Now compare this versus the families that sit and read together quietly and put books back that they aren't going to buy.
I think you'll find that many of the families that do this are going to go to the library (if they're lucky to have a good one), or a small local bookstore where they know the owner (if they are lucky enough to have one left nearby).
B&N is (admittedly) very good about allowing people to peruse the works without pressure, but I've always felt somehow bad about reading a brand-new book that's for sale with my daughter then putting it back on the shelf, especially if it gets dropped or scuffed in the process. Plus there's no pressure to spend money at the library, they have a gigantic selection of kid's books and if my daughter wants to take one home we take it home and enjoy it for a couple of weeks (separating the concepts of book enjoyment and owning stuff), and I don't have to run the gauntlet of shiny plastic crap at the registers and convince my daughter we don't need to buy everything in the store. I don't like mixing love of reading with desire to buy stuff. I think there's enough commercialism out there as it is, and I avoid it where I can.
Those books my daughter wants to check out a LOT get purchased and added to our home library, so we're not hogging the library copy. But that used to be a visit to the local bookstore because the owner was nice (but B&N put them out of business a few years ago) and is now an Amazon purchase because so little of the money that goes into B&N stays local, I'd rather spend less and donate the remainder to my library along with a few weekends a year helping out at their book sales and other fundraisers, which I think is important because my daughter sees a whole community formed around a pure love for reading, not around making a profit from it.
B&N fills a niche that, to me, no longer needs filling and really never did. My beloved local bookstore, for which I was willing to pay a premium, is long gone and isn't coming back. I gave B&N an honest try, but frankly I was unimpressed. It was cheaper than my bookstore, but more expensive than Amazon and no more personal. Everything I can get at B&N, I can get cheaper from Amazon without leaving the house and running the cheap-shit impulse plastic-crap gauntlet at the registers. Everything I want to look at first, I can get from my local library, and in many cases enjoy it without ever having to buy it.
B&N is just a high-priced instant-gratification Amazon with impulse crap near the registers. I honestly see very little value in its existence.
I don't have mod points. If I did, it would be a tough choice between "+1 Funny" and "-666 May You Burn In the Flames Of Hell For Using That Word".
But, I've slowly come to accept "irregardless", "nucular", and the various misuses of "its/it's" and "they're/their" as just a sign of language degeneration in general, and not a specific statement as to the intelligence of the speaker, so maybe my Grammar Nazi-ism is settling down in my old age.
You can still get off my lawn. But I'll ask nicely and say "please".:)
I used to play "Descent" and its sequels a lot. Funny thing was, I was unaware of how much I was moving around trying to accept the "zero-gravity 3D" environment that "Descent" used. My wife, on the other hand, was invariably amused at how much I'd move around playing that game.
My point is that you probably aren't exactly sitting still playing the games you are today anyway. In fact, many people are probably moving their heads unconsciously in much the same manner as they would to control a game like this, while incurring wrist injury trying to control the game using an unnatural movement.
"Half Life" would be awesome standing up with head-movement detection to handle perspective, foot-motion detection to handle moving around, and a WiiMote-type thingie strapped to your right wrist to aim and fire the gun or swing the crowbar. You'd get one hell of a workout too.
If "2001" was re-executed and re-filmed for 3D, stayed true to the story of the original, and the 3D technology worked well and wasn't overused, it probably would be incredibly immersive.
Actually, the specific portions of each of the movies you mentioned would probably be enhanced by 3D. The trick with 3D is to make it express the bits of the story you want to express, then get the hell out of the way when you are into non-visual story bits ("shallow out" the 3D when you don't need to enhance perspective). HAL's red dot would not do well in 3D. Nor would the scene where HAL was lipreading Bowman in the pod. Those are "story/background" scenes. The scene where Bowman was shutting HAL down would be awesome in 3D, because you want that scene to stand out (it's a "dramatic/climactic" scene).
That's not to say that the filmmakers who made those films at the time didn't do brilliant things with the technologies that were available to them. They most certainly did. And it is absolutely possible (and all too easy) to overdo any special effect in any technology (I refer you to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and the insufferably long "LSD Flashy Disco Hallway - In SPACE!" scenes, Disco Stu Approved!).
