it's no replacement for a digital camera.
My digital cam works fine. It has superiour picture quality. Why would I want a phone that takes crappy pictures and can only be sent to other people who have an MMS-capable phone?
(btw it should read MMS not MMC).
Is this truly useful? Methinks not.
where hard alcohol can only be sold in state-controlled stores. CMU students are not surprised.
Umm, except that's a small part why it's such a nice material. Water and debris simply slide off the glass because it's truly flat. Therefore it would help quite a bit.
Yikes!
Looks like Katherine Harris et al settled out of court rather regarding fraud allegations.. That is after a judge threw out ol Kathy's request to get the charges dismissed. Great.. so they steal office by fraud then get rid of anyone who disagrees with them.. Kinda like the FERC and Enron connection, scientific advisers... Nice banana republic, americans.
et al? I'd like to use a freeware j2ee like jboss but if it doesn't perform then that could actually cost me more. Should I go with resin? Are they both scalable, can anyone compare jboss and other non-freeware j2ee's?
WAP uses decent encryption so if you use WAP you shouldn't have any problems. SMS messages, on the other hand, are unencrypted so avoid those.. try using an instant messenger over WAP, no probs.
Agreed. What's funny is someone modded this idiot's message up. :)