I can understand that, man. The huge benefit there is that you have the originals to work from. I like my stuff digital, but as an artist I can understand wanting the highest quality one around.:)
So get a digital camera that can save raw data. All DSLRs can, as well as a lot of higher-end point-and-shoots. Basically, at least with the Canon DSLR I have, this saves the full 12-bit data exactly as it came off the sensor. You can then "develop" this into a JPEG or even a TIFF (16bpp if you prefer) as many times as you want, adjusting settings such as white balance, contrast, etc. You can do exposure adjustments easily too, and better than you could do if all you had was a JPEG.
This is even more "original" than a film negative is, since the negative has already had processing done on it by the lab.
you probably grew up with the system you use, and (most of) the people here grew up with theirs.
Probably not. I'm 25 and even though I've always lived in the US, I can remember the switch-over from the Canadian paper dollar to the loonie. Granted, the old Canadian dollar coin had been around for a while before the loonie, but it was during the introduction of the loonie that paper single dollar circulation was reduced. Apparently the world did not end for the Canadian people when this happened.
My personal feeling is that people are just resistant to change. If the US paper dollar were eliminated tomorrow, there would be plenty of bitching, but in a few years everyone would be used to it and you'd never hear about it again.
Still you refuse to use the correct units, eh? Kilowatts is MEANINGLESS in this discussion. That said, I dunno how much you're paying per kWhr, but my bill is around $100 a month (except in winter, when it goes up a bit, and this winter will be higher because of the higher natural gas prices) for 325kWhr. So, if you're only using 15kWhr per month and paying about the same amount total, then you're getting screwed on electricity prices.
No, my point is that the notation w/hr is not correct. The / implies watts divided by hours. Watt-hours is watts multiplied by hours. Again, just a nitpick.
Popular Science Magazine, which states that the average household consumes on average 14 KW per month..... I made a larger estimate based upon our standardly-used electronics.
Let me start by saying that the following assumes that by "14 kW" you really mean "14 kWhr", because, as other posters have pointed out, 14kW is a meaningless term when it comes to analyzing monthly energy consumption.
If this assumption is true, then that figure of 14kWhr per month is WAY off. I would guess that 14kWhr per DAY is more what the average household consumes. Looking at my electric bill, I've used about 325 kWhr per month for the last few months, which is about 11 kWhr per day. I'm pretty careful about turning lights and things off, opening windows at night instead of running the A/C, etc etc, so I imagine the average would be a bit higher. Also, from talking with my friends and other people I know, my bill is on the low side. All this supports 14kWhr per day being correct. I'm certainly not using 25 times the average.
My houehold, according to our power company, uses approximately 16 KW per month
If you truly are using only 16kWhr per month, which I find very hard to believe, then I salute you.
Not trying to nitpick, but the kilowatt hour is kilowatts times hours (kW*hr), not kilowatts per hour (kW/hr). In other words, if you use 10kW for 5 hours, you used 50 kWhr, not 2 as you would if it were kW/hr.
Better go look up "cost" in the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster:
1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something (hmm, like the amount my employer pays me for me to do work?)
2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something (how much my employer has to pay to gain [or keep] my employment)
If you don't like m-w, it's trivial to find plenty of other sources that support the OP's use of "cost". Certainly enough that make your response seem a bit over-the-top.
Well, I did say "easily understood" and you probably had to parse back over it real quick to discern what I meant.
True, I did read it twice. But I would still say I easily understood it, as I'm sure most people did. I guess our perceptions of what "easily understood" means in this context differ. Oh well.
And spell checkers actually are a hindrance in some places: take using the wrong word (principle v. principal). A grammar check won't pick up that "It's the principal that counts" is incorrect, either.
That would be the point of a good grammar checker. Of course depending on the context, your sentence could be perfectly correct, which is why writing a checker that can tell the difference is decidedly non-trivial.
I think we should just drop English as the Internet language and adopt Loglan (www.loglan.org). That's what it was invented for.
Right... Let's see. According to this article by Verisign, nearly three quarters of all Internet content is in English. They also claim one-third of the users are English-speaking, but it's hard to tell whether that's limited to first-language English speakers or not. My guess is that there are no more than a few thousand Loglan speakers out there. So, let's abandon the language spoken by hundreds of millions of internet users, and force EVERYONE to learn something new. Great.
