Do what I do: use your whitelist, spam filter everything else.
Seriously, it is all you need. There are at least 20 services out there that will help you filter spam without trying to use some heuristics or algorithms but actual processes that work.
Don't ask the law to try to filter it, you'll be very sad by how the law gets converted into pro-spammer.
I wonder how many sex offenders work for government.
Actually, I find this really overreaching legislation unacceptable for a free society. When you become a parent, you must accept the priviledge of parenting -- don't push it off on me.
When you tax me, regulate me and force me to monitor what your children are doing, you are putting the brunt of parenting on me. I don't want it. I'm responsible and have no had kids before I was ready. Don't ask me to help you, I don't want to.
I want to run my business utilizing every right I was born with -- including speech. If you don't want my e-mails, you can run a white list and bounce everything not in it. Problem solved, by the free market.
I want to run my life without paying for the legal system required to enforce these tyrannical laws. I have no desire to put another lawyer in the district attorney's office. I have no desire to put another cop in a nice office in order to do a parent's job. I have no desire to put another judge on the bench to take away the freedoms of the citizens put in from of them.
Here's a guide to life:
1. Don't have kids until you can support them yourself (including paying for school, food, clothing and shelter).
2. Join a church or community group focused on family. Help your neighbors with kids and they'll help you.
3. Understand that raising a child means having one parent at home. If you have a child, stop spending money on toys and vacations and new cars and new clothes. Focus your money on your child's present and future.
4. Understand that raising a child means constant care. Don't let your child go anywhere without knowing where and with whom. If one parent is home, this is much easier.
If you can't understand these simple procedures (learned over millenia), don't have kids. I don't want to pay for them, I don't want to raise them, and I don't want to provide free daycare for them. It isn't my kid.
Your right to be secure in your person only is safe from government and public agents of government -- they have a monopoly on using force, but you are protected from certain aspects of force.
If you come onto my property, you are no longer secure in your person. I can ask that everyone that walks on my land be naked and have a body cavity search performed -- you're free to stay off my property if you don't agree.
If you're out walking around, I don't believe government has a right to video tape. I do believe, though, that anyone else is free to. If you don't want to be videotaped, go live on a 100 acre ranch with big trees. If someone tries to walk on your land, you have the right to defend yourself (or kick them off).
Constitutional rights only protect you from government -- private property rights trump constitutional ones.
It is comments like this that reiterate to me the reality of trying to protect data -- you can't.
I'm (well known for being) anti-copyright, and your personal data is no different. If you have facts in your mind that you don't want getting out, don't give them out. Don't sing your song in public, don't say your poem out loud, and don't tell anyone anything about yourself.
If part of a trade or a barter is giving up information, you're taking the risk.
In the past year I've found anonymous debit cards ($9 per month), anonymous cell phones ($15 per month fee) and even anonymous travel (about the same price as any walk up ticket purchase). I don't have to give up my information, why are you giving up yours?
What is wrong with the manual focus on the D70? I use manual focus about 33% of the time with my D50 and don't have a single problem (even with the stock lens). Maybe I've built a tolerance to it from previous SLRs?
Can you send me a link to the shop you paid only $400 for that used lens? Or was it a one time deal? I've been eyeing probably the exact lens you picked up, but not for $400!
Now that they don't have to support the manufacturing of the 35mm cameras, they can focus on lowering the costs of the dSLRs. Considering Wolf Camera has a D50 kit for $699 (I saw the commercial the other day), there isn't much of an excuse even if you shoot photos only a few times a month. Take 1000 pictures a year for 3 years, and you're only looking at a quarter a shot -- not bad.
Since the actual cameras are still relatively expensive and consumer models have an expected shutter life of around 20,000-50,000 shots you'll find it very expensive to use your digital SLR like you can use a point and shoot.
Extended warranty. I never bought them until about 5 years ago (I hit 26 and everything I bought between 18-25 was broken). I take advantage of ALL of them and have received so many free "current" replacements that it isn't funny. About 10 weeks before my car stereo EW was going to expire, they replaced it with a brand new model. The extended warranty on the stereo equipment includes free uninstalls if I change cars.
In the end the store I bought it from replaced it under warranty after I'd notified them in writing I would take it up with the local consumer body.
That's odd. Do you have a relationship with the store you bought from? One of my rules in life is to meet and know the managers (or owners) of every store I am a regular at. Yes, I even know the GMs of the local Best Buy and Target. If I have a problem, they fix it. No questions asked, ever.
