Haha. Good point. The actual crime doesn't create the jobs, it is the need for security that does.
The broken window theory is Bastiat's most memorable, but I take it a step beyond what he looked into. Why was the window there in the first place, and why did the baker want to buy a suit instead of more materials to sell?
I couldn't RTFA from my PDA. Are there private companies working on machines to try to capture these items? I'm sure it would be too expensive to ship back down to earth, but I wouldn't doubt that the raw materials might be worthy in a future moon or mars base.
It sounds like there might be some very valuable materials already in orbit, considering the cost to take up new materials on a launch. I'd love to see "the race to space" be over a bunch of competitive companies working to reclaim and reuse the junk.
Actually, if a client wants the utmost security, we'll make sure they pay a high price and that they understand that they'll be removed from the maintenance and monitoring side of things.
I've worked with broker dealers and large brokerage firms, too, to look at security of their in-house guys. Some of these firms are extremely secure, others are open like you wouldn't believe. I make my guarantees based on what the customer expects -- and what damage the customer has shown they are capable of producing themselves.
Our promise to our customers is to fix it and it won't happen again.
If it happens again, we fix it without charging them. How is that untrustworthy?
Or, you can ask the cops to sit in front of your house and make sure you don't get robbed. I'd rather pay a private security firm to handle my security, thank you very much.
Prevention is better than trying to get someone busted for a previous crime because you didn't take the steps necessary to protect your assets.
I believe the FBI is correct, but I also believe that one should lock the door to their houses, offer potential robbers the thought that the family might be armed, get a decent alarm and security company and insure their belongings for the maximum amount.
My IT business makes about 40% of its income dealing with security issues. We have to turn new business away usually, as most new customers that we go visit are so insecure it isn't even funny. With insecurity comes more than just data theft but spyware and viruses and the rest, as we all know. It amazes me how many companies leave their homes unlocked, the lights on, the alarm off, and a big sign on the front steps saying "Come and get it!"
The solution to computer crime isn't using the FBI -- I'd like to turn their offices off and throw out the key. The solution to computer crime is:
1. Developing a good infrastructure and upgrade cycle 2. Commit to teaching users proper ways to set up their data and desktops 3. Purchasing security sofware and services from companies that do the best job finding the holes and plugging them.
Is the law useful? Not one bit. Most companies aren't going to bother suing civilly for damages, and no one wants to bother calling the cops. The chalk line around your stolen data isn't very useful. Get a good consultant, pay them well, and make them back it up with guarantees. Problem solved.
This is NOT constitutionally sound. Some "defenders" of the current view on the constitution want to believe that this has to do with the commerce clause in what many believe was to give the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce.
The commerce clause was meant to keep trade flowing freely -- regulation was needed to make sure that no state hindered trade by enacting embargoes or tariffs against other states or countries, destroying the citizens freedom to trade openly.
"The commerce clause would forever be used to protect the liberty of every American to trade in an unhindered way." James Madison
Secondly, I've been discriminated against more than once. It has never hurt me or affected me -- the business didn't like my race. I found other work instantly.
Once the Internet hit its momentum, I have to turn work away -- every week.
I believe that racism is a stupid but voluntary act of association. I really hate laws "protecting against" racism -- they don't help minorities, and I believe they hurt "us."
In every market, thanks to the Internet, jobs are always available. If 1 business doesn't want you, another will. The racist business will likely be less profitable if they care about race rather than performance.
As a business owner (multiple) I have the law against discrimination -- it scares me and it limits me.
I have to think twice on whoever I hire as I've seen customers of mine get sued for discrimination (when none was there). It is my business, I should be free to associate with whomever i want to. Note that I've hired every race (and even a transexual once), I just think twice when it comes to certain stereotypes that I've seen a high ratio of lawsuits from with other businesses I work with.
As for copyright, an artist's work is his property. You don't have the right to distribute it any more than you have the right to take something out of a store without paying for it. When you do redistribute it without his permission, you lower the monetary value of the work, which is taking something from him.
I've had this debate on slashdot nearly every week for a year. I'm taking steps to prove it wrong.
Art has zero value -- marketing and working to sell the art is where the value is. I'm investing nearly 6 figure of my own money into No Copyright Studios in Chicago this year. We'll see if we can prove my theory right. Copyright decreases your value as an artist, but it increases the distribution cartel's profit.