I'm making the argument that the only metric that should be used for correct grammar is: "Can this be easily understood by a member of the target audience." If it passes this test, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's correct.
Wow... that's a pretty useless metric. For example, in your original post you left out the word "distinction". I had no problem understanding you, and as a Slashdot reader, I assume that I am a member of the target audience. Therefore, by your definition, your grammar was correct. I, however, would beg to differ.
My personal feeling is that missing words are EXACTLY the type of thing that a grammer checker should flag, because those are the types of grammatical mistakes I make when I type (usually due to an edit that deleted an extra word or something). And I absolutely hate it when people say things like "Do you want to come with?" so if a grammar checker flags that in huge red type, that would be fine by me;-)
I agree though that a lot of the rules about splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, or the dreaded "passive voice" are all but useless to me, and at the moment I have most of those type of checks turned off in Word.
Or, Rockstar disabled the content but left it there knowing that somebody was eventually going to find it - but not until after they'd been rated.
Possibly... But my opinion then is "who cares?" If it's not part of the normal gameplay; if someone has to go out and look for a hack that will enable whatever it is they're looking for, then what's the big deal? No one is stumbling upon this. No one is being exposed to anything against their will.
And at the same time, I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of games out there that have similarly-locked features. It just happens that GTA's was discovered.
My favorite thing to do in GTAIII was sit up in the parking garage (that way the helicopters couldn't get you) and shoot people in the head with the sniper rifle. My roommate enjoyed doing that so much I eyed him suspiciously him when the DC sniper stuff started.
What annoys people about this is that Rockstar decieved both the industry and the public about the content of the game. So long as this occurs, consumers can't know what they're buying.
No, Rockstar didn't deceive anyone. When you went out and bought the game, there was no possible way that you were going to get exposed to this "sex scene" without knowingly going out of your way to enable it. No possible way. Therefore, the sex scene was not part of the "content of the game", and therefore Rockstar did not deceive anyone about the content of the game.
People's reaction to this is "greater than if you had told them the same thing upfront" because they don't understand what it's all about. They hear that there's a sex scene in the game and they pull out their pitchforks and torches. They probably think this is actually a scene you'd come across during normal gameplay, and therefore they do feel deceived.
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs
Sounds a lot like what the O.P. was stating. One might expect that a solar-powered vehicle race would NOT both begin and end in a big oil-producing region, when in actuality that's what's happening. Sounds to me a whole lot like incongruity between expected and actual results to me, and hence irony.
You've never lived through a disaster, have you? I remember the ice storm, when much of the province lost electicity for weeks in the dead of winter (some places over a month). The sense of community, of people pulling together, was incredible.
There's a difference between one area losing electricity for a month and the entire world losing electricity for a month. If just your area loses it, people from the outside that still have power will happily deliver you food to eat and fuel for your generator. If the entire world lost electricity... well, I'm sure you can imagine the difficulties we would face.
I think this pyramid theory is your irrefutable proof that protozoa don't care for human morals, theories and ideas.
He never said to prove that protozoa don't care for human morals, theories, and ideas. He said to prove that protozoa don't have their own morals, theories, and ideas.
The fact that the Gimp doesn't have Photoshop-like color management is simply a reflection of the needs of its user community: if the user community needed it, it would be in there--it's trivial to do, since all the code already exists.
You're arguing that because the GIMP userbase doesn't need it, it's not there. Well I would argue that the people who need it aren't in GIMP's userbase, simply because it's not there.
oh, it takes about that long for the cheap oil to get processed through the refinery.
Not only does it take a while to get processed through the refinery (and then delivered to where you are), but it also takes a long time for the oil to get TO the refinery. Those oil prices that they quote on the evening news? Those are for delivery generally at least a month in advance. That's why they're called "futures".
So officially, South Korea, the US, and even to a degree the UN are still at war with North Korea.
