When Featureprice went down a few years ago, they took a bunch of the "included free domains" they'd registered for site owners with 'em. Apparently Featureprice was registering domains with themselves as the owners. Hell's just not hot enough.
I managed to get mine back with some fast, loud action. A designer colleague of mine was not so lucky.
I'll never again let my web host get involved with my Domain Name reg.
The above suggestions hot nightly mirrors are well-taken.
Your point is well-taken, but doesn't match the context:
The Altair 8800 came out as a brand-new hobbyist project for electronics buffs, into an existing electronics hobby market that had never seen a digital-domain project so advanced (N.B. - I was a regular reader of Popular Electronics in my senior year of high school - when the Altair 8800 project was announced in a PE cover story). MITS was certainly shocked by the demand at the outset - I think they thought they were going to sell printed-circuit boards alone.
Palm's product added yet-another-OS to a market that has, frankly, too many (let's face it: there are probably even too many different Linux distros out there - and that's just Linux, never mind the cell phone and embedded markets, or even Palm's OWN OSes), added weight without adding the value of an open platform, added a less-capable sub-notebook to a market that has portable computing choices from 20" "laptop" computers to full PC-palmtops like the OQO, and more.
The Altair 8800 sold into a complete vacuum for products of its kind, but into an established market of electronics hobbyists waiting for something new and complex. The Palm Foleo opened the door to the portable-computer market and got blown back out from the atmospheric pressure in there.
Palm never really did explain what we were supposed to do with the thing. Carry it on the shoulder that's not currently supporting the Laptop bag? Try and find pants with pockets big enough to carry this thing PLUS the T|X or Treo PLUS the iPod? When I can check email and browse the web on my bigger laptop or my smaller PDA, why do I have this thing again?
Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable?
I'm one of those people. OTA 1080i HD KICKS FUCKING ASS compared to the miserable cable and satellite options. Why pay for shit when I've got beautiful HD coming in for free?
Please don't mess with my broadcast TV. I'm using it.
Aggregating and giving the data away for free made it not-important-enough for Zap2It to keep providing it.
Paying for it provides a motive for these guys to keep providing the service - and it IS the service you're paying for, not really the data:
Since all the data is public and published in newspapers and TV Guide and on the web, you're free to maintain a screen-scraper or type it in yourself and not give these guys a cent.
Rather not do that and have someone else do the leg work for you? OK, Pony up, bud!
The V12 cylinder engine delivers 260 hp; the top speed of the Hydrogen 7 is 143 mph and acceleration 0-60 mph is 9.2 sec.
That looks like pretty underwhelming performance for a V12. For comparison, my GTI's V6 motor generates 174 HP on gasoline, and later generations of that vehicle tweak that output to maybe about 200 hp. The quote doesn't mention the displacement of the V12 motor, but all other things being equal, that looks to me like you'd have to have about twice the motor to deliver about 30% more horsepower as what I have with a gasoline engine.
Dunno if this is a physics issue, simple energy density or that the motor's not optimized for hydrogen fuel, but it could mean that you'd need a V8 in a mid-size car to reach family-sedan performance that you can get with a 4 or a turbo-4 today. And that means you'll use more fuel, have fewer miles on a tank.
Performance figures are not just for the racetrack...
Have to agree - the National Cryptologic Museum is a hidden gem in the long list of DC-area museums. You see real Enigma machines, can operate one, see historic and sort-of-recent crypto gear, get a tour from a dosant who knows what's really going on.
The (sort-of-interesting) downtown Spy Museum gives you the Disnified version. The (fascinating) National Cryptologic Museum has the real deal.
Driving by all the razor wire at Ft. Mead and the big threatening signs, as well as retired spy planes gives it a great setup, too.
Hey, they already know you're planning to visit, right?
I think the GIMP is a really nice little tool, and useful for what it is. I'm really not trying to slag it, though you assume that's what I'm about. Not so.
I think that nearly anyone who has used GIMP for more than a few minutes thinks the UI could use some fixing. The existance of GIMPShop and this instrumentation work both show I'm not alone in feeling it could use a fresh steamy plate of UI Helper.