I prefer to spend my own money on cheap and good health care than spend MORE money in forced theft ("taxation") for subpar service.
Universal health care is a crock and it is the financial equivalent of rape compared to consensual sex. The poor had great health care in the 50s and 60s in the US because of the free market. Now no one can afford health care because of government mandates and regulations.
Re:Phone number replacement needed
on
Supermarket VOIP
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I thought of this years ago -- why not just start up a new domain flag like the MX and call it the VO or something. DNS can support it easily.
In the long run, we can figure out a way to make a phone number address a domain name, I'm sure. We just need another DNS layer for reverse lookups, I guess.
Re:Problems with the VoIP sellers
on
Supermarket VOIP
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
just wish these companies would be required to be friendlier and unlock the hardware after the "contract" is up.
You want to pass a law to do this? Make it criminal because you don't want to read the contract and deny making the free market decision to walk away from a bad contract?
You sign one bad contract -- stupid you. You sign more than one -- you're the problem, not the other company. I don't sign any stock contracts anymore for anything, even my cell phone company accepted my changes to their contract -- I just had to deal with customer retention department to get the modifications accepted.
Cellphone companies do thew same crap. I had to threaten to sue AT&T wireless because they locked my personal phone to their service. I purchased an unlocked phone myself used their service and their scumbag service rep locked my phone. these companies really need to learn what customer service is and that the customer's property needs to be released to them at the end of thwe contract.
Lovely. You signed the contract. Don't buy the phone at a $100-$200 discount if you don't like the contract.
I can't believe you'd want the law to protect your plain irresponsibility in singing things before reading them.
Re:Phone number replacement needed
on
Supermarket VOIP
·
· Score: 1
This is pretty much a non-issue.
It seems like a non-issue, but I find that domain names are more bothersome than ever.
My old e-mail address, say A.Dada@GoingSomewhere.com, was easy 5 years ago. Then it became "Is that.com or.net?" As I traveled more, it became "Wait,.com or.co.uk?" and then it is "A.dada or adada? or is that a-dada?"
I switched to gmail specifically for spam filtering, but I found that I never have to repeat my e-mail address anymore (and saved me thousands of dollars a year in what I paid my employees to run all our servers).
For me, giving out the e-mail address is easy, but for whover took over my old domain names, I bet they'll be in the "repeat that again. once more" boat.
Re:Phone number replacement needed
on
Supermarket VOIP
·
· Score: 1
as many Slashdotter known, to ask a cute girl for her e-mail address in a bar.
And as a few recent slashdotters (who I sent my dating guide for geeks to in the past few weeks) know, the e-mail address is a loser's venture:)
I'm not single anymore, but I would find it funny to ask for a phone number and get a VoIP IP-address instead.
Phone number replacement needed
on
Supermarket VOIP
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'm a big fan of VoIP (I've moved many friends and family to various companies). I can't wait until there are more programs available to let me use my PDA-bluetooth-tether-cell combo (150kbps download nearly everywhere) to talk without the cell network. I believe T-Mobile will actually help transition their users to VoIP as they build a faster network (and make their money that way).
The big problem I have with VoIP is it still seems to rely on people wanting to contact POTS numbers. When will we see a replacement for the old phone number?
The e-mail address isn't a bad idea, but I honestly don't want to share that with some people. A new number isn't memorable. Names are too generic and duplicated (there are 3 Adam Dada's that I've found in the past 3 years).
What is the solution for the "Follow Me" signature that we can use as our VoIP contact? Is the future settings up 3 or 4 addresses so we can give friends, family and tele-marketters different numbers?
Re:Frequent Shopping Card @ Grocery Store
on
Myware and Spyware
·
· Score: 1
The difference is spyware that tries to hide itself, and myware which you opt-in on without some fraudulent click-through backdoor.
Honestly, I don't get spyware -- ever. Neither does almost anyone in my family except for my 14 year old sister who won't stop browsing stupidly. Of course, I just ghost her hard drive and reinstall it about once a month whenever I'm over there.