Point and shoots also can have movie modes so good they almost double as a video camera. (I have an Olympus C-770 that'll do 45 minutes of continuous movie in mpeg 4).
I just gave away 2 Olympus P&S to kids I know a few weeks ago (I don't recall the model numbers). I paid around US$350 each for them and they were crap. My D50 blows all 10 digital cameras I've had over the years (never paid less than US$250 for one). Most P&Ss were thrown in the closet after a few weeks, my D50 is getting ripped on every day.
The dSLR is only a few hundred more. The cheap lens that came with my D50 is actually VERY nice -- I'm really happy with the base quality (although I have 3 other lenses, 2 that are always in my kit). I'm no pro, I just love photography as I travel a LOT and see some crazy things every day. To pay an extra US$500 for that pleasure (and a few extra years of use) if I shoot an extra 2000 shots is 25 cents per shot -- I'm more than happy to pay for it and so should even the cheapest chisler!
I recently picked up a D50 to replace my previous Nikon SLR (and give all 10 of my junk digital cameras to anyone I know with a kid). I'm blown away -- the quality is THAT good. The camera is just as fast as my film camera, the resolution is spectacular, and I can use all my old lenses and accessories.
Under US$1000 for everything I need, and I never have to worry about the junk I was getting out of previous generations of digital cameras.
I feel bad about film -- I really love the analog world. Yet the more I look at it, the more I see the future is in processing digital pictures real time to look and feel like film (or even have its own quality). The most recent batch of prints I made from the dSLR look so much better than my last batch of regular SLR 35mm prints -- everyone noticed. I even had it in JPG mode instead of RAW!
R.I.P. 35mm, I loved ya even with the "D" grade I got in 7th grade Photography class.
I recently got back into Action Quake 2 after a 6 year hiatus. I was old at 25 but good.
The first month I sucked. I figured it was age.
Now I see that gaming skills require construction honing. I'm decent now, and have noticed my hand-eye coordination is better in real life. Gaming also gave me back my old edge in scanning a room to notice things faster than others (great in a business with long punch lists!).
I don't see patents helping here. Drugs aren't expensive until you look at the current burdens:
1. FDA regulations. Government regulations are ridiculously written. Dump the FDA, let the market replace it with grounds like Underwriters Labs and Consumer Reports. Competitive testing will significantly lower prices.
2. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare prescription drug benefits - End them. The minute you provide federal tax dollars for anything, the price skyrockets. College was cheap for centuries until the feds started paying for it.
3. Advertising -- By accepting such high federal payments, drug companies can charge enough to fund billions in marketing.
4. Prescription laws -- Prescriptions protect no one but allow pharmacies to charge more.
5. The War on Drugs -- eliminating useful drugs due to abuse causes legal drugs to become pricier
Prescriptions could be 1/10th the cost but the feds don't allow it.
First, I'm anti-patent in every way, so I'm definitely outside the box on this issue.
There's the difficulty in patenting software -- reverse engineering two similar programs that both have different patents can give you similar results.
On the other hand, there is also the problem of how to address what the "inventor" may have used from their discovering in researching other patenting mechanisms. Did this person take some mechanisms, manipulate the build, and take the output to be used by the new mechanism? A patent covers the process but not the output, but if two different mechanisms offer the same output, are they conflicting with one another?
It seems like a waste in every way. Copyright was meant to further the arts and the sciences. I don't see how patents further anything -- research occurs with and without the force of patents. The fact that the patent monopoly is now in the hands of a select few (content cartels) shows that they don't help the little inventor in anyway.
What this is, in my opinion, is a grab by the content cartel to entice OSS to change their ways. They'll offer to make some patent-law changes, but not enough to make the OSS crowd happy. They'll ask the OSS crowd to take steps closer to the cartels' desires. Sort of a "meet halfway" deal.
The likelihood of real change is slim. The OSS crowd will generally not give in to the cartel crowd. Those who do will find themselves hurt by stomping on their customers.
I think this is an eyewash. To try to bring the OSS crowd into the collusion of the cartel crowd is a big reach, but it will be worthless in the long run.
How many people find they need data after 6 months? Even with businesses, it seems that most of my customers (a lot of engineers and high-rise building contractors) seem to prefer paper form over digital, for archival purposes.
For data I really NEED for more than 6 months, I find off-site archival the best solution. First, that's their job. Second, they're cheap and they expand my data storage size as needed. Third, they're insured.