There is a time and place in certain films for technology. "Pirate Radio" could have aired in black-and-white with mono audio and I wouldn't have cared - it was a pure story film about a social revolution set in a ship at sea, 3D would distract from the characters telling their story. The story was the drama, not the way you saw the characters living out the story. Actually, there are characters in "Pirate Radio" I'd pay extra NOT to see in 3D.;)
"The Day After Tomorrow" needs lots of technology, because the movie is nothing but special effects. There was nothing realistic about it, so you need to wow the audience with the best special effects ever, or the movie's a total flop. You use whatever is newest at the time, highlight it, wrap a thin crappy story to hold the effects together, and hope the effects sell enough asses in seats. And it's all good, that's what you are selling. The whole movie was dramatic/climactic.
There are places in certain "good story enhanced by effects" movies like "2001" where 3D would fit in quite nicely. I wouldn't film the whole movie in deep-aspect 3D, but I would most certainly make certain memorable scenes "pop out" when I needed to show depth. Just like I might increase the volume or add some dramatic music or sound effect, brighten or darken the scene a bit, jiggle the camera, do some multi-angle cut scene work, or (in the case of JJ Abrams) introduce some lens flare.
Like all technologies, it's how you apply it. If you want to use an effect, you use it as a tool, not a bludgeon. A really cool effect might be used a couple of times in a movie, not continuously.
I think the same could be said for iMax and OmniMax. There's a market for them, but it's a niche market. I love watching movies made for OmniMax when I go down to Boston, but it's not my regular movie-going experience.
In many ways, the *Max formats suffer from the same things 3D do. It's impossible to fill the screen with in-focus resolvable video because of lens distortion, so the edges of the screen are a little blurry, but they are sufficient to feed most of your peripheral vision with the image. It's more immersive than a rectangular screen, but once the story really starts you find it's not really adding to the scope of the story.
However, you forget "effects films". Most of those carry a story so you aren't bored to tears waiting between special effects. "Twister", "2012", "The Day After Tomorrow", none of these movies were meant to tell anything approaching a realistic or even acceptable-quality story. The dialogue was there to explain when the next special effect was coming up, and what form it might take. You don't go to immerse yourself in a story, you go to watch the effects. And I think well-executed 3D could really shine for those types of "razzle-dazzle" films. All form, no substance. And I love them for just that reason.
Anything that tells a story, don't bother with 3D. Don't bother with stereo. I prefer color, but don't really care that much if the story is really good and well-executed. I just want to be told a good story with good acting and enough effects to support the storyline.
Most films that come out in the mainstream theater are not story films. They'll do fine in 3D.
For home, I agree. I have a cheap 4.1 computer speaker system with a sub, but I tend to play it in stereo and my speakers are separated by about 6 feet, so I don't get a great deal of stereo effect. I wouldn't miss stereo if I had to set the system up in mono (and frankly for the most part don't miss the stereo audio when I watch older mono shows).
However...
When I go to a theater, my $10+ needs to include some money spent to set up the audio system with something approaching competence. That's why I go to the theater. They have a ginormous screen with good clarity and a properly-equipped sound system.
The theater is for movies I really want to see in full-on glory and be deafened by. They have equipment I'm not about to buy at home. For home, I have a 24" monitor on my computer and a set of 4 3" speakers and a small sub.
That's why effects films do well at the theater. When that cow went by in "Twister", you could hear the "Moooooo..." drift by at the same time, perfectly in sync with the video. The movie itself sucked big time, but it was a sufficient vehicle to carry well-executed, usually ridiculously improbable special effects, which includes audio.
I'd never, ever bother watching "Twister" at home. I don't have the equipment to take advantage of the one thing the film does have.
But if I went to a theater to watch it, and all they had was a mono speaker setup, I'd never set foot in that theater to watch an effects film ever again. And that's all I go to mainstream theaters to see. "Story films" like "Pirate Radio" are best watched at the local artsy-fartsy theater that I love dearly, or at home. The equipment (and prices!) at the mainstream theater are severe overkill for a story film.
No, my point was that if you had had a pool there at one point, and you didn't have approval, the picture is still valid.
No, Google Earth isn't going to catch a pool you built last year. But it's a damned sight cheaper than sending inspectors out to every house, and it's obviously caught enough of them to be worthwhile.
I'm also carrying a Blackberry (older Curve 83xx series) for work, and just about anything newer (especially if it had 3G, dear God EDGE is slow up here in the hinterlands!) would be preferable. But, having said that, would I choose another Blackberry for personal use?
Maybe.
I have little experience with any other phone, so I don't have much of a position from which to judge. I have an iPod Touch and typing on it is an exercise in living, screaming hell, so for that and several other reasons the iPhone is pretty much out. Big meaty paws, and a touchscreen like the iPod's do not mix. Resistive screens work OK for me (my wife's Nokia 5800 is pretty OK, but I can use a stylus for the fiddly bits on that one), but I really like an actual keyboard if I'm going to type a lot. I might not type as much on a "personal" phone as I do on my "business" one though.