I'll accept trading my browsing habits with a reputable company. I run the Google Toolbar and would give them MORE of my information as I have so far not been screwed by Google. I wouldn't install software willy-nilly without knowing what I get in exchange for it.
Thanks to all who replied (and e-mailed). I actually have decent lenses and I think the pictures I blew up were of good quality. I'm going to look at some plugins for my RIP engine to see if any might help the quality of the print. I'll also look into some "analogizer" plugins to see if it might just be psychosomatic.
I also didn't realize how high resolution film grain can be -- it never occured to me that drumscanning a continuous-grain photo is MUCH higher res than delineated "pixels" of a CCD capture device. Duh.
Frequent Shopping Card @ Grocery Store
on
Myware and Spyware
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This reminds me of the frequent shopping card you can use at the grocery store. I don't have one of those (I actually just use one of my parent's phone numbers for the discounts).
I think I'd be happy to trade my browsing patterns in exchange for something. I already don't mind advertisements on websites that I like (and if they have ads that seem interesting to me, I will always not only click the ads but try to make a purchase if I like the product/price.). I don't mind cookies or any of that stuff. I know it is there, and I don't really care what they do with my "information" as I don't have anything to lose in the lifestyle I live.
I actually support these "invasios of privacy" as they help bring me a better browsing experience when people know what I am looking for and are out there supporting (through AdSense or direct advertising) the content creators I go to every day. I subscribe to/. but I still click links that interest me -- do you? I've made purchases through/. and told the advertiser it was because of slashdot that I found them and that I support them.
I don't support spyware though, unless I know I can get something out of it. I'd give up all my browsing experience in exchange for a little residual return -- maybe if I knew what ad clicks earned the site, or if I knew that I had an effect on what advertisers would offer me.
My big hope for AdSense this year is that Google goes beyond contextual targetting, but also finds a way for users to "vote" certain ads up and down based on their identity. I don't need to see some ads, but I'll be happy to support advertisers who know what I want and support the sites I visit.
Indeed. To cover a few replies to my initial comment, my thought is for Apple to basically develop the new version of their software (whatever it may be) and then pitch to have hardware people design their hardware for the software. Apple then finalizes the key hardware abstraction layer, and maximizes the price:performance for the package they'll sell.
They're not really going to sell the software only -- they'll still sell the package, but each new package could be a totally different configuration.
I guess it is more complicated than my initial thought was. I still want to see a company that makes a truly hardware abstract OS, though. Maybe we don't need an operating system as it standards today but a software layer that integrates with the hardware manufacturers developed hardware abstraction interface layers. Hmmm.
It is rare for AnarCaps and AnarchoSocis to agree, though. I seem to get beaten up the most by those who agree to decentralization.
I think the best society would likely be one where you have an AnarCap "town" next to an AnarcSoci co-op -- with people sneaking into the other side to take advantage of whatever system is in place.
I sort of see the Constitution offering that situation, but not as it's interpreted today!
It is odd to me that Apple leverages so much into specific processors rather than specific processes. It would seem to me that Apple really has a great interface -- and that is the product they want to sell. With their OS kernel being based on some *nix variety (BSD? I can't remember) I would guess that the processor itself is unimportant if their software and APIs are hardware transparent.
Here's the great thing about the market and letting it lead you (instead of the other way around) when you are an OS or software provider -- you can focus on writing good clean code, and follow up that code with the hardware that offers your code the absolute best package given the infinite choices.
Power management, heat creation, MIPS, FLOPS, BOPS, GHZ, THZ, MB, MBps, whatever the hardware does best, there's always a ratio to price. That's the great thing about the free market, though, competititors will always want to beat the other.
What is stopping Apple or another software company from offering the best darn interface for programmers and users to work with, and then find the processor to wrap the interface around? Is this Apple goal with Intel, possibly? Shake up IBM (and show smaller processor companies that they, too, have a chance) and create an operating system that must now work with 2 (or 10?) completely different processor subsystems? Is this Apple showing that they can get away from hardware entirely, and focus just on software?
I have the strong opinion that the word "rights" is being abused significantly by pretty much everyone inside and outside of industry. Rights to education, rights to health care, rights to fair use.
I'm not sure that the word "rights" should be used anymore, the meaning is lost.