If someone tells me they "need" to save something forever, I point them to the off-site companies. All my customers are running a minimum of T1 in bandwidth. Most are much faster. If I have 10Mbps at home, businesses will be close behind. I've had hard drives that couldn't write that fast (kidding, but close) in the old days.
I don't see the need to worry about storage and environment and all that -- just subcontract it out. You do what you're good at, let others do what they're good at.
Over the years, I've always had my articles rejected. Over time I started to notice days of the week and times of the day that articles were few and far between. I also noticed that each editor had their own likes and dislikes. The last two articles I submitted were the first two I had ever had accepted.
I do believe that guys like Beatles Beatles found a way to try to "beat the system" but I don't think it is a conspiracy. If the editors wanted to abuse slashdot's pagerank, they have dozens of other ways to do it. Slashdot has to be an incredible amount of work for these guys. I post some edgy responses on occasion, and I get a ton of e-mail for it (which I appreciate). I can't imagine how much feedback the editors get and how they get through it on a daily basis. There are days that I feel like hiring someone just to get through e-mail, and I doubt the editors get paid (if they do, it can't be much).
That being said, I think we do need to see some new stats up for submittions. If you submitted 10 in a row with no acceptance, I think it is fine to keep that private. How about printing the acceptance percentage of the currently accepted post, based on how many submittals were not accepted since the last one. If you get an article accepted, and then you get 99 that don't, and finally the 100th gets accepted, you have a 1% acceptance rate for that particular message (and your future acceptance rate would be set back to zero until your next acceptance). That way, guys like Beatles Beatles would likely have really low rates (as he seems to spam the editor at the right time with the right style of story).
Also, how about if slashdot regurgitates some stores (instead of rejected and pending and accepted you can add a fourth one -- hold) that will be held up to 6 hours and resubmitted automatically, if the original editor puts it on hold and the new editor finds no good submissions (11pm).
I'm in the process of raising funding (and nearly there) to open No Copyright Studios in Chicago. Music recording (my brother is a sound engineer with a degree from Columbia), video recording and even a podcast studio. Free for artists, funded by an anti-copyright foundation. The only catch: anything recorded in house is public domain, by contract:)
Actually, that is what they usually say (I just shrug them off as I've tried it). I prefer a heavier mouse.
Really odd, thinking back, I was the first person I knew with a mouse. I had an old Compaq luggable PC (anyone remember those? keyboard in the bottom, green screen?) and the local computer store released the first Microsoft mouse. I brought it home, and had nothing to use it on, until my first HP scanner. Whoa, memories.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The solution to your problem: take better photos.
Actually, I am quite happy with my photos as-is. When I have the time to take them into a good digital editing suite, I end up preferring them as a little tweaking can make a more vibrant picture. I'm not talking about pictures with crushed saturation or any major problems.
These packages from the topic are made for a reason. There are people out there who bought them for whatever reason -- I'd like to utilize these people.
I can spend 15 minutes or an hour making a photo better, but I'd rather not. I'm imagining people do it in 5-10 minutes who like doing it (and wouldn't mind the extra income). I want to find these people. I've asked on some photography forums, but the public ones seem cluttered with grandma not knowing how to copy images. I want the slashdot-for-photo-geeks forum.
I used to be in the video production business - I hated hearing "fix it in the edit" or "we'll just dub over it" or "can we erase the mic in shot?" Ugh. I definitely believe in GIGO -- I'm not starting with garbage.
After an hour of futzing around, I find some photos I like better. I assume there are experts who can do it quicker and with a better quality finished product.
I have personally opened up a mouse like this and removed the weight, already. Mice don't need weight IMO. It's just more mass, meaning slower acceleration, meaning it slows you down, but the friction can do that and the friction's slowdown is controllable - if you press down harder, it's harder to move the mouse. So what's the weight supposed to buy me again?
Detailing.
I find a heavy mouse the only usable mouse when I need to do something detailed (vector art, especially). It requires a little more force to get going, and a little more force to stop.
Other users of my mouse at home and at the office complain and say I should just decrease sensitivity, but I love being able to flick quick to get across the screen (especially a large screen with a high res). A heavier mouse that is highly sensitive offers me the best of both worlds.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why do you have an expensive dSLR for what are essentially grab-shots?
Good question.
First, I like the ability to use multiple lenses. I carry 3 different lenses in my camera bag and actually use them (the zoom lens is awesome).