I'd love a larger screen, but I've come to appreciate the advantages of a real keyboard, so all in all I wouldn't give up a hard keyboard to get a larger screen. I don't really like the idea of flip-out or slide-out phones because of the additional moving parts (I tend to break things with moving parts), but I'd probably consider something like that if the build quality was really, really good.
I know my Blackberry Curve has taken some significant abuse in the two years I've owned it, and has performed like a champ. There are very few reports of problems that I've heard in the 150 or so Blackberries (mixture of 88xx, 83xx Curves, and 81xx Pearls) we run here at the office. So the build quality is top notch, and the no-moving-parts form factor probably helps a lot. After two years, I still get more than a day of solid use on the original battery, and I like being able to charge it everywhere a standard mini-USB cable is available.
I don't like the "application memory" versus "storage memory" scheme of the Blackberry at all. Of course, my Curve only has 32MB of "application memory" so I have to be extremely careful how many applications I have installed, so it's a constant hassle for me. I suppose the newer ones with 512MB of app memory overcome that to a great extent, but I'd rather just have a shared memory pool (I'm sure that's tricky, though, for devices that can take removable memory, and I'd want to be able to add memory or have it come with a very large amount to start with).
I'd probably have to try out an Android, and the decision would most likely be Android versus Blackberry. I run Linux at home, so I like the idea of running Linux on my cell as well. But BlackberryOS has served me very well over the last couple of years, despite its shortcomings.
But I do carry it for work, so I'll probably be forced into another Blackberry if we ever do a hardware refresh. And as long as it performs as well as my Curve does (maybe a little quicker with a better camera and 3G), I'll probably be very happy with it.
I'm confused. You had a pool which means, presumably, the pool was built at some point. You didn't have a permit when you built the pool. How is it even relevant to the discussion that the pool no longer exists? If you didn't have a valid permit for that pool effective the date the photo was taken, how exactly did you not violate your local ordinances (assuming the pool was built during a time that permits were required, of course)?
Call your zoning board and plead your case. Maybe they'll let you off since the pool doesn't exist any more. Maybe not. "I put it back" isn't a defense for theft any more than "I took down the structure" is an excuse for building a structure without a permit. But sometimes you can get an exception if you're nice about it.
Once you pay your fine for building a pool without a permit (or contest that under other grounds if they apply - for example if the pool was there when you purchased the house, or if it was built before permits were necessary, etc), you can then call the local zoning board and tell them that the pool has already been removed, and ask them to send someone to verify it so it can be removed from your tax basis and property description.
Then, next time you build something, you might want to look up your local building codes. Permitting is usually pretty cheap (invariably cheaper than the fines if you get caught), and it gives you an extra set of eyeballs that makes sure that what you are doing is relatively safe. It's not a perfect system, and sometimes you run into inspectors who are dickheads about irrelevant details, or miss important safety issues, but it's not a perfect world. If you don't like it, start a petition to have your local permitting system changed.
As far as a standard tool, if photographs can't be used as a standard tool to find something, we're really in trouble. I suppose, in your case, you could try to deny the pool ever existed and (if the image was low-resolution enough) get away with saying it was a tarp or large puddle or something. But if it's high-res photography and it's obvious that a pool was there, then your only hope is to claim that the photograph is in error (and Google isn't known for too many aerial photography errors).
Ah, apologies, I thought you were referring to peripherals.
For a base system for consumer use, I'd recommend buying from someone who builds a machine with Linux. Sadly, they are few and far between.
Of course, if you know a Linux geek, many of us will happily help you select one, or even build one for you for the cost of parts plus maybe a couple of six-packs of something nice.;)
Setting aside operating system choice for a moment...
The really important part is, if you buy a Windows machine from a store and it doesn't come with a recovery disc, make one using the included tools immediately if not sooner and put that disc in a really safe place. If the tool allows you to make more than one copy, make three and store them in separate safe places.
With Linux, you can always download the latest distro and install it (provided you have another working computer, of course! - if not, make sure you have install media for Linux handy just in case).
With Windows, in many cases, the only reinstall option is the disc the manufacturer provides (many license keys on the little holo-sticker won't validate on standard Windows CD/DVD sets). If you lose that disc, you are at the mercy of that manufacturer to provide you with a disc that works with their machines.