Here's the real point of my post: the instrumentation can deliver data on how long a task might take, or how long a user wandered around with the mouse trying to accomplish something. But it cannot deliver data on features that the program does not have - and that these missing features are some of the key weaknesses. They'll slide under the radar of the UI work because it's not possible to instrument something that doesn't exist. That's all I'm saying.
Finally, my point about another "not Photoshop" app. Linux could use a few more killer apps. Apache certainly is one. MySQL another. Photoshop was for a long time THE killer app on Mac OS. It was a reason to buy a Mac - all the reason you need.
Me, I've got Photoshop and don't need GIMP. But in thinking about improving GIMP, I think that if it could be made Photoshop's equal (at least in factory features - getting the 3rd party stuff is pretty unlikely), you'd be a bit closer to adoption of Linux on the desktop - certainly closer for photographers and graphic professionals. This ignores the wide variety of suppporting apps that pros rely upon on their Macs and Windows machines, but having it a highly-usable and productive tool with Photoshop feature parity both helps further desktop adoption AND makes it easier to use for geeks that just like to putter around in it a bit.
I hardly think that's a hysterical view - the label seems to say more about your biases than it does about mine, as you appear to have misinterpreted them
So they want to make GIMP easier to use - is that a bad thing? Are you really coming out for "harder to use"?
Maybe a bigger problem will be that you can't instrument what GIMP doesn't do: CMYK, Color Management, look/work just like the industry standard...
I'm delighted to hear they're trying, but many well-funded programs have become yet-another "not Photoshop". Don't hold your breath for world GIMP-domination.
Yes, you are in good company with others who made the same baseless assumptions. The interesting question is why that assumption was made.
Well in my case, because Andrew Rodney responded to speculation about Apple's new LED-illuminated LCD displays on MacWorld's forum with a post about NEC's tricolor LED monitor and its advertised wider gamut and the potential problems with such a display.
Still think I'm trying to use his name to "bolster my case"?
No. No, no, no. I cited my source and have pretty clearly said I made the same fallacious jump in logic that others have made.
Got no case. Haven't looked at this thread in a week and a half, and am baffled that you apparently have the time on your hands to piddle with it.
You either get it or you don't. I'm done wasting my ATP typing at you.
Quantization issues are well understood, it doesn't take a color guru to understand that. However, name-dropping digitaldog as you leap to conclusions about the new display is total bullshit. Claiming that the new displays have improved gamut is pure, baseless speculation at this point. Furthermore, I've read reliable explanations for why notebook LED displays can't be wider gamut.
Wow, you really do know how to turn on the charm, don't you?
I do have to say yes, you're right that I've speculated about wider gamut on the new MBP LED displays, as have a lot of other sources, from folks posting in messageboards to MacInTouch to MacWorld. Much of this speculation concerns comparisons to NEC's nice LED-backlit display that claims to recreate "107% of the AdobeRGB colorspace". (Yes I realize, the backlighting on the NEC display is almost certainly quite different from that of the new MacBook Pro).
I've looked for a bit and don't find Apple making any claims at all about wider gamut for the new MBP LED displays. So yep, all speculation at this point. I deserve a spanking for thinking I'd seen Apple claiming wider gamut when that impression was mainly created by my conflation of "news" coverage and people raving in blogs and fora with what Apple had actually announced. It'd be nice to see Apple make some claims about what the display will do, but they're probably smarting about such things this week.
I wasn't "name-dropping" Andrew Rodney to try and grab some cred, buddy. Frankly, my own favorite color management guru passed away recently. I just figured that if I was going to mention Rodney's name, I should point to his site.
Andrew Rodney weighs in on LED- vs. CCF-illuminated displays in this forum post discussing the new MacBook Pro machines - though he doesn't specifically address the MBP display, which one might or might not assume he's seen.
And BTW, Rodney links to his own site in his.sig, so you'd sure better go bitch at him about it too. Looks like you've got the time on your hands.
Dude, just go down to your nearest Apple store and play around with it for a couple minutes. You don't need to wait for a community to tell you how to think.
Uh, "dude", if that's the way you make a $2500 purchasing decision, I'm pretty glad you're not my mechanic, banker or healthcare provider
I want feedback from people with actual metrics, people using screen calibrators, colorimetry, screen- and print-proofing. I'll let a few other people either make an early-purchase mistake or have an early-purchase success before I dump the bucks on it.