Second, I take pictures of customers' offices on occasion. When I do my consulting, I sometimes try to sell my customers on "value added" services such as desk organizing and the like (I have subcontractors that do all these jobs and I get a cut). I love to do before and after shots, so the higher resolution and customization features of a dSLR are beneficial.
Third, I love the quality of it. I've had 2 regular SLRs in a decade. I've had about 10 regular digital cameras, and the quality sucked -- sometimes they required tripods, sometimes they blurred backgrounds, I had no control.
Fourth, The d50 was a huge deal for me as my previous SLR is a Nikon as well -- compatible lenses and all.
That being said, for the $800 or so that the camera cost, it IS a deal. What does a good digital non-SLR camera cost? $400? $300? I'll keep this sucker at least 3-4 years, so it is probably cheaper for me in the long run, and I don't get frustrated over crappy shots (other than those that are my fault).
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 1
An originalist:) You'd get along well with my home theater fanatics (we strive to make our home theaters look correct, not always great).
Actually, I just like to capture the image for memory-sake, but I've been told by friends and family that I should do something with the better ones. I don't really like clutter -- my better half is the one with all her painting and stuff up on the walls. I guess I'd like to get the images looking even better -- I've seen what pros can do, so I don't see what's wrong with wanting to pay someone to make things look better.
I pay to have my lawn mowed. I pay to have my house cleaned. I pay to have my food prepared. I pay to get driven around (sometimes). Why not pay to have my photos "corrected" or "enhanced"? If it means I can be more productive doing something else with that time, and then I can come back and gain some joy out of seeing better pictures, I'm all for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do what I do: use your whitelist, spam filter everything else.
Seriously, it is all you need. There are at least 20 services out there that will help you filter spam without trying to use some heuristics or algorithms but actual processes that work.
Don't ask the law to try to filter it, you'll be very sad by how the law gets converted into pro-spammer.
I wonder how many sex offenders work for government.
Actually, I find this really overreaching legislation unacceptable for a free society. When you become a parent, you must accept the priviledge of parenting -- don't push it off on me.
When you tax me, regulate me and force me to monitor what your children are doing, you are putting the brunt of parenting on me. I don't want it. I'm responsible and have no had kids before I was ready. Don't ask me to help you, I don't want to.
I want to run my business utilizing every right I was born with -- including speech. If you don't want my e-mails, you can run a white list and bounce everything not in it. Problem solved, by the free market.
I want to run my life without paying for the legal system required to enforce these tyrannical laws. I have no desire to put another lawyer in the district attorney's office. I have no desire to put another cop in a nice office in order to do a parent's job. I have no desire to put another judge on the bench to take away the freedoms of the citizens put in from of them.
Here's a guide to life:
1. Don't have kids until you can support them yourself (including paying for school, food, clothing and shelter).
2. Join a church or community group focused on family. Help your neighbors with kids and they'll help you.
3. Understand that raising a child means having one parent at home. If you have a child, stop spending money on toys and vacations and new cars and new clothes. Focus your money on your child's present and future.
4. Understand that raising a child means constant care. Don't let your child go anywhere without knowing where and with whom. If one parent is home, this is much easier.
If you can't understand these simple procedures (learned over millenia), don't have kids. I don't want to pay for them, I don't want to raise them, and I don't want to provide free daycare for them. It isn't my kid.
Yeeesh, its a good thing YANAL :)
Your right to be secure in your person only is safe from government and public agents of government -- they have a monopoly on using force, but you are protected from certain aspects of force.
If you come onto my property, you are no longer secure in your person. I can ask that everyone that walks on my land be naked and have a body cavity search performed -- you're free to stay off my property if you don't agree.
If you're out walking around, I don't believe government has a right to video tape. I do believe, though, that anyone else is free to. If you don't want to be videotaped, go live on a 100 acre ranch with big trees. If someone tries to walk on your land, you have the right to defend yourself (or kick them off).
Constitutional rights only protect you from government -- private property rights trump constitutional ones.
It is comments like this that reiterate to me the reality of trying to protect data -- you can't.
I'm (well known for being) anti-copyright, and your personal data is no different. If you have facts in your mind that you don't want getting out, don't give them out. Don't sing your song in public, don't say your poem out loud, and don't tell anyone anything about yourself.
If part of a trade or a barter is giving up information, you're taking the risk.
