I've got the Kata DR-467 you mention. In it I put my 17" MBP, a Nikon D5k and two (kit) lenses. Comfortably it holds as well both chargers (camera, computer) extra camera batteries, a fold up reflector, moleskin notebook, Slik Sprint Pro tripod (not always, but when I want it it fits well), a full size mouse, an iPad (not terribly well but you can squeeze it in with the MBP), and some other misc stuff. There is room left over in the top compartment for, easily, a jacket and, say, some food.
I used to carry this with me everyday everywhere for about 6 months (have your camera with you all the time). The bag is entirely fine. YMMV. I stopped carrying it because, as others have pointed out, it's pretty heavy. I never cared enough to weigh it but it is heavy enough that I just stopped wanting to deal with it.
tl;dr Kata bag holds a ton of shit. Mine held up well to everyday use for 6 months.
Oh my, this is very bad indeed
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Personally I've never had cause to bash on Katz. His articles/prononucements/perspectives were, to me, harmless stuff which was probably ok if I actually cared about what he thought.
But a couple of things about this one are so far over the top I'm gonna filter this guy out now. First:
"...the young, the real avatars of culture..."
So, Katz, you either do not know what avatar means, or what culture means. Regardless, the frequency of your rather silly commentaries suggests that you have the time to look up the big words which you clearly don't understand.
Second:
"...cultural and generational coup d'etat this month..."
Christ, what over blown crap. It's actually funny (no, funny, like in HaHaHa, my side's splitting, laugh out loud, funny. Funny. Really) that you are able to demonstrate how absolutely shallow your thinking and thus perspective is. And you don't even know why (this is the funny part).
Shut up man, you're making yourself look bad. Honest.
It occurs to me that at issue is the basis for the need for the legislation in the first place. Broadly speaking there seems two motivations to address the problem of stealing copyrighted works.
First is the need to ensure that a business is reasonably protected. In this case we probably have to debate the meaning of "reasonably". There are in place now laws which protect copyright holders from infringment of their property. However these laws were probably drafted to address a single entity violating the law such that enforcement costs were commensurate with the loss encurred by the plaintiff. Recent advances in technology and the sort of exponential growth of an infringment now make those laws seemingly impractical. That is, I can share a file with 3 friends, they can share with 3 and so forth. From the perspective of the plaintiff the choice of who to go after is rather difficult insofar as one will have a difficult time extracting relief proportional to the loss. Regarding this perspective I believe I could argue effectively that the government cannot reasonably legislate with this motivation. This is because the cost of the legislation would be rights of citizens. To my mind, and I suspect constituionally speaking, this is a choice which congress is denied. I will ignore here the other aspect of such legislation save to say that I do not think that file sharing is preventable. Given the previously mentioned exponential model it takes only 2 or three initial violators to destroy the integrity of any DRM scheme such that the laws would be practically unenforceable.
If, on the other hand, congress believes that the point of the legislation is to protect a citizens right to a rich and diverse cultural experience then this is, arguably, a reasonable choice that I suspect congress is entitled to ponder. However I believe that I could eventually argue effectively that laws with this thrust did not achieve their goals and, to the extent that's true, argue that the laws are not constitutional because they denied citizens rights without compensation. Regrettably this would require predicting the future.
From these perspectives the only legislative alternative I can see is an enhancement of the copyright infringment laws such that, for example, burden of proof for damages would shift to the defendant in the event proof of violation was made. Or perhaps making it a criminal offense that allowed jail time regardless of the provable damages. The intent, I think, should be to make the cost of violation very expensive to those who violate the copyright laws.
QC did not actually switch to MS as the result of reliability issues per se. What happened was someone used an MS product to prototype a product. The prototype came up fast and easily. Scaling or reliability were not, to my knowledge, completely evaluated.
QC got in touch with MS or the other way around. Doesn't matter. The end result was that MS gave QC several contractors for 6 months for free. Software for free. Training for free. Lots of free stuff. Of course free meant so long as QC used MS products and MS could use the transition as PR.
What they don't mention, of course, is that backend databases run Oracle on Solaris and a big part of the backend is implemented in Java on Solaris and Java on Linux.
So while I could not call the statement that QC switched because of reliability issues false, my understanding of the facts is such that this is stretching the truth quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
And it won't work with any Mac without adapter.