The color spectrum that a given LED provides will necessarily be different than the spectrum that CCF backlights generate, and different from the spectra that the various CRT monitor phosphors generate.
If a given portion of the spectrum is not present in the "white light" (using that term very loosely here) backlight, no amount of filtering by the LCD screen overlay can put it back. If this is not intuitive, imagine trying to create blue using only a pure-red LED backlight. (You can't do it - the backlight must have at least some blue).
So if, for example, the LED backlight has more green and red light available in its "white light" spectrum than a CCF backlight has, the LCD overlay so-illuminated can produce yellow tones (since red and green are the constituent primaries that make yellow) that a LCD illuminated with a CCF cannot. That gives the LED-illuminated LCD a wider gamut.
However, if both the LED-illuminated and the CCF-illuminated LCD overlays only filter light at a resolution of 8 bits per channel, they will both be able to display the same amount of information about color, but because the gamut of one is different from the gamut of the other, in many cases they will not be able to display the same colors.
The "6-bit" comment in my earlier post refers to the fact that Apple has been shipping 6-bit displays on its Powerbooks and MacBook pros for a while. I believe there has been a/. post on this situation.
If a manufacturer provides more bit depth (more than 8 bits per channel, f.e.) the LCD overlay will be able to filter the available light more finely than 8- or 6-bit displays can do. In general, an 8-bit display should in fact have a larger (but not necessarily wider) gamut than a 6-bit. A 10-, 12-, or (allow me to dream here) 16-bit-per-channel display would have still larger (but again, not necessarily wider).
In an LCD display the spectrum of the backlight will determine how wide the gamut can be at its absolute maximum - if a color is not present in that spectrum, it cannot be filtered into existance by the LCD overlay. By the same token, the bit-depth-per-channel of the LCD overlay will determine how many individual color tones are in that gamut.
In reality, it's a lot more complicated than this, but this is the gist of it.
Color Guru Andrew Rodney has said in several online fora that the wider gamut of LED-illuminated monitors is not necessarily a good thing. A wider gamut does not necesarily mean a larger gamut.
If that doesn't make intuitive sense to you, think about this example: You place 5 stones in a straight line on the ground at 1-foot intervals. Now pick them up and place the same 5 stones at 2-foot intervals. You've created a wider figure, but have not increased the number of stones - the figure still has the same number of intervals.
If each of the stones in the above example represents a shade of color, then simply widening the gamut without providing additional color resolution - more than eight bits per color channel, for example - will not display additional color information, and in fact will worsen the display's performance at reproducing the smaller gamut of the sRGB colorspace (the assumed colorspace for Windows machines and most digital cameras).
If this is yet-another 6-bit display, this situation will be even worse
I'm definitely the target buyer for this machine, but am cautiously sitting on my hands, awaiting word from the color-management community on how it fares, and to see if Apple has finally fixed the battery and other problems that have dogged the MacBook Pro line.
I started to put a 2-drive RAID 1 setup in my MythTV HD server. I eventually bagged it and went with a single SATA disk.
Here's why:
I was storing a mirror of my collection of MP3 files for service with mt-daapd. The MythTV server disk goes down, I have another copy elsewhere already.
The rest is just TV. The System disk image is backed up to read-only media, so I can blast it back onto a replacement disk if needed. So I lose a couple weeks of TV. Boo-hoo - it's nice outside and there are brand new films at the theater.
Two drives use twice as much juice and make twice as much heat as one. 5 drives increase your carbon footprint, heat dissipation and financial outlay even further, and require a more highly-cooled enclosure AND warm up your den/living room/home - which you cool once more with the A/C in the summer. If you do the math, you'll probably pay more for running the disks over their service life than you do to buy them.
So I figured I didn't HAVE to have the array, realized the machine would run lots cooler and lots cheaper, and when it finally went down, BFD, I'd buy an even bigger disk for less money, install it without a hassle and copy my MP3s back onto it.
N.B. - I've been on a 20+ hour bridge-line call today as our data center guys try to figure how to rebuild an enterprise disk array. Are you SURE you want to go with a RAID?