To me, rights are something every person is born with -- inherent, God-given, natural, you call it what you want. I believe we are born as human, we have these rights -- American, Afghani, Zimbabwian. I believe the initial U.S. Constitution as very good about naming SOME of the rights that we're born with (no government can tell us what to say, which religion we practice if any, they can not search our body or our house without very specific details laid out to a public witness, they can't quarter troops in our homes, they can't make us testify against ourselves, etc, etc). These rights are the people's, all the people's, and they're not to be abridged by any government. These rights are also ours on our property to modify in respect to others (you have none of these freedoms when you are on my land).
The entire copyright issue is very complex for most people -- many loopholes and priviledges given to some but not others. I don't like unequal rules when they are put in the law. I especially don't like unequal rules that no one can understand with a lawyer. As some know here (and I really don't want to debate it on this forum), I am against copyright in every form -- I believe that once you have a physical item in your hands, you can do with that physical item what you want -- copy it, modify it, call it your own. The physical item is "protected" by inherent property rights as long as the original owner keeps it with him. It is like gold or diamonds. The minute they sell or barter away the physical item, it is now the new owner's item to do with as they please. PHYSICAL property can be protected, but intellectual property is thought, it is action, it is processing, updating and recreating.
Now we get to fair use. First, we the People give government the ability to lay down a monopoly rental to another person or corporation -- copyright. We let them control how we use a specific item, who we use it with, and what we can and can't do. This is a law, with force being used if we ignore it. Then we give "the People" the right to work around this rented monopoly, given some very peculiar reasoning. Copyright was intended to be useful for 7 years (which can be doubled) in order to further the arts -- it was not there to necessarily protect a profit or a demand complete control forever.
This is my big problem with "rights" today -- we can give them up and have to walk a very complicated path, but we also get some parts back in order to try to fix that complicated path but it just ends up being even more complicated.
If you won't agree with me that freedom is better than tyranny, how about you folks who love big government mandate a state-paid lawyer to follow around anyone who wants one, so we can live without the fear of jail or fines?
For years I was able to perform (and even sell) large prints. I even was one of the few Xerox Versatec electrostatic plotter owners for a few years, although now Inkjet has replaced my old beloved format.
The reason for the post is quality in large print (especially zoomed prints). Even with the 6.1-8.1 MP images I feed the large format printers I use, there is something "magic" about the drum scanned photos that come out of even my old Rebel SLR with stock kit lens.
I lost the analog war many times over (I still use my turntables) but I gave up on analog film with the purchase of my D50 this year. Every digital camera until then that I bought (even up to $800) was garbage, the D50 is a miracle in a small package. I wish I went a step higher but I had 10 digital duds sitting around the house so I was hesitant.
Last week I blew up my first digital picture and it was harse. I did some self cleanup and it was still "digital."
Is it possible that I'm facing a psychosomatic impression knowing that the original image was digital, or is there a definitive need for film capturing for large format prints? I can compare two very similar shots side by side on the large format print and the film print has more depth and more "clarity" (or is it acuity?).
I left the print business a LONG time ago, but I still do prints as I own the equipment. My biggest "customer" are wealthy folks from my IT business who want large prints of artwork or family junk -- and the digital pics so far just don't feel the same. Maybe they won't notice, or maybe it's just me.
That is some eerie art! Is your initial part of your last name really pronounced "Golem" by chance?
Very cool effects. When I read the snippet I figured this was going to be something like the old "Make an E-size scanner out of any hand scanner" fraud that was popular for a few years back in the old days (remember stitching manually on a Pentium 200, anyone?).
For some reason I can't believe this works. I figured the scanning element (CCD) needed an intense amount of light to properly "read" an image on the bed.
The fact that you use duct tape to get everything "light tight" put a good smile on my face, as well as the fact that you even got this working. If you're thinking of selling artwork, I'll be the first in line (the lady and I realized it's time for more photo-prints in the house). By the way, the image taken of the actual camera doesn't seem very high res. Was this by choice?
True. Yet if I can cut my living overhead down to US$3500/year including all property costs and utilities it is completely worth it. In a home with a mortgage my overhead was about US$28000 annually. Yes I received a little equity build up out of that.
Now, my overhead is under $7500 -- I did make a one-time purchase of $9000 though.