I've encountered a half-dozen OEM machines that needed a reload (HP in particular), and my standard Win discs don't recognize the code printed on the little sticker on the case as being valid. Fortunately, those were all dumpster-diver specials that were rebuilt for people who just needed a computer for email, web, etc. So I installed the latest Ubuntu on it and showed them the software repository, and they'll be in computer hog heaven for a long time without having to buy any more software.
So, yes, I agree with you in principle - if the vendor provides a license key that can be used with a standard Win disc, chances are most semi-experienced people would want to use the standard Win disc and not the bloatware garbage with preinstalled ancient drivers that the manufacturers provide.
But many manufacturers don't, and given the cost of the disc I think on balance I'd rather have a disc that can install SOMETHING to the machine rather than no ability to load Windows on the machine at all, for those people who need Windows (and have paid for a license for same in their computer's purchase price).
Everything has a price. If I fail to do my research and get a bit of hardware that doesn't work with Linux Mint, I've got one piece of hardware that needs to be returned and replaced with something my operating system does support. It'd be nice if all vendors published their specs so the F/OSS folks could write device drivers, but WinPrinters and other Windows-specific devices exist, and anyone wanting to use Linux needs to educate themselves about that and look up their intended purchases on one of the many pages that list out what hardware will (and will not) work well.
When I compare this to the chance that my hard drive is going to go south and I have to pay someone to get a specialized disc replace the operating system that came with my computer, I think the occasional purchase of some hardware that turns out to be incompatible is pretty trivial. The critical bit for me is that I always want to have a legitimate copy of an operating system on all of my computers that no one can ever tell me is illegitimate. The license key printed on the case of a prebuilt is basically useless, and if your hard drive goes away and you haven't made the recovery CD (or it's damaged due to storage, home-burned discs don't last as long as professional ones) you have to pay someone again for the license or pirate it. I don't like that, so I'm careful to choose parts that are Linux-compatible (and I did that even when I ran Windows, because being able to boot to Linux-based recovery tools has saved my bacon more than once).
It may, on rare occasion, cost a bit more, but I tend to get better hardware as a result. I figure I've saved enough on my operating system that I can afford to buy slightly more expensive hardware (though this is rarely necessary), and have a few bucks left over to donate to my favorite distro.
But that's me and my priorities. Your mileage may vary, and obviously does.
I'm just grateful that we both have good alternatives to choose from, and that compatibility has reached the point where neither of us is "locked in" to our choice forever.
The 29 hours that the opera lasts is about the time it takes to debug a system and get it working again once you've infected your system with Flash Player.
Somewhere amongst all the commas I think this post starts out with something I agree with. I'm just not sure about the end. My mind stack-overflowed when I saw the transition to nuclear weapons.
Obviously they did find a market for it, albeit a small one, since there's a plant in Kentucky that manufactures it. I think the point is that the market for it is about to expand significantly.
Why didn't cell phone makers use it before? Simple - regular chemically-enhanced soda-lime glass is cheaper, and manufacturers used bezels to protect the edges, so it worked fine. The cost of LCDs was already high, so I doubt manufacturers felt much need to add sexy by dropping the bezel, given that many people were impressed enough with the concept of it being flat and lightweight compared to their CRT. And the cell market has, until recently, been mostly comprised of low-end feature phones that cell carriers can give away for free. Now people tend to want smart phones, and they have to look good, and they'll drop hundreds of dollars AND commit to a 3-year contract to get the latest shiny. So a few extra bucks to make 'em a little shinier will move more units, more quickly.
Now everyone wants to go exposed-edge because bezels are apparently now the work of the devil (his other name is Bezelbub, dont'cha know), I heard it from Pope Steve so it must be true! So it's worth spending the extra on Gorilla Glass so they don't have users complaining that their cell phones shatter when gripped and cause shards of glass to fly out of the remains of the screen and slice their jugulars wide open, which might interrupt their call when the conductive blood touches the antenna. If you think sweaty hands are bad, wait until you see the signal drop from blood-covered hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Now compare this versus the families that sit and read together quietly and put books back that they aren't going to buy.
I think you'll find that many of the families that do this are going to go to the library (if they're lucky to have a good one), or a small local bookstore where they know the owner (if they are lucky enough to have one left nearby).