In the past year I've found anonymous debit cards ($9 per month), anonymous cell phones ($15 per month fee) and even anonymous travel (about the same price as any walk up ticket purchase). I don't have to give up my information, why are you giving up yours?
Oh, yeah, convenience and great deals. Right.
What is wrong with the manual focus on the D70? I use manual focus about 33% of the time with my D50 and don't have a single problem (even with the stock lens). Maybe I've built a tolerance to it from previous SLRs?
Can you send me a link to the shop you paid only $400 for that used lens? Or was it a one time deal? I've been eyeing probably the exact lens you picked up, but not for $400!
Now that they don't have to support the manufacturing of the 35mm cameras, they can focus on lowering the costs of the dSLRs. Considering Wolf Camera has a D50 kit for $699 (I saw the commercial the other day), there isn't much of an excuse even if you shoot photos only a few times a month. Take 1000 pictures a year for 3 years, and you're only looking at a quarter a shot -- not bad.
Since the actual cameras are still relatively expensive and consumer models have an expected shutter life of around 20,000-50,000 shots you'll find it very expensive to use your digital SLR like you can use a point and shoot.
Extended warranty. I never bought them until about 5 years ago (I hit 26 and everything I bought between 18-25 was broken). I take advantage of ALL of them and have received so many free "current" replacements that it isn't funny. About 10 weeks before my car stereo EW was going to expire, they replaced it with a brand new model. The extended warranty on the stereo equipment includes free uninstalls if I change cars.
In the end the store I bought it from replaced it under warranty after I'd notified them in writing I would take it up with the local consumer body.
That's odd. Do you have a relationship with the store you bought from? One of my rules in life is to meet and know the managers (or owners) of every store I am a regular at. Yes, I even know the GMs of the local Best Buy and Target. If I have a problem, they fix it. No questions asked, ever.
Point and shoots also can have movie modes so good they almost double as a video camera. (I have an Olympus C-770 that'll do 45 minutes of continuous movie in mpeg 4).
I just gave away 2 Olympus P&S to kids I know a few weeks ago (I don't recall the model numbers). I paid around US$350 each for them and they were crap. My D50 blows all 10 digital cameras I've had over the years (never paid less than US$250 for one). Most P&Ss were thrown in the closet after a few weeks, my D50 is getting ripped on every day.
The dSLR is only a few hundred more. The cheap lens that came with my D50 is actually VERY nice -- I'm really happy with the base quality (although I have 3 other lenses, 2 that are always in my kit). I'm no pro, I just love photography as I travel a LOT and see some crazy things every day. To pay an extra US$500 for that pleasure (and a few extra years of use) if I shoot an extra 2000 shots is 25 cents per shot -- I'm more than happy to pay for it and so should even the cheapest chisler!
I recently picked up a D50 to replace my previous Nikon SLR (and give all 10 of my junk digital cameras to anyone I know with a kid). I'm blown away -- the quality is THAT good. The camera is just as fast as my film camera, the resolution is spectacular, and I can use all my old lenses and accessories.
Under US$1000 for everything I need, and I never have to worry about the junk I was getting out of previous generations of digital cameras.
I feel bad about film -- I really love the analog world. Yet the more I look at it, the more I see the future is in processing digital pictures real time to look and feel like film (or even have its own quality). The most recent batch of prints I made from the dSLR look so much better than my last batch of regular SLR 35mm prints -- everyone noticed. I even had it in JPG mode instead of RAW!
R.I.P. 35mm, I loved ya even with the "D" grade I got in 7th grade Photography class.
I recently got back into Action Quake 2 after a 6 year hiatus. I was old at 25 but good.
The first month I sucked. I figured it was age.
Now I see that gaming skills require construction honing. I'm decent now, and have noticed my hand-eye coordination is better in real life. Gaming also gave me back my old edge in scanning a room to notice things faster than others (great in a business with long punch lists!).
Practice, practice!
Old fogies, come back to Action Quake 2.
This is a crazy comment. About 3 hours ago I had lunch with a guy interested in running an MMORPG (he has much cash).
I told him forget it, unless he:
1. Caps weekly play time to 2 hours so even older gamers can play. I'm 31.
2. Sets a limited amount of wealth in the world -- call it a gold standard. Inflation kills MMORPGs as it does in real life.
3. Offers a cheap annual fee ($60 includes license)
4. Supports Linux.
He said no. Another guy with much cash wanting to mimic everyone else, ugh.