Getting rid of police and residual management fees would cut costs at lea t $2500 after paying for replacement costs, leaving mostly mandatory public daycare ("education") and other mandated fees for now.
I'm already US$20,000/year "richer" just moving 2.5 miles. That's almost 40 ounces of gold saved annually.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha. Good point. The actual crime doesn't create the jobs, it is the need for security that does.
The broken window theory is Bastiat's most memorable, but I take it a step beyond what he looked into. Why was the window there in the first place, and why did the baker want to buy a suit instead of more materials to sell?
I couldn't RTFA from my PDA. Are there private companies working on machines to try to capture these items? I'm sure it would be too expensive to ship back down to earth, but I wouldn't doubt that the raw materials might be worthy in a future moon or mars base.
It sounds like there might be some very valuable materials already in orbit, considering the cost to take up new materials on a launch. I'd love to see "the race to space" be over a bunch of competitive companies working to reclaim and reuse the junk.
Actually, if a client wants the utmost security, we'll make sure they pay a high price and that they understand that they'll be removed from the maintenance and monitoring side of things.
I've worked with broker dealers and large brokerage firms, too, to look at security of their in-house guys. Some of these firms are extremely secure, others are open like you wouldn't believe. I make my guarantees based on what the customer expects -- and what damage the customer has shown they are capable of producing themselves.
Our promise to our customers is to fix it and it won't happen again.
If it happens again, we fix it without charging them. How is that untrustworthy?
Or, you can ask the cops to sit in front of your house and make sure you don't get robbed. I'd rather pay a private security firm to handle my security, thank you very much.
Prevention is better than trying to get someone busted for a previous crime because you didn't take the steps necessary to protect your assets.
I believe the FBI is correct, but I also believe that one should lock the door to their houses, offer potential robbers the thought that the family might be armed, get a decent alarm and security company and insure their belongings for the maximum amount.
My IT business makes about 40% of its income dealing with security issues. We have to turn new business away usually, as most new customers that we go visit are so insecure it isn't even funny. With insecurity comes more than just data theft but spyware and viruses and the rest, as we all know. It amazes me how many companies leave their homes unlocked, the lights on, the alarm off, and a big sign on the front steps saying "Come and get it!"
The solution to computer crime isn't using the FBI -- I'd like to turn their offices off and throw out the key. The solution to computer crime is:
1. Developing a good infrastructure and upgrade cycle
2. Commit to teaching users proper ways to set up their data and desktops
3. Purchasing security sofware and services from companies that do the best job finding the holes and plugging them.
Is the law useful? Not one bit. Most companies aren't going to bother suing civilly for damages, and no one wants to bother calling the cops. The chalk line around your stolen data isn't very useful. Get a good consultant, pay them well, and make them back it up with guarantees. Problem solved.
This is NOT constitutionally sound. Some "defenders" of the current view on the constitution want to believe that this has to do with the commerce clause in what many believe was to give the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce.
The commerce clause was meant to keep trade flowing freely -- regulation was needed to make sure that no state hindered trade by enacting embargoes or tariffs against other states or countries, destroying the citizens freedom to trade openly.
"The commerce clause would forever be used to protect the liberty of every American to trade in an unhindered way." James Madison
The outer planet?
Reavers!!!
First, I'm biracial.
Secondly, I've been discriminated against more than once. It has never hurt me or affected me -- the business didn't like my race. I found other work instantly.
Once the Internet hit its momentum, I have to turn work away -- every week.
I believe that racism is a stupid but voluntary act of association. I really hate laws "protecting against" racism -- they don't help minorities, and I believe they hurt "us."
In every market, thanks to the Internet, jobs are always available. If 1 business doesn't want you, another will. The racist business will likely be less profitable if they care about race rather than performance.
As a business owner (multiple) I have the law against discrimination -- it scares me and it limits me.
I have to think twice on whoever I hire as I've seen customers of mine get sued for discrimination (when none was there). It is my business, I should be free to associate with whomever i want to. Note that I've hired every race (and even a transexual once), I just think twice when it comes to certain stereotypes that I've seen a high ratio of lawsuits from with other businesses I work with.
As for copyright, an artist's work is his property. You don't have the right to distribute it any more than you have the right to take something out of a store without paying for it. When you do redistribute it without his permission, you lower the monetary value of the work, which is taking something from him.