B&N is (admittedly) very good about allowing people to peruse the works without pressure, but I've always felt somehow bad about reading a brand-new book that's for sale with my daughter then putting it back on the shelf, especially if it gets dropped or scuffed in the process. Plus there's no pressure to spend money at the library, they have a gigantic selection of kid's books and if my daughter wants to take one home we take it home and enjoy it for a couple of weeks (separating the concepts of book enjoyment and owning stuff), and I don't have to run the gauntlet of shiny plastic crap at the registers and convince my daughter we don't need to buy everything in the store. I don't like mixing love of reading with desire to buy stuff. I think there's enough commercialism out there as it is, and I avoid it where I can.
Those books my daughter wants to check out a LOT get purchased and added to our home library, so we're not hogging the library copy. But that used to be a visit to the local bookstore because the owner was nice (but B&N put them out of business a few years ago) and is now an Amazon purchase because so little of the money that goes into B&N stays local, I'd rather spend less and donate the remainder to my library along with a few weekends a year helping out at their book sales and other fundraisers, which I think is important because my daughter sees a whole community formed around a pure love for reading, not around making a profit from it.
B&N fills a niche that, to me, no longer needs filling and really never did. My beloved local bookstore, for which I was willing to pay a premium, is long gone and isn't coming back. I gave B&N an honest try, but frankly I was unimpressed. It was cheaper than my bookstore, but more expensive than Amazon and no more personal. Everything I can get at B&N, I can get cheaper from Amazon without leaving the house and running the cheap-shit impulse plastic-crap gauntlet at the registers. Everything I want to look at first, I can get from my local library, and in many cases enjoy it without ever having to buy it.
B&N is just a high-priced instant-gratification Amazon with impulse crap near the registers. I honestly see very little value in its existence.
ironical
I don't have mod points. If I did, it would be a tough choice between "+1 Funny" and "-666 May You Burn In the Flames Of Hell For Using That Word".
But, I've slowly come to accept "irregardless", "nucular", and the various misuses of "its/it's" and "they're/their" as just a sign of language degeneration in general, and not a specific statement as to the intelligence of the speaker, so maybe my Grammar Nazi-ism is settling down in my old age.
You can still get off my lawn. But I'll ask nicely and say "please". :)
Then again, July not.
"Hey, why's it called the eyePhone anyway?"
"I'll explain after I install it."
(loud scream)... "Cool..."
I used to play "Descent" and its sequels a lot. Funny thing was, I was unaware of how much I was moving around trying to accept the "zero-gravity 3D" environment that "Descent" used. My wife, on the other hand, was invariably amused at how much I'd move around playing that game.
My point is that you probably aren't exactly sitting still playing the games you are today anyway. In fact, many people are probably moving their heads unconsciously in much the same manner as they would to control a game like this, while incurring wrist injury trying to control the game using an unnatural movement.
"Half Life" would be awesome standing up with head-movement detection to handle perspective, foot-motion detection to handle moving around, and a WiiMote-type thingie strapped to your right wrist to aim and fire the gun or swing the crowbar. You'd get one hell of a workout too.
If "2001" was re-executed and re-filmed for 3D, stayed true to the story of the original, and the 3D technology worked well and wasn't overused, it probably would be incredibly immersive.
Actually, the specific portions of each of the movies you mentioned would probably be enhanced by 3D. The trick with 3D is to make it express the bits of the story you want to express, then get the hell out of the way when you are into non-visual story bits ("shallow out" the 3D when you don't need to enhance perspective). HAL's red dot would not do well in 3D. Nor would the scene where HAL was lipreading Bowman in the pod. Those are "story/background" scenes. The scene where Bowman was shutting HAL down would be awesome in 3D, because you want that scene to stand out (it's a "dramatic/climactic" scene).
That's not to say that the filmmakers who made those films at the time didn't do brilliant things with the technologies that were available to them. They most certainly did. And it is absolutely possible (and all too easy) to overdo any special effect in any technology (I refer you to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and the insufferably long "LSD Flashy Disco Hallway - In SPACE!" scenes, Disco Stu Approved!).
There is a time and place in certain films for technology. "Pirate Radio" could have aired in black-and-white with mono audio and I wouldn't have cared - it was a pure story film about a social revolution set in a ship at sea, 3D would distract from the characters telling their story. The story was the drama, not the way you saw the characters living out the story. Actually, there are characters in "Pirate Radio" I'd pay extra NOT to see in 3D. ;)
"The Day After Tomorrow" needs lots of technology, because the movie is nothing but special effects. There was nothing realistic about it, so you need to wow the audience with the best special effects ever, or the movie's a total flop. You use whatever is newest at the time, highlight it, wrap a thin crappy story to hold the effects together, and hope the effects sell enough asses in seats. And it's all good, that's what you are selling. The whole movie was dramatic/climactic.