Slashdot Mirror
What I wanna know is: "Who's this Pokemon institute?"
It can get worse than just not having a backup.
When Featureprice went down a few years ago, they took a bunch of the "included free domains" they'd registered for site owners with 'em. Apparently Featureprice was registering domains with themselves as the owners. Hell's just not hot enough.
I managed to get mine back with some fast, loud action. A designer colleague of mine was not so lucky.
I'll never again let my web host get involved with my Domain Name reg.
The above suggestions hot nightly mirrors are well-taken.
Your point is well-taken, but doesn't match the context:
The Altair 8800 came out as a brand-new hobbyist project for electronics buffs, into an existing electronics hobby market that had never seen a digital-domain project so advanced (N.B. - I was a regular reader of Popular Electronics in my senior year of high school - when the Altair 8800 project was announced in a PE cover story). MITS was certainly shocked by the demand at the outset - I think they thought they were going to sell printed-circuit boards alone.
Palm's product added yet-another-OS to a market that has, frankly, too many (let's face it: there are probably even too many different Linux distros out there - and that's just Linux, never mind the cell phone and embedded markets, or even Palm's OWN OSes), added weight without adding the value of an open platform, added a less-capable sub-notebook to a market that has portable computing choices from 20" "laptop" computers to full PC-palmtops like the OQO, and more.
The Altair 8800 sold into a complete vacuum for products of its kind, but into an established market of electronics hobbyists waiting for something new and complex. The Palm Foleo opened the door to the portable-computer market and got blown back out from the atmospheric pressure in there.
Palm never really did explain what we were supposed to do with the thing. Carry it on the shoulder that's not currently supporting the Laptop bag? Try and find pants with pockets big enough to carry this thing PLUS the T|X or Treo PLUS the iPod? When I can check email and browse the web on my bigger laptop or my smaller PDA, why do I have this thing again?
...it was an answer to a question that nobody asked. Unless the question was "WTF?"
Howsabout Phil Zimmerman's zfone?
note to editors: A sentence is a lousy thing to hang a preposition on the end ofIn addition to gamma rays, free neutrons can also be produced.
If I order a couple cases, is there a shipping charge?
If we're starting a new war in Antigua, can I go? The weather's supposed to be great down there!
Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable?
I'm one of those people. OTA 1080i HD KICKS FUCKING ASS compared to the miserable cable and satellite options. Why pay for shit when I've got beautiful HD coming in for free?
Please don't mess with my broadcast TV. I'm using it.
Hmmm. Don't think so.
Aggregating and giving the data away for free made it not-important-enough for Zap2It to keep providing it.
Paying for it provides a motive for these guys to keep providing the service - and it IS the service you're paying for, not really the data:
Since all the data is public and published in newspapers and TV Guide and on the web, you're free to maintain a screen-scraper or type it in yourself and not give these guys a cent.
Rather not do that and have someone else do the leg work for you? OK, Pony up, bud!
jddj
The V12 cylinder engine delivers 260 hp; the top speed of the Hydrogen 7 is 143 mph and acceleration 0-60 mph is 9.2 sec.
That looks like pretty underwhelming performance for a V12. For comparison, my GTI's V6 motor generates 174 HP on gasoline, and later generations of that vehicle tweak that output to maybe about 200 hp. The quote doesn't mention the displacement of the V12 motor, but all other things being equal, that looks to me like you'd have to have about twice the motor to deliver about 30% more horsepower as what I have with a gasoline engine.
Dunno if this is a physics issue, simple energy density or that the motor's not optimized for hydrogen fuel, but it could mean that you'd need a V8 in a mid-size car to reach family-sedan performance that you can get with a 4 or a turbo-4 today. And that means you'll use more fuel, have fewer miles on a tank.
Performance figures are not just for the racetrack...
Have to agree - the National Cryptologic Museum is a hidden gem in the long list of DC-area museums. You see real Enigma machines, can operate one, see historic and sort-of-recent crypto gear, get a tour from a dosant who knows what's really going on.
The (sort-of-interesting) downtown Spy Museum gives you the Disnified version. The (fascinating) National Cryptologic Museum has the real deal.