Manmade drugs.
I don't see patents helping here. Drugs aren't expensive until you look at the current burdens:
1. FDA regulations. Government regulations are ridiculously written. Dump the FDA, let the market replace it with grounds like Underwriters Labs and Consumer Reports. Competitive testing will significantly lower prices.
2. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare prescription drug benefits - End them. The minute you provide federal tax dollars for anything, the price skyrockets. College was cheap for centuries until the feds started paying for it.
3. Advertising -- By accepting such high federal payments, drug companies can charge enough to fund billions in marketing.
4. Prescription laws -- Prescriptions protect no one but allow pharmacies to charge more.
5. The War on Drugs -- eliminating useful drugs due to abuse causes legal drugs to become pricier
Prescriptions could be 1/10th the cost but the feds don't allow it.
Dell likely will reverse course and begin selling computers with Advanced Micro Devices' processors.
First, I'm anti-patent in every way, so I'm definitely outside the box on this issue.
There's the difficulty in patenting software -- reverse engineering two similar programs that both have different patents can give you similar results.
On the other hand, there is also the problem of how to address what the "inventor" may have used from their discovering in researching other patenting mechanisms. Did this person take some mechanisms, manipulate the build, and take the output to be used by the new mechanism? A patent covers the process but not the output, but if two different mechanisms offer the same output, are they conflicting with one another?
It seems like a waste in every way. Copyright was meant to further the arts and the sciences. I don't see how patents further anything -- research occurs with and without the force of patents. The fact that the patent monopoly is now in the hands of a select few (content cartels) shows that they don't help the little inventor in anyway.
No, it isn't.
What this is, in my opinion, is a grab by the content cartel to entice OSS to change their ways. They'll offer to make some patent-law changes, but not enough to make the OSS crowd happy. They'll ask the OSS crowd to take steps closer to the cartels' desires. Sort of a "meet halfway" deal.
The likelihood of real change is slim. The OSS crowd will generally not give in to the cartel crowd. Those who do will find themselves hurt by stomping on their customers.
I think this is an eyewash. To try to bring the OSS crowd into the collusion of the cartel crowd is a big reach, but it will be worthless in the long run.
1. Lock door to patent office.
2. Throw away key.
3. Profit!!!
Even better, no need to even bother with the ??? step.
How many people find they need data after 6 months? Even with businesses, it seems that most of my customers (a lot of engineers and high-rise building contractors) seem to prefer paper form over digital, for archival purposes.
For data I really NEED for more than 6 months, I find off-site archival the best solution. First, that's their job. Second, they're cheap and they expand my data storage size as needed. Third, they're insured.
If someone tells me they "need" to save something forever, I point them to the off-site companies. All my customers are running a minimum of T1 in bandwidth. Most are much faster. If I have 10Mbps at home, businesses will be close behind. I've had hard drives that couldn't write that fast (kidding, but close) in the old days.
I don't see the need to worry about storage and environment and all that -- just subcontract it out. You do what you're good at, let others do what they're good at.
Great post, I sense an Austrian among us :)
Over the years, I've always had my articles rejected. Over time I started to notice days of the week and times of the day that articles were few and far between. I also noticed that each editor had their own likes and dislikes. The last two articles I submitted were the first two I had ever had accepted.
I do believe that guys like Beatles Beatles found a way to try to "beat the system" but I don't think it is a conspiracy. If the editors wanted to abuse slashdot's pagerank, they have dozens of other ways to do it. Slashdot has to be an incredible amount of work for these guys. I post some edgy responses on occasion, and I get a ton of e-mail for it (which I appreciate). I can't imagine how much feedback the editors get and how they get through it on a daily basis. There are days that I feel like hiring someone just to get through e-mail, and I doubt the editors get paid (if they do, it can't be much).
That being said, I think we do need to see some new stats up for submittions. If you submitted 10 in a row with no acceptance, I think it is fine to keep that private. How about printing the acceptance percentage of the currently accepted post, based on how many submittals were not accepted since the last one. If you get an article accepted, and then you get 99 that don't, and finally the 100th gets accepted, you have a 1% acceptance rate for that particular message (and your future acceptance rate would be set back to zero until your next acceptance). That way, guys like Beatles Beatles would likely have really low rates (as he seems to spam the editor at the right time with the right style of story).