Well, no, actually the U.S. is not still officially at war with North Korea, because the U.S. was NEVER officially at war with North Korea. The last time the U.S. declared war on anyone was 1941.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand that, man. The huge benefit there is that you have the originals to work from. I like my stuff digital, but as an artist I can understand wanting the highest quality one around. :)
So get a digital camera that can save raw data. All DSLRs can, as well as a lot of higher-end point-and-shoots. Basically, at least with the Canon DSLR I have, this saves the full 12-bit data exactly as it came off the sensor. You can then "develop" this into a JPEG or even a TIFF (16bpp if you prefer) as many times as you want, adjusting settings such as white balance, contrast, etc. You can do exposure adjustments easily too, and better than you could do if all you had was a JPEG.
This is even more "original" than a film negative is, since the negative has already had processing done on it by the lab.
you probably grew up with the system you use, and (most of) the people here grew up with theirs.
Probably not. I'm 25 and even though I've always lived in the US, I can remember the switch-over from the Canadian paper dollar to the loonie. Granted, the old Canadian dollar coin had been around for a while before the loonie, but it was during the introduction of the loonie that paper single dollar circulation was reduced. Apparently the world did not end for the Canadian people when this happened.
My personal feeling is that people are just resistant to change. If the US paper dollar were eliminated tomorrow, there would be plenty of bitching, but in a few years everyone would be used to it and you'd never hear about it again.
Still you refuse to use the correct units, eh? Kilowatts is MEANINGLESS in this discussion. That said, I dunno how much you're paying per kWhr, but my bill is around $100 a month (except in winter, when it goes up a bit, and this winter will be higher because of the higher natural gas prices) for 325kWhr. So, if you're only using 15kWhr per month and paying about the same amount total, then you're getting screwed on electricity prices.
No, my point is that the notation w/hr is not correct. The / implies watts divided by hours. Watt-hours is watts multiplied by hours. Again, just a nitpick.
Popular Science Magazine, which states that the average household consumes on average 14 KW per month..... I made a larger estimate based upon our standardly-used electronics.
Let me start by saying that the following assumes that by "14 kW" you really mean "14 kWhr", because, as other posters have pointed out, 14kW is a meaningless term when it comes to analyzing monthly energy consumption.
If this assumption is true, then that figure of 14kWhr per month is WAY off. I would guess that 14kWhr per DAY is more what the average household consumes. Looking at my electric bill, I've used about 325 kWhr per month for the last few months, which is about 11 kWhr per day. I'm pretty careful about turning lights and things off, opening windows at night instead of running the A/C, etc etc, so I imagine the average would be a bit higher. Also, from talking with my friends and other people I know, my bill is on the low side. All this supports 14kWhr per day being correct. I'm certainly not using 25 times the average.
My houehold, according to our power company, uses approximately 16 KW per month
If you truly are using only 16kWhr per month, which I find very hard to believe, then I salute you.
Not trying to nitpick, but the kilowatt hour is kilowatts times hours (kW*hr), not kilowatts per hour (kW/hr). In other words, if you use 10kW for 5 hours, you used 50 kWhr, not 2 as you would if it were kW/hr.
And the attempted backdoor in question put the parens around the assignment, thus avoiding the warning.
Except that the interface seems backwards to me. If I push the wheel up, I expect a bigger font, but I actually get a smaller one.
I do not *cost* my employer any money.
Better go look up "cost" in the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster:
1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something (hmm, like the amount my employer pays me for me to do work?)
2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something (how much my employer has to pay to gain [or keep] my employment)
If you don't like m-w, it's trivial to find plenty of other sources that support the OP's use of "cost". Certainly enough that make your response seem a bit over-the-top.
Well, I did say "easily understood" and you probably had to parse back over it real quick to discern what I meant.
True, I did read it twice. But I would still say I easily understood it, as I'm sure most people did. I guess our perceptions of what "easily understood" means in this context differ. Oh well.
And spell checkers actually are a hindrance in some places: take using the wrong word (principle v. principal). A grammar check won't pick up that "It's the principal that counts" is incorrect, either.
That would be the point of a good grammar checker. Of course depending on the context, your sentence could be perfectly correct, which is why writing a checker that can tell the difference is decidedly non-trivial.
I think we should just drop English as the Internet language and adopt Loglan (www.loglan.org). That's what it was invented for.