Driving by all the razor wire at Ft. Mead and the big threatening signs, as well as retired spy planes gives it a great setup, too.
Hey, they already know you're planning to visit, right?
A look at the first few minutes of Night of the Lepus would be instructive. But don't tell Bones you watched!
I think perhaps you're missing the point(s)
Finally, my point about another "not Photoshop" app. Linux could use a few more killer apps. Apache certainly is one. MySQL another. Photoshop was for a long time THE killer app on Mac OS. It was a reason to buy a Mac - all the reason you need.
Me, I've got Photoshop and don't need GIMP. But in thinking about improving GIMP, I think that if it could be made Photoshop's equal (at least in factory features - getting the 3rd party stuff is pretty unlikely), you'd be a bit closer to adoption of Linux on the desktop - certainly closer for photographers and graphic professionals. This ignores the wide variety of suppporting apps that pros rely upon on their Macs and Windows machines, but having it a highly-usable and productive tool with Photoshop feature parity both helps further desktop adoption AND makes it easier to use for geeks that just like to putter around in it a bit.
I hardly think that's a hysterical view - the label seems to say more about your biases than it does about mine, as you appear to have misinterpreted them
So they want to make GIMP easier to use - is that a bad thing? Are you really coming out for "harder to use"?
Maybe a bigger problem will be that you can't instrument what GIMP doesn't do: CMYK, Color Management, look/work just like the industry standard...
I'm delighted to hear they're trying, but many well-funded programs have become yet-another "not Photoshop". Don't hold your breath for world GIMP-domination.
"Mooij you're gettin' a Delft!"
Tom Cruise, call your agent...
I understand why they have to simulate Mission Control, but why do they have to simulate loved ones?
Yes, you are in good company with others who made the same baseless assumptions. The interesting question is why that assumption was made.
Well in my case, because Andrew Rodney responded to speculation about Apple's new LED-illuminated LCD displays on MacWorld's forum with a post about NEC's tricolor LED monitor and its advertised wider gamut and the potential problems with such a display.
Still think I'm trying to use his name to "bolster my case"?
No. No, no, no. I cited my source and have pretty clearly said I made the same fallacious jump in logic that others have made.
Got no case. Haven't looked at this thread in a week and a half, and am baffled that you apparently have the time on your hands to piddle with it.
You either get it or you don't. I'm done wasting my ATP typing at you.
Actually, only half of the $1000 was for using vegetable oil as a fuel. The other half was for not smoking.
Quantization issues are well understood, it doesn't take a color guru to understand that. However, name-dropping digitaldog as you leap to conclusions about the new display is total bullshit. Claiming that the new displays have improved gamut is pure, baseless speculation at this point. Furthermore, I've read reliable explanations for why notebook LED displays can't be wider gamut.
Wow, you really do know how to turn on the charm, don't you?
I do have to say yes, you're right that I've speculated about wider gamut on the new MBP LED displays, as have a lot of other sources, from folks posting in messageboards to MacInTouch to MacWorld. Much of this speculation concerns comparisons to NEC's nice LED-backlit display that claims to recreate "107% of the AdobeRGB colorspace". (Yes I realize, the backlighting on the NEC display is almost certainly quite different from that of the new MacBook Pro).
I've looked for a bit and don't find Apple making any claims at all about wider gamut for the new MBP LED displays. So yep, all speculation at this point. I deserve a spanking for thinking I'd seen Apple claiming wider gamut when that impression was mainly created by my conflation of "news" coverage and people raving in blogs and fora with what Apple had actually announced. It'd be nice to see Apple make some claims about what the display will do, but they're probably smarting about such things this week.
I wasn't "name-dropping" Andrew Rodney to try and grab some cred, buddy. Frankly, my own favorite color management guru passed away recently. I just figured that if I was going to mention Rodney's name, I should point to his site.
Andrew Rodney weighs in on LED- vs. CCF-illuminated displays in this forum post discussing the new MacBook Pro machines - though he doesn't specifically address the MBP display, which one might or might not assume he's seen.
And BTW, Rodney links to his own site in his .sig, so you'd sure better go bitch at him about it too. Looks like you've got the time on your hands.
Dude, just go down to your nearest Apple store and play around with it for a couple minutes. You don't need to wait for a community to tell you how to think.