I've had this debate on slashdot nearly every week for a year. I'm taking steps to prove it wrong.
Art has zero value -- marketing and working to sell the art is where the value is. I'm investing nearly 6 figure of my own money into No Copyright Studios in Chicago this year. We'll see if we can prove my theory right. Copyright decreases your value as an artist, but it increases the distribution cartel's profit.
I prefer to spend my own money on cheap and good health care than spend MORE money in forced theft ("taxation") for subpar service.
Universal health care is a crock and it is the financial equivalent of rape compared to consensual sex. The poor had great health care in the 50s and 60s in the US because of the free market. Now no one can afford health care because of government mandates and regulations.
Actually, I thought of this years ago -- why not just start up a new domain flag like the MX and call it the VO or something. DNS can support it easily.
In the long run, we can figure out a way to make a phone number address a domain name, I'm sure. We just need another DNS layer for reverse lookups, I guess.
just wish these companies would be required to be friendlier and unlock the hardware after the "contract" is up.
You want to pass a law to do this? Make it criminal because you don't want to read the contract and deny making the free market decision to walk away from a bad contract?
You sign one bad contract -- stupid you. You sign more than one -- you're the problem, not the other company. I don't sign any stock contracts anymore for anything, even my cell phone company accepted my changes to their contract -- I just had to deal with customer retention department to get the modifications accepted.
Cellphone companies do thew same crap. I had to threaten to sue AT&T wireless because they locked my personal phone to their service. I purchased an unlocked phone myself used their service and their scumbag service rep locked my phone. these companies really need to learn what customer service is and that the customer's property needs to be released to them at the end of thwe contract.
Lovely. You signed the contract. Don't buy the phone at a $100-$200 discount if you don't like the contract.
I can't believe you'd want the law to protect your plain irresponsibility in singing things before reading them.
This is pretty much a non-issue.
.com or .net?" As I traveled more, it became "Wait, .com or .co.uk?" and then it is "A.dada or adada? or is that a-dada?"
It seems like a non-issue, but I find that domain names are more bothersome than ever.
My old e-mail address, say A.Dada@GoingSomewhere.com, was easy 5 years ago. Then it became "Is that
I switched to gmail specifically for spam filtering, but I found that I never have to repeat my e-mail address anymore (and saved me thousands of dollars a year in what I paid my employees to run all our servers).
For me, giving out the e-mail address is easy, but for whover took over my old domain names, I bet they'll be in the "repeat that again. once more" boat.
as many Slashdotter known, to ask a cute girl for her e-mail address in a bar.
:)
And as a few recent slashdotters (who I sent my dating guide for geeks to in the past few weeks) know, the e-mail address is a loser's venture
I'm not single anymore, but I would find it funny to ask for a phone number and get a VoIP IP-address instead.
I'm a big fan of VoIP (I've moved many friends and family to various companies). I can't wait until there are more programs available to let me use my PDA-bluetooth-tether-cell combo (150kbps download nearly everywhere) to talk without the cell network. I believe T-Mobile will actually help transition their users to VoIP as they build a faster network (and make their money that way).
The big problem I have with VoIP is it still seems to rely on people wanting to contact POTS numbers. When will we see a replacement for the old phone number?
The e-mail address isn't a bad idea, but I honestly don't want to share that with some people. A new number isn't memorable. Names are too generic and duplicated (there are 3 Adam Dada's that I've found in the past 3 years).
What is the solution for the "Follow Me" signature that we can use as our VoIP contact? Is the future settings up 3 or 4 addresses so we can give friends, family and tele-marketters different numbers?
The difference is spyware that tries to hide itself, and myware which you opt-in on without some fraudulent click-through backdoor.
Honestly, I don't get spyware -- ever. Neither does almost anyone in my family except for my 14 year old sister who won't stop browsing stupidly. Of course, I just ghost her hard drive and reinstall it about once a month whenever I'm over there.
I'll accept trading my browsing habits with a reputable company. I run the Google Toolbar and would give them MORE of my information as I have so far not been screwed by Google. I wouldn't install software willy-nilly without knowing what I get in exchange for it.