There are places in certain "good story enhanced by effects" movies like "2001" where 3D would fit in quite nicely. I wouldn't film the whole movie in deep-aspect 3D, but I would most certainly make certain memorable scenes "pop out" when I needed to show depth. Just like I might increase the volume or add some dramatic music or sound effect, brighten or darken the scene a bit, jiggle the camera, do some multi-angle cut scene work, or (in the case of JJ Abrams) introduce some lens flare.
Like all technologies, it's how you apply it. If you want to use an effect, you use it as a tool, not a bludgeon. A really cool effect might be used a couple of times in a movie, not continuously.
I think the same could be said for iMax and OmniMax. There's a market for them, but it's a niche market. I love watching movies made for OmniMax when I go down to Boston, but it's not my regular movie-going experience.
In many ways, the *Max formats suffer from the same things 3D do. It's impossible to fill the screen with in-focus resolvable video because of lens distortion, so the edges of the screen are a little blurry, but they are sufficient to feed most of your peripheral vision with the image. It's more immersive than a rectangular screen, but once the story really starts you find it's not really adding to the scope of the story.
However, you forget "effects films". Most of those carry a story so you aren't bored to tears waiting between special effects. "Twister", "2012", "The Day After Tomorrow", none of these movies were meant to tell anything approaching a realistic or even acceptable-quality story. The dialogue was there to explain when the next special effect was coming up, and what form it might take. You don't go to immerse yourself in a story, you go to watch the effects. And I think well-executed 3D could really shine for those types of "razzle-dazzle" films. All form, no substance. And I love them for just that reason.
Anything that tells a story, don't bother with 3D. Don't bother with stereo. I prefer color, but don't really care that much if the story is really good and well-executed. I just want to be told a good story with good acting and enough effects to support the storyline.
Most films that come out in the mainstream theater are not story films. They'll do fine in 3D.
For home, I agree. I have a cheap 4.1 computer speaker system with a sub, but I tend to play it in stereo and my speakers are separated by about 6 feet, so I don't get a great deal of stereo effect. I wouldn't miss stereo if I had to set the system up in mono (and frankly for the most part don't miss the stereo audio when I watch older mono shows).
However...
When I go to a theater, my $10+ needs to include some money spent to set up the audio system with something approaching competence. That's why I go to the theater. They have a ginormous screen with good clarity and a properly-equipped sound system.
The theater is for movies I really want to see in full-on glory and be deafened by. They have equipment I'm not about to buy at home. For home, I have a 24" monitor on my computer and a set of 4 3" speakers and a small sub.
That's why effects films do well at the theater. When that cow went by in "Twister", you could hear the "Moooooo..." drift by at the same time, perfectly in sync with the video. The movie itself sucked big time, but it was a sufficient vehicle to carry well-executed, usually ridiculously improbable special effects, which includes audio.
I'd never, ever bother watching "Twister" at home. I don't have the equipment to take advantage of the one thing the film does have.
But if I went to a theater to watch it, and all they had was a mono speaker setup, I'd never set foot in that theater to watch an effects film ever again. And that's all I go to mainstream theaters to see. "Story films" like "Pirate Radio" are best watched at the local artsy-fartsy theater that I love dearly, or at home. The equipment (and prices!) at the mainstream theater are severe overkill for a story film.
My wife showed me an ad for that in one of the magazines she reads. Ugh.
Remember, Hollyweird, every time you make a 3D movie, Jeebus kills a kitteh.
No, my point was that if you had had a pool there at one point, and you didn't have approval, the picture is still valid.
No, Google Earth isn't going to catch a pool you built last year. But it's a damned sight cheaper than sending inspectors out to every house, and it's obviously caught enough of them to be worthwhile.
Let's just hope they don't have any battery overheating problems, or the "Torch" name will turn into a bad pun really, REALLY fast.
Once you have a smart phone, they are damned hard to give up, aren't they?
I'm also carrying a Blackberry (older Curve 83xx series) for work, and just about anything newer (especially if it had 3G, dear God EDGE is slow up here in the hinterlands!) would be preferable. But, having said that, would I choose another Blackberry for personal use?
Maybe.
I have little experience with any other phone, so I don't have much of a position from which to judge. I have an iPod Touch and typing on it is an exercise in living, screaming hell, so for that and several other reasons the iPhone is pretty much out. Big meaty paws, and a touchscreen like the iPod's do not mix. Resistive screens work OK for me (my wife's Nokia 5800 is pretty OK, but I can use a stylus for the fiddly bits on that one), but I really like an actual keyboard if I'm going to type a lot. I might not type as much on a "personal" phone as I do on my "business" one though.