"The Feds have a fetish for loyalty..."
I've got the Kata DR-467 you mention. In it I put my 17" MBP, a Nikon D5k and two (kit) lenses. Comfortably it holds as well both chargers (camera, computer) extra camera batteries, a fold up reflector, moleskin notebook, Slik Sprint Pro tripod (not always, but when I want it it fits well), a full size mouse, an iPad (not terribly well but you can squeeze it in with the MBP), and some other misc stuff. There is room left over in the top compartment for, easily, a jacket and, say, some food.
I used to carry this with me everyday everywhere for about 6 months (have your camera with you all the time). The bag is entirely fine. YMMV. I stopped carrying it because, as others have pointed out, it's pretty heavy. I never cared enough to weigh it but it is heavy enough that I just stopped wanting to deal with it.
tl;dr Kata bag holds a ton of shit. Mine held up well to everyday use for 6 months.
It rocks. Buy one. You'll be happy.
Personally I've never had cause to bash on Katz. His articles/prononucements/perspectives were, to me, harmless stuff which was probably ok if I actually cared about what he thought.
But a couple of things about this one are so far over the top I'm gonna filter this guy out now. First:
"...the young, the real avatars of culture..."
So, Katz, you either do not know what avatar means, or what culture means. Regardless, the frequency of your rather silly commentaries suggests that you have the time to look
up the big words which you clearly don't understand.
Second:
"...cultural and generational coup d'etat this month..."
Christ, what over blown crap. It's actually
funny (no, funny, like in HaHaHa, my side's
splitting, laugh out loud, funny. Funny. Really)
that you are able to demonstrate how absolutely
shallow your thinking and thus perspective is.
And you don't even know why (this is the funny
part).
Shut up man, you're making yourself look bad.
Honest.
---Rick
It occurs to me that at issue is the basis for the need for the legislation in the first place. Broadly speaking there seems two motivations to address the problem of stealing copyrighted works.
First is the need to ensure that a business is reasonably protected. In this case we probably have to debate the meaning of "reasonably". There are in place now laws which protect copyright holders from infringment of their property. However these laws were probably drafted to address a single entity violating the law such that enforcement costs were commensurate with the loss encurred by the plaintiff. Recent advances in technology and the sort of exponential growth of an infringment now make those laws seemingly impractical. That is, I can share a file with 3 friends, they can share with 3 and so forth. From the perspective of the plaintiff the choice of who to go after is rather difficult insofar as one will have a difficult time extracting relief proportional to the loss. Regarding this perspective I believe I could argue effectively that the government cannot reasonably legislate with this motivation. This is because the cost of the legislation would be rights of citizens. To my mind, and I suspect constituionally speaking, this is a choice which congress is denied. I will ignore here the other aspect of such legislation save to say that I do not think that file sharing is preventable. Given the previously mentioned exponential model it takes only 2 or three initial violators to destroy the integrity of any DRM scheme such that the laws would be practically unenforceable.
If, on the other hand, congress believes that the point of the legislation is to protect a citizens right to a rich and diverse cultural experience then this is, arguably, a reasonable choice that I suspect congress is entitled to ponder. However I believe that I could eventually argue effectively that laws with this thrust did not achieve their goals and, to the extent that's true, argue that the laws are not constitutional because they denied citizens rights without compensation. Regrettably this would require predicting the future.
From these perspectives the only legislative alternative I can see is an enhancement of the copyright infringment laws such that, for example, burden of proof for damages would shift to the defendant in the event proof of violation was made. Or perhaps making it a criminal offense that allowed jail time regardless of the provable damages. The intent, I think, should be to make the cost of violation very expensive to those who violate the copyright laws.
Good luck.
QC got in touch with MS or the other way around. Doesn't matter. The end result was that MS gave QC several contractors for 6 months for free. Software for free. Training for free. Lots of free stuff. Of course free meant so long as QC used MS products and MS could use the transition as PR.
What they don't mention, of course, is that backend databases run Oracle on Solaris and a big part of the backend is implemented in Java on Solaris and Java on Linux.
So while I could not call the statement that QC switched because of reliability issues false, my understanding of the facts is such that this is stretching the truth quite a bit.
Lycos and QC have independant infrastructures. QC is running IIS. I know, I worked there.