Thanks to all who replied (and e-mailed). I actually have decent lenses and I think the pictures I blew up were of good quality. I'm going to look at some plugins for my RIP engine to see if any might help the quality of the print. I'll also look into some "analogizer" plugins to see if it might just be psychosomatic.
I also didn't realize how high resolution film grain can be -- it never occured to me that drumscanning a continuous-grain photo is MUCH higher res than delineated "pixels" of a CCD capture device. Duh.
This reminds me of the frequent shopping card you can use at the grocery store. I don't have one of those (I actually just use one of my parent's phone numbers for the discounts).
/. but I still click links that interest me -- do you? I've made purchases through /. and told the advertiser it was because of slashdot that I found them and that I support them.
I think I'd be happy to trade my browsing patterns in exchange for something. I already don't mind advertisements on websites that I like (and if they have ads that seem interesting to me, I will always not only click the ads but try to make a purchase if I like the product/price.). I don't mind cookies or any of that stuff. I know it is there, and I don't really care what they do with my "information" as I don't have anything to lose in the lifestyle I live.
I actually support these "invasios of privacy" as they help bring me a better browsing experience when people know what I am looking for and are out there supporting (through AdSense or direct advertising) the content creators I go to every day. I subscribe to
I don't support spyware though, unless I know I can get something out of it. I'd give up all my browsing experience in exchange for a little residual return -- maybe if I knew what ad clicks earned the site, or if I knew that I had an effect on what advertisers would offer me.
My big hope for AdSense this year is that Google goes beyond contextual targetting, but also finds a way for users to "vote" certain ads up and down based on their identity. I don't need to see some ads, but I'll be happy to support advertisers who know what I want and support the sites I visit.
Indeed. To cover a few replies to my initial comment, my thought is for Apple to basically develop the new version of their software (whatever it may be) and then pitch to have hardware people design their hardware for the software. Apple then finalizes the key hardware abstraction layer, and maximizes the price:performance for the package they'll sell.
They're not really going to sell the software only -- they'll still sell the package, but each new package could be a totally different configuration.
I guess it is more complicated than my initial thought was. I still want to see a company that makes a truly hardware abstract OS, though. Maybe we don't need an operating system as it standards today but a software layer that integrates with the hardware manufacturers developed hardware abstraction interface layers. Hmmm.
It is rare for AnarCaps and AnarchoSocis to agree, though. I seem to get beaten up the most by those who agree to decentralization.
I think the best society would likely be one where you have an AnarCap "town" next to an AnarcSoci co-op -- with people sneaking into the other side to take advantage of whatever system is in place.
I sort of see the Constitution offering that situation, but not as it's interpreted today!
It is odd to me that Apple leverages so much into specific processors rather than specific processes. It would seem to me that Apple really has a great interface -- and that is the product they want to sell. With their OS kernel being based on some *nix variety (BSD? I can't remember) I would guess that the processor itself is unimportant if their software and APIs are hardware transparent.
Here's the great thing about the market and letting it lead you (instead of the other way around) when you are an OS or software provider -- you can focus on writing good clean code, and follow up that code with the hardware that offers your code the absolute best package given the infinite choices.
Power management, heat creation, MIPS, FLOPS, BOPS, GHZ, THZ, MB, MBps, whatever the hardware does best, there's always a ratio to price. That's the great thing about the free market, though, competititors will always want to beat the other.
What is stopping Apple or another software company from offering the best darn interface for programmers and users to work with, and then find the processor to wrap the interface around? Is this Apple goal with Intel, possibly? Shake up IBM (and show smaller processor companies that they, too, have a chance) and create an operating system that must now work with 2 (or 10?) completely different processor subsystems? Is this Apple showing that they can get away from hardware entirely, and focus just on software?
I have the strong opinion that the word "rights" is being abused significantly by pretty much everyone inside and outside of industry. Rights to education, rights to health care, rights to fair use.
I'm not sure that the word "rights" should be used anymore, the meaning is lost.
To me, rights are something every person is born with -- inherent, God-given, natural, you call it what you want. I believe we are born as human, we have these rights -- American, Afghani, Zimbabwian. I believe the initial U.S. Constitution as very good about naming SOME of the rights that we're born with (no government can tell us what to say, which religion we practice if any, they can not search our body or our house without very specific details laid out to a public witness, they can't quarter troops in our homes, they can't make us testify against ourselves, etc, etc). These rights are the people's, all the people's, and they're not to be abridged by any government. These rights are also ours on our property to modify in respect to others (you have none of these freedoms when you are on my land).