I'd love a larger screen, but I've come to appreciate the advantages of a real keyboard, so all in all I wouldn't give up a hard keyboard to get a larger screen. I don't really like the idea of flip-out or slide-out phones because of the additional moving parts (I tend to break things with moving parts), but I'd probably consider something like that if the build quality was really, really good.
I know my Blackberry Curve has taken some significant abuse in the two years I've owned it, and has performed like a champ. There are very few reports of problems that I've heard in the 150 or so Blackberries (mixture of 88xx, 83xx Curves, and 81xx Pearls) we run here at the office. So the build quality is top notch, and the no-moving-parts form factor probably helps a lot. After two years, I still get more than a day of solid use on the original battery, and I like being able to charge it everywhere a standard mini-USB cable is available.
I don't like the "application memory" versus "storage memory" scheme of the Blackberry at all. Of course, my Curve only has 32MB of "application memory" so I have to be extremely careful how many applications I have installed, so it's a constant hassle for me. I suppose the newer ones with 512MB of app memory overcome that to a great extent, but I'd rather just have a shared memory pool (I'm sure that's tricky, though, for devices that can take removable memory, and I'd want to be able to add memory or have it come with a very large amount to start with).
I'd probably have to try out an Android, and the decision would most likely be Android versus Blackberry. I run Linux at home, so I like the idea of running Linux on my cell as well. But BlackberryOS has served me very well over the last couple of years, despite its shortcomings.
But I do carry it for work, so I'll probably be forced into another Blackberry if we ever do a hardware refresh. And as long as it performs as well as my Curve does (maybe a little quicker with a better camera and 3G), I'll probably be very happy with it.
I'm confused. You had a pool which means, presumably, the pool was built at some point. You didn't have a permit when you built the pool. How is it even relevant to the discussion that the pool no longer exists? If you didn't have a valid permit for that pool effective the date the photo was taken, how exactly did you not violate your local ordinances (assuming the pool was built during a time that permits were required, of course)?
Call your zoning board and plead your case. Maybe they'll let you off since the pool doesn't exist any more. Maybe not. "I put it back" isn't a defense for theft any more than "I took down the structure" is an excuse for building a structure without a permit. But sometimes you can get an exception if you're nice about it.
Once you pay your fine for building a pool without a permit (or contest that under other grounds if they apply - for example if the pool was there when you purchased the house, or if it was built before permits were necessary, etc), you can then call the local zoning board and tell them that the pool has already been removed, and ask them to send someone to verify it so it can be removed from your tax basis and property description.
Then, next time you build something, you might want to look up your local building codes. Permitting is usually pretty cheap (invariably cheaper than the fines if you get caught), and it gives you an extra set of eyeballs that makes sure that what you are doing is relatively safe. It's not a perfect system, and sometimes you run into inspectors who are dickheads about irrelevant details, or miss important safety issues, but it's not a perfect world. If you don't like it, start a petition to have your local permitting system changed.
As far as a standard tool, if photographs can't be used as a standard tool to find something, we're really in trouble. I suppose, in your case, you could try to deny the pool ever existed and (if the image was low-resolution enough) get away with saying it was a tarp or large puddle or something. But if it's high-res photography and it's obvious that a pool was there, then your only hope is to claim that the photograph is in error (and Google isn't known for too many aerial photography errors).
But what happens when it exceeds 100%? That's what I want to know.
Guess we'll find out a few minutes past just over 8 years from now.
Ah, apologies, I thought you were referring to peripherals.
For a base system for consumer use, I'd recommend buying from someone who builds a machine with Linux. Sadly, they are few and far between.
Of course, if you know a Linux geek, many of us will happily help you select one, or even build one for you for the cost of parts plus maybe a couple of six-packs of something nice. ;)
Setting aside operating system choice for a moment...
The really important part is, if you buy a Windows machine from a store and it doesn't come with a recovery disc, make one using the included tools immediately if not sooner and put that disc in a really safe place. If the tool allows you to make more than one copy, make three and store them in separate safe places.
With Linux, you can always download the latest distro and install it (provided you have another working computer, of course! - if not, make sure you have install media for Linux handy just in case).
With Windows, in many cases, the only reinstall option is the disc the manufacturer provides (many license keys on the little holo-sticker won't validate on standard Windows CD/DVD sets). If you lose that disc, you are at the mercy of that manufacturer to provide you with a disc that works with their machines.