Also, how about if slashdot regurgitates some stores (instead of rejected and pending and accepted you can add a fourth one -- hold) that will be held up to 6 hours and resubmitted automatically, if the original editor puts it on hold and the new editor finds no good submissions (11pm).
I'm in the process of raising funding (and nearly there) to open No Copyright Studios in Chicago. Music recording (my brother is a sound engineer with a degree from Columbia), video recording and even a podcast studio. Free for artists, funded by an anti-copyright foundation. The only catch: anything recorded in house is public domain, by contract :)
Wow sexy.
I think the attitude that price is no object as long as the price is worth the added performance.
I'll check the Logitech one out -- gets good reviews pretty consistently. Thanks!
Actually, that is what they usually say (I just shrug them off as I've tried it). I prefer a heavier mouse.
Really odd, thinking back, I was the first person I knew with a mouse. I had an old Compaq luggable PC (anyone remember those? keyboard in the bottom, green screen?) and the local computer store released the first Microsoft mouse. I brought it home, and had nothing to use it on, until my first HP scanner. Whoa, memories.
The solution to your problem: take better photos.
Actually, I am quite happy with my photos as-is. When I have the time to take them into a good digital editing suite, I end up preferring them as a little tweaking can make a more vibrant picture. I'm not talking about pictures with crushed saturation or any major problems.
These packages from the topic are made for a reason. There are people out there who bought them for whatever reason -- I'd like to utilize these people.
I can spend 15 minutes or an hour making a photo better, but I'd rather not. I'm imagining people do it in 5-10 minutes who like doing it (and wouldn't mind the extra income). I want to find these people. I've asked on some photography forums, but the public ones seem cluttered with grandma not knowing how to copy images. I want the slashdot-for-photo-geeks forum.
I used to be in the video production business - I hated hearing "fix it in the edit" or "we'll just dub over it" or "can we erase the mic in shot?" Ugh. I definitely believe in GIGO -- I'm not starting with garbage.
After an hour of futzing around, I find some photos I like better. I assume there are experts who can do it quicker and with a better quality finished product.
I have personally opened up a mouse like this and removed the weight, already. Mice don't need weight IMO. It's just more mass, meaning slower acceleration, meaning it slows you down, but the friction can do that and the friction's slowdown is controllable - if you press down harder, it's harder to move the mouse. So what's the weight supposed to buy me again?
Detailing.
I find a heavy mouse the only usable mouse when I need to do something detailed (vector art, especially). It requires a little more force to get going, and a little more force to stop.
Other users of my mouse at home and at the office complain and say I should just decrease sensitivity, but I love being able to flick quick to get across the screen (especially a large screen with a high res). A heavier mouse that is highly sensitive offers me the best of both worlds.
Why do you have an expensive dSLR for what are essentially grab-shots?
Good question.
First, I like the ability to use multiple lenses. I carry 3 different lenses in my camera bag and actually use them (the zoom lens is awesome).
Second, I take pictures of customers' offices on occasion. When I do my consulting, I sometimes try to sell my customers on "value added" services such as desk organizing and the like (I have subcontractors that do all these jobs and I get a cut). I love to do before and after shots, so the higher resolution and customization features of a dSLR are beneficial.
Third, I love the quality of it. I've had 2 regular SLRs in a decade. I've had about 10 regular digital cameras, and the quality sucked -- sometimes they required tripods, sometimes they blurred backgrounds, I had no control.
Fourth, The d50 was a huge deal for me as my previous SLR is a Nikon as well -- compatible lenses and all.
That being said, for the $800 or so that the camera cost, it IS a deal. What does a good digital non-SLR camera cost? $400? $300? I'll keep this sucker at least 3-4 years, so it is probably cheaper for me in the long run, and I don't get frustrated over crappy shots (other than those that are my fault).
An originalist :) You'd get along well with my home theater fanatics (we strive to make our home theaters look correct, not always great).
Actually, I just like to capture the image for memory-sake, but I've been told by friends and family that I should do something with the better ones. I don't really like clutter -- my better half is the one with all her painting and stuff up on the walls. I guess I'd like to get the images looking even better -- I've seen what pros can do, so I don't see what's wrong with wanting to pay someone to make things look better.
I pay to have my lawn mowed. I pay to have my house cleaned. I pay to have my food prepared. I pay to get driven around (sometimes). Why not pay to have my photos "corrected" or "enhanced"? If it means I can be more productive doing something else with that time, and then I can come back and gain some joy out of seeing better pictures, I'm all for it.