It's been mixed, actually. The posts have been moderated both ways, but I'm down overall because I started at the cap.
He's down overall, which is I guess all I could hope for. And hopefully people will recognize his username now and deal with him appropriately.
Are you kidding? Losing Floyd was probably the most emotional moment I'll ever have playing computer games. (Of course, it helps that I was 10 at the time.)
And you think your average news paper editor will be happy with your medium resolution pictures?
The key word for you to pick up on are "consumer-grade" and *1000* images. BTW, "medium-res" means 1024x768, which is more than sufficient for most newspaper work.
By extension, a "professional-grade" camera at a price point 10x higher could -- today -- shoot hundreds of high-res pictures on to each of dozens of 1G CF cards. And I doubt that we have seen the largest portable storage medium that will ever be made.
Far fewer images are stored in the archive. With film, you store it all
No. You can shoot more with digital. Get that? Digital is ahead TODAY in capacity. Also, with film, you have to worry about how many shots you've got before having to swap cartidges. With digital, you can go a lot longer before swapping memory cards.
but don't forget that conventional film photography has advantages as well
They have loads of advantages. They have much higher quality equipment available today, they have exposure characteristics that are much nicer than CCDs for many applications, and they have a higher top-end -- for the moment -- in the resolution of the image. But they are already behind in the storage department, which is what this article was all about.
Typical old-school elitism, pure and simple. There is nothing about digital photography that makes it fundamentally different from film.
When you shoot traditional stills, you shoot rolls of film and there are a series of pictures taken while you wait for the news to happen.
Sequential file naming creates a "series" in precisely the same sense.
But, because of storage issues on the camera, he will have to delete some of those images as he goes along.
Oh please. I've got a consumer-grade digital camera that'll shoot over 1000 medium-res pictures without swapping storage. How long ago was this written?
Surely in those circumstances, when only certain photographers are getting access to certain scenes, the more information we have, the better
"Please, please, please, don't let new technology make my entire life's work completely useless! Please continue paying me for my antiquated skills!" Sad.
By a solid 5 years, as it turns out. At least, vi was written in 1976, while edlin was released with PC-DOS 1.0 in 1981. So unless edlin had been enjoying quiet success as a private utility for a long time, it is newer.
Re:Fond .bat memories
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Does anyone remember Edlin, the vi clone?
Edlin is more accurately a clone of ed, the line editor upon which vi is based. I'd bet that edlin predates vi.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been mixed, actually. The posts have been moderated both ways, but I'm down overall because I started at the cap. He's down overall, which is I guess all I could hope for. And hopefully people will recognize his username now and deal with him appropriately.
The relevant text should be the first paragraph in the reply text of the Usenet post.
At the end of Planetfall, Floyd was dead and gone. I understand he was resurrected in Stationfall, but that came a bit later.
Moderators: this is more Usenet plagiarism from spootnik.
Moderators: this is more Usenet plagiarism from spootnik.
Moderators: this is more Usenet plagiarism from spootnik.
Moderators: this is more Usenet plagiarism from spootnik.
Moderators: this is more Usenet plagiarism from spootnik.
This comment is more Usenet plagiarism from spootnik.
This comment is more Usenet plagiarism from spootnik.
The Ballad of the Starcrossed Miner still tugs at my heartstrings.
This comment was stolen from Usenet.
The key word for you to pick up on are "consumer-grade" and *1000* images. BTW, "medium-res" means 1024x768, which is more than sufficient for most newspaper work.
By extension, a "professional-grade" camera at a price point 10x higher could -- today -- shoot hundreds of high-res pictures on to each of dozens of 1G CF cards. And I doubt that we have seen the largest portable storage medium that will ever be made.
Far fewer images are stored in the archive. With film, you store it all
No. You can shoot more with digital. Get that? Digital is ahead TODAY in capacity. Also, with film, you have to worry about how many shots you've got before having to swap cartidges. With digital, you can go a lot longer before swapping memory cards.
but don't forget that conventional film photography has advantages as well
They have loads of advantages. They have much higher quality equipment available today, they have exposure characteristics that are much nicer than CCDs for many applications, and they have a higher top-end -- for the moment -- in the resolution of the image. But they are already behind in the storage department, which is what this article was all about.
Bull. 1G Microdrives are selling for about $350. And this is while the technology is still new. Storage cost is a complete non-issue.
When you shoot traditional stills, you shoot rolls of film and there are a series of pictures taken while you wait for the news to happen.
Sequential file naming creates a "series" in precisely the same sense.
But, because of storage issues on the camera, he will have to delete some of those images as he goes along.
Oh please. I've got a consumer-grade digital camera that'll shoot over 1000 medium-res pictures without swapping storage. How long ago was this written?
Surely in those circumstances, when only certain photographers are getting access to certain scenes, the more information we have, the better
"Please, please, please, don't let new technology make my entire life's work completely useless! Please continue paying me for my antiquated skills!" Sad.
This comment was stolen off of Usenet.
This slashdot comment also looks like this Usenet post.
This slashdot comment also looks like this Usenet post.
I sure hope you're Ross Tessien, who posted this article to Usenet!
Once you manage to unlearn that, you'll be on your way towards understanding relativity.
You're still assuming that spacetime has linearly measured dimensions with regularly spaced tickmarks everywhere. It doesn't.
There's practically no way to make DOS crash.
c:>type x > x.exe
c:>x
*boom*
By a solid 5 years, as it turns out. At least, vi was written in 1976, while edlin was released with PC-DOS 1.0 in 1981. So unless edlin had been enjoying quiet success as a private utility for a long time, it is newer.
Edlin is more accurately a clone of ed, the line editor upon which vi is based. I'd bet that edlin predates vi.
Mods. Funny. Now.
In fact, Office 2000 simply warns you to capitalize "linux".
What a wonderfully timed response to Microsoft's recent complaint about releasing sample code!