I've encountered a half-dozen OEM machines that needed a reload (HP in particular), and my standard Win discs don't recognize the code printed on the little sticker on the case as being valid. Fortunately, those were all dumpster-diver specials that were rebuilt for people who just needed a computer for email, web, etc. So I installed the latest Ubuntu on it and showed them the software repository, and they'll be in computer hog heaven for a long time without having to buy any more software.
So, yes, I agree with you in principle - if the vendor provides a license key that can be used with a standard Win disc, chances are most semi-experienced people would want to use the standard Win disc and not the bloatware garbage with preinstalled ancient drivers that the manufacturers provide.
But many manufacturers don't, and given the cost of the disc I think on balance I'd rather have a disc that can install SOMETHING to the machine rather than no ability to load Windows on the machine at all, for those people who need Windows (and have paid for a license for same in their computer's purchase price).
So what do you do when you experience a hardware failure? Are you one of the lucky ones that have never experienced one?
Do you run Linux and just have no interest in being able to recover Windows, or do you just replace the whole computer if something goes wrong?
Excellent point.
Everything has a price. If I fail to do my research and get a bit of hardware that doesn't work with Linux Mint, I've got one piece of hardware that needs to be returned and replaced with something my operating system does support. It'd be nice if all vendors published their specs so the F/OSS folks could write device drivers, but WinPrinters and other Windows-specific devices exist, and anyone wanting to use Linux needs to educate themselves about that and look up their intended purchases on one of the many pages that list out what hardware will (and will not) work well.
When I compare this to the chance that my hard drive is going to go south and I have to pay someone to get a specialized disc replace the operating system that came with my computer, I think the occasional purchase of some hardware that turns out to be incompatible is pretty trivial. The critical bit for me is that I always want to have a legitimate copy of an operating system on all of my computers that no one can ever tell me is illegitimate. The license key printed on the case of a prebuilt is basically useless, and if your hard drive goes away and you haven't made the recovery CD (or it's damaged due to storage, home-burned discs don't last as long as professional ones) you have to pay someone again for the license or pirate it. I don't like that, so I'm careful to choose parts that are Linux-compatible (and I did that even when I ran Windows, because being able to boot to Linux-based recovery tools has saved my bacon more than once).
It may, on rare occasion, cost a bit more, but I tend to get better hardware as a result. I figure I've saved enough on my operating system that I can afford to buy slightly more expensive hardware (though this is rarely necessary), and have a few bucks left over to donate to my favorite distro.
But that's me and my priorities. Your mileage may vary, and obviously does.
I'm just grateful that we both have good alternatives to choose from, and that compatibility has reached the point where neither of us is "locked in" to our choice forever.
That was a typo, what they meant was "lichtweight".
Reference for "Licht": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licht
The 29 hours that the opera lasts is about the time it takes to debug a system and get it working again once you've infected your system with Flash Player.
Somewhere amongst all the commas I think this post starts out with something I agree with. I'm just not sure about the end. My mind stack-overflowed when I saw the transition to nuclear weapons.
You mean we could have had extra-slow-motion 3D TV 60 years ago? Damn...
Obviously they did find a market for it, albeit a small one, since there's a plant in Kentucky that manufactures it. I think the point is that the market for it is about to expand significantly.
Why didn't cell phone makers use it before? Simple - regular chemically-enhanced soda-lime glass is cheaper, and manufacturers used bezels to protect the edges, so it worked fine. The cost of LCDs was already high, so I doubt manufacturers felt much need to add sexy by dropping the bezel, given that many people were impressed enough with the concept of it being flat and lightweight compared to their CRT. And the cell market has, until recently, been mostly comprised of low-end feature phones that cell carriers can give away for free. Now people tend to want smart phones, and they have to look good, and they'll drop hundreds of dollars AND commit to a 3-year contract to get the latest shiny. So a few extra bucks to make 'em a little shinier will move more units, more quickly.
Now everyone wants to go exposed-edge because bezels are apparently now the work of the devil (his other name is Bezelbub, dont'cha know), I heard it from Pope Steve so it must be true! So it's worth spending the extra on Gorilla Glass so they don't have users complaining that their cell phones shatter when gripped and cause shards of glass to fly out of the remains of the screen and slice their jugulars wide open, which might interrupt their call when the conductive blood touches the antenna. If you think sweaty hands are bad, wait until you see the signal drop from blood-covered hands.
Meta-satire on satire?
Oh, shit, now I've done it.
What is the US exist strategy for Germany?
We've decided to allow it.