The entire copyright issue is very complex for most people -- many loopholes and priviledges given to some but not others. I don't like unequal rules when they are put in the law. I especially don't like unequal rules that no one can understand with a lawyer. As some know here (and I really don't want to debate it on this forum), I am against copyright in every form -- I believe that once you have a physical item in your hands, you can do with that physical item what you want -- copy it, modify it, call it your own. The physical item is "protected" by inherent property rights as long as the original owner keeps it with him. It is like gold or diamonds. The minute they sell or barter away the physical item, it is now the new owner's item to do with as they please. PHYSICAL property can be protected, but intellectual property is thought, it is action, it is processing, updating and recreating.
Now we get to fair use. First, we the People give government the ability to lay down a monopoly rental to another person or corporation -- copyright. We let them control how we use a specific item, who we use it with, and what we can and can't do. This is a law, with force being used if we ignore it. Then we give "the People" the right to work around this rented monopoly, given some very peculiar reasoning. Copyright was intended to be useful for 7 years (which can be doubled) in order to further the arts -- it was not there to necessarily protect a profit or a demand complete control forever.
This is my big problem with "rights" today -- we can give them up and have to walk a very complicated path, but we also get some parts back in order to try to fix that complicated path but it just ends up being even more complicated.
If you won't agree with me that freedom is better than tyranny, how about you folks who love big government mandate a state-paid lawyer to follow around anyone who wants one, so we can live without the fear of jail or fines?
For years I was able to perform (and even sell) large prints. I even was one of the few Xerox Versatec electrostatic plotter owners for a few years, although now Inkjet has replaced my old beloved format.
The reason for the post is quality in large print (especially zoomed prints). Even with the 6.1-8.1 MP images I feed the large format printers I use, there is something "magic" about the drum scanned photos that come out of even my old Rebel SLR with stock kit lens.
I lost the analog war many times over (I still use my turntables) but I gave up on analog film with the purchase of my D50 this year. Every digital camera until then that I bought (even up to $800) was garbage, the D50 is a miracle in a small package. I wish I went a step higher but I had 10 digital duds sitting around the house so I was hesitant.
Last week I blew up my first digital picture and it was harse. I did some self cleanup and it was still "digital."
Is it possible that I'm facing a psychosomatic impression knowing that the original image was digital, or is there a definitive need for film capturing for large format prints? I can compare two very similar shots side by side on the large format print and the film print has more depth and more "clarity" (or is it acuity?).
I left the print business a LONG time ago, but I still do prints as I own the equipment. My biggest "customer" are wealthy folks from my IT business who want large prints of artwork or family junk -- and the digital pics so far just don't feel the same. Maybe they won't notice, or maybe it's just me.
That is some eerie art! Is your initial part of your last name really pronounced "Golem" by chance?
Very cool effects. When I read the snippet I figured this was going to be something like the old "Make an E-size scanner out of any hand scanner" fraud that was popular for a few years back in the old days (remember stitching manually on a Pentium 200, anyone?).
For some reason I can't believe this works. I figured the scanning element (CCD) needed an intense amount of light to properly "read" an image on the bed.
The fact that you use duct tape to get everything "light tight" put a good smile on my face, as well as the fact that you even got this working. If you're thinking of selling artwork, I'll be the first in line (the lady and I realized it's time for more photo-prints in the house). By the way, the image taken of the actual camera doesn't seem very high res. Was this by choice?
True. Yet if I can cut my living overhead down to US$3500/year including all property costs and utilities it is completely worth it. In a home with a mortgage my overhead was about US$28000 annually. Yes I received a little equity build up out of that.
Now, my overhead is under $7500 -- I did make a one-time purchase of $9000 though.
Getting rid of police and residual management fees would cut costs at lea t $2500 after paying for replacement costs, leaving mostly mandatory public daycare ("education") and other mandated fees for now.
I'm already US$20,000/year "richer" just moving 2.5 miles. That's almost 40 ounces of gold saved annually.