Right... Let's see. According to this article by Verisign, nearly three quarters of all Internet content is in English. They also claim one-third of the users are English-speaking, but it's hard to tell whether that's limited to first-language English speakers or not. My guess is that there are no more than a few thousand Loglan speakers out there. So, let's abandon the language spoken by hundreds of millions of internet users, and force EVERYONE to learn something new. Great.
I'm making the argument that the only metric that should be used for correct grammar is: "Can this be easily understood by a member of the target audience." If it passes this test, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's correct.
;-)
Wow... that's a pretty useless metric. For example, in your original post you left out the word "distinction". I had no problem understanding you, and as a Slashdot reader, I assume that I am a member of the target audience. Therefore, by your definition, your grammar was correct. I, however, would beg to differ.
My personal feeling is that missing words are EXACTLY the type of thing that a grammer checker should flag, because those are the types of grammatical mistakes I make when I type (usually due to an edit that deleted an extra word or something). And I absolutely hate it when people say things like "Do you want to come with?" so if a grammar checker flags that in huge red type, that would be fine by me
I agree though that a lot of the rules about splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, or the dreaded "passive voice" are all but useless to me, and at the moment I have most of those type of checks turned off in Word.
Is the potential loss (even if it is a very slight potential) of your company's trade secrets really worth $50?
Possibly... But my opinion then is "who cares?" If it's not part of the normal gameplay; if someone has to go out and look for a hack that will enable whatever it is they're looking for, then what's the big deal? No one is stumbling upon this. No one is being exposed to anything against their will.
And at the same time, I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of games out there that have similarly-locked features. It just happens that GTA's was discovered.
My favorite thing to do in GTAIII was sit up in the parking garage (that way the helicopters couldn't get you) and shoot people in the head with the sniper rifle. My roommate enjoyed doing that so much I eyed him suspiciously him when the DC sniper stuff started.
No, Rockstar didn't deceive anyone. When you went out and bought the game, there was no possible way that you were going to get exposed to this "sex scene" without knowingly going out of your way to enable it. No possible way. Therefore, the sex scene was not part of the "content of the game", and therefore Rockstar did not deceive anyone about the content of the game.
People's reaction to this is "greater than if you had told them the same thing upfront" because they don't understand what it's all about. They hear that there's a sex scene in the game and they pull out their pitchforks and torches. They probably think this is actually a scene you'd come across during normal gameplay, and therefore they do feel deceived.
Well, from the definitions you cited:
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs
Sounds a lot like what the O.P. was stating. One might expect that a solar-powered vehicle race would NOT both begin and end in a big oil-producing region, when in actuality that's what's happening. Sounds to me a whole lot like incongruity between expected and actual results to me, and hence irony.
You've never lived through a disaster, have you? I remember the ice storm, when much of the province lost electicity for weeks in the dead of winter (some places over a month). The sense of community, of people pulling together, was incredible.
There's a difference between one area losing electricity for a month and the entire world losing electricity for a month. If just your area loses it, people from the outside that still have power will happily deliver you food to eat and fuel for your generator. If the entire world lost electricity... well, I'm sure you can imagine the difficulties we would face.
Only once we start making hard drives out of diamonds.
He never said to prove that protozoa don't care for human morals, theories, and ideas. He said to prove that protozoa don't have their own morals, theories, and ideas.
You're arguing that because the GIMP userbase doesn't need it, it's not there. Well I would argue that the people who need it aren't in GIMP's userbase, simply because it's not there.
I've never understood why both 'fuck' and 'motherfucker' were on his list. It seems a bit redundant, no?
The same reason the "money shaving" scheme in office space was wrong comes to mind.
But it wasn't wrong. Initech was wrong!
oh, it takes about that long for the cheap oil to get processed through the refinery.
Not only does it take a while to get processed through the refinery (and then delivered to where you are), but it also takes a long time for the oil to get TO the refinery. Those oil prices that they quote on the evening news? Those are for delivery generally at least a month in advance. That's why they're called "futures".
So officially, South Korea, the US, and even to a degree the UN are still at war with North Korea.
Well, no, actually the U.S. is not still officially at war with North Korea, because the U.S. was NEVER officially at war with North Korea. The last time the U.S. declared war on anyone was 1941.