Uh, "dude", if that's the way you make a $2500 purchasing decision, I'm pretty glad you're not my mechanic, banker or healthcare provider
I want feedback from people with actual metrics, people using screen calibrators, colorimetry, screen- and print-proofing. I'll let a few other people either make an early-purchase mistake or have an early-purchase success before I dump the bucks on it.
The LEDs do just provide the backlight.
The color spectrum that a given LED provides will necessarily be different than the spectrum that CCF backlights generate, and different from the spectra that the various CRT monitor phosphors generate.
If a given portion of the spectrum is not present in the "white light" (using that term very loosely here) backlight, no amount of filtering by the LCD screen overlay can put it back. If this is not intuitive, imagine trying to create blue using only a pure-red LED backlight. (You can't do it - the backlight must have at least some blue).
So if, for example, the LED backlight has more green and red light available in its "white light" spectrum than a CCF backlight has, the LCD overlay so-illuminated can produce yellow tones (since red and green are the constituent primaries that make yellow) that a LCD illuminated with a CCF cannot. That gives the LED-illuminated LCD a wider gamut.
However, if both the LED-illuminated and the CCF-illuminated LCD overlays only filter light at a resolution of 8 bits per channel, they will both be able to display the same amount of information about color, but because the gamut of one is different from the gamut of the other, in many cases they will not be able to display the same colors.
The "6-bit" comment in my earlier post refers to the fact that Apple has been shipping 6-bit displays on its Powerbooks and MacBook pros for a while. I believe there has been a /. post on this situation.
If a manufacturer provides more bit depth (more than 8 bits per channel, f.e.) the LCD overlay will be able to filter the available light more finely than 8- or 6-bit displays can do. In general, an 8-bit display should in fact have a larger (but not necessarily wider) gamut than a 6-bit. A 10-, 12-, or (allow me to dream here) 16-bit-per-channel display would have still larger (but again, not necessarily wider).
In an LCD display the spectrum of the backlight will determine how wide the gamut can be at its absolute maximum - if a color is not present in that spectrum, it cannot be filtered into existance by the LCD overlay. By the same token, the bit-depth-per-channel of the LCD overlay will determine how many individual color tones are in that gamut.
In reality, it's a lot more complicated than this, but this is the gist of it.
Color Guru Andrew Rodney has said in several online fora that the wider gamut of LED-illuminated monitors is not necessarily a good thing. A wider gamut does not necesarily mean a larger gamut.
If that doesn't make intuitive sense to you, think about this example: You place 5 stones in a straight line on the ground at 1-foot intervals. Now pick them up and place the same 5 stones at 2-foot intervals. You've created a wider figure, but have not increased the number of stones - the figure still has the same number of intervals.
If each of the stones in the above example represents a shade of color, then simply widening the gamut without providing additional color resolution - more than eight bits per color channel, for example - will not display additional color information, and in fact will worsen the display's performance at reproducing the smaller gamut of the sRGB colorspace (the assumed colorspace for Windows machines and most digital cameras).
If this is yet-another 6-bit display, this situation will be even worse
I'm definitely the target buyer for this machine, but am cautiously sitting on my hands, awaiting word from the color-management community on how it fares, and to see if Apple has finally fixed the battery and other problems that have dogged the MacBook Pro line.
I started to put a 2-drive RAID 1 setup in my MythTV HD server. I eventually bagged it and went with a single SATA disk.
Here's why:
So I figured I didn't HAVE to have the array, realized the machine would run lots cooler and lots cheaper, and when it finally went down, BFD, I'd buy an even bigger disk for less money, install it without a hassle and copy my MP3s back onto it.
N.B. - I've been on a 20+ hour bridge-line call today as our data center guys try to figure how to rebuild an enterprise disk array. Are you SURE you want to go with a RAID?
I have to agree. Look at my case:
Currently carrying:
With both laptops I've got to have wheels, too.
I'm trying to figure how replacing the T3 with another 2.5 pounds of notebook is going to move my life closer to where I want it to be.
The missus already wants me to get the T3 out of my shirt pocket. Maybe I can strap a Foleo around my waist, like a giant wrestling trophy belt...