So, region coding was invented, the idea being that you could sell a DVD to Thailand for £4 and one to the west for £15 and maximise profits.
There's a little more to it than that. Quite often, different companies will have the rights to distribute a film in different regions. A technical limitation that keeps other distributors' versions of a film from running in your region makes the distribution deal more valuable, thus making more money for the studio. And of course in countries like the UK, it allows for delayed releases to be coordinated with the theater release schedule, creating the illusion of geographic separation in an increasingly connected world. The studio spin is that this allows content to be made available to people who might not have been able to afford it otherwise. Can you imagine what it would be like to go through life without Adam Sandler movies?
Different versions for different regions might also have different content, so extra features on the region 1 DVD might not be included on the region 2 DVD. The studios will spin this by making it sound like region coding protects you from "accidentally" purchasing an inferior product, but in reality they don't want you to have the choice of not paying extra for content that someone decided that your market could bear. The primary belief in all of this is that consumers are stupid and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between different versions of the same movie. The possibility that someone might want an "inferior" version or different content like Portuguese subtitles is not a consideration.
Speaking as a freelance photographer, things are worse than people think. Not only can you not sell, but nobody will help you to publish such photos.
Try sending them to the Boston Globe. They will gladly publish your photos, even if they don't have your permission or even know who took the picture. They're clearly fighting for our civil liberties by blatantly violating our copyrights...
Look, the $$ from ads (selling your eyeballs) gives us a lot of "free" stuff - TV, radio, local newpapers, etc.
Take your eyeballs off the ads for a few minutes and you'll see that it's all a lie. In that "free" stuff, what percentage of it isn't ads? What was the percentage 20 years ago? What do you think it will be in 20 years? Look beyond the "free" stuff - how much has advertising expanded in the stuff we still have to pay for? Ever wonder where the money goes?
Think about it, the movie company that puts a 15 second trailer in a game is probably spending tens of millions of dollars to advertise a movie that will be lucky to break even after all of the costs are factored in (even before cooking the books to eliminate any real profit). So the film companies pass on the cost to the theaters, which then raise ticket prices and concession prices, and then run ads before the movies. Now the soft drink companies pay the theaters to bombard you with ads before you watch a movie that you paid the advertising agency of to bombard you with ads for in a game that you paid the developer to have an ad agency pay for ads on the side of soda cans that you paid more for so they could run ads before the movie you just watched...
Advertising is a tax, and the more places it gets into, the more tax you're paying for stuff that was easier and cheaper to get without the advertising. The big companies don't care because they have the cash to pay for it up front and they know you'll foot the bill for them later on. It also has a nice side effect of raising the barrier to entry that keeps smaller companies from being able to compete with them.
For the unfortunate "consumer," there is no way out. The advertising will go on whether we want it or not. If we don't watch it, they'll just make more and more until it finds us, and the bill will get tucked inside the price of the product. If we don't buy the product, they'll just buy up or force out the alternative until there is no choice but to buy from them or a similar competitor. The best anyone can hope for is to pass as much of the cost on to someone else. Skip the ads, buy on sale, do without. Sure, children are going to bed hungry because I don't want to pay for some ad exec's Porche, but some things in this universe aren't under my control.
The older computers often go to departments which don't have enough grant money to afford newer ones.
This is the point people (even those at colleges) don't seem to understand - even if a college is constantly buying new computers, only a small percentage of the installed base gets replaced at any given time. Back around 1997 or so, the college I went to started to get rid of its 8086-based PCs. These ancient computers had worked their way from lab to lab and from department to department until they made it to the humanities professors, which was the end of the line. At the time, computers were on a 10 year life cycle, which was a bit absurd even then.
Typically, yes, but some of them can be found on clearance in the US for around $25. In cases like the nearly impossible to find Alternators Tracks, the discounted Binaltech figure is actually cheaper than the insane price you would have to pay for the Alternators version on eBay. And of course the packaging and included bio card (in Japanese, but still...) make it a much better deal.
I've got a number of imports (including a re-issue Megatron that has a spring mechanism to actually fire little bullets), and I'm very very happy that Hasbro is selling most of the good stuff domestically. It makes my habit less frighteningly expensive.
Of course, you also have to take into account the fact that Hasbro usually finds ways to make the domestic releases slightly less appealing than the Japanese releases. In the case of reissues of the original figures, they're stuck making modifications due to current child safety laws (and many figures released overseas will never be sold in the US because of these laws). The new figures are all designed with these laws in mind, but Hasbro still manages to make the figures look worse by changing the coloring and detailing. The differences are minor in most cases, but some are just bizarre (Armada Tidal Wave for instance).
What really keeps this kind of habit less expensive is how Hasbro overproduces everything, apparently linking production run inversely to demand (the most popular figures are produced in limited quantities, while the least popular can be found stacked to the ceiling in most toy stores). Just wait for the inevitable clearances and pick up whatever you want at half price or less.
Can you see Disney _ever_ being willing to explore a mature theme in a "cartoon" they make? They've walled themselves off into the G rating only corner and seem to like it there. That's not to say a G rated animation has to suck, just that Disney seems to think it can't have any mature themes period.
Disney is simply delivering what American parents want. Have you forgotten last November already? Some of us realize that it is futile and counterproductive to try to hide kids from reality, but we are in the minority. Some of us also realize that not all animation is appropriate for all age groups, but again, this is not the majority. Put the two together, and it makes sense that Disney would aim low in terms of MPAA ratings - that's where the money is.
US-produced children's entertainment is in a big rut right now, partly because of "family values" and partly because of the success of Japanese imports (often even after excessive and senseless editing). Like what happened in the comic book industry, the animation industry is afraid of running afoul of the morality police. Look at what happened when PBS was set to air something that showed kids that homosexual couples exist (without this even being the focus of the episode). Look at where almost all of the complaints to the FCC come from. Creativity in this country is being stifled "for the children."
As with most things however, this is just a temporary setback that will disappear in a few decades when a generation or two of parents have died off. All of these "values" issues are non-issues to the younger generations, and thanks to Japan, kids are being exposed to "mature" themes without bringing on the end of the world. In fact, not only are horrible things not happening, but kids are actually taking an interest in things like reading as a result of Japan's influence. Graphic novels might not be the height of modern literature, but anything that gets kids into bookstores on a regular basis can't be all bad. Change happens, but it is a slow process.
When I was a junior in high school, I had the most amateur math teacher I've ever had the misfortune of having to sit through. He'd get to a new section to teach (this was my high schools highest level math class offered by the way) and one in particular I remember was how to solve a matrix. We'd get aa grid of numbers, and following his bouncy ball method, come up with an answer. My question was, where did the grid of numbers come from, what did they represent, and what the heck did the answer mean? I could solve those things in a flash, but never did know what they meant. I kept pushing for an answer (I suppose it was more of the question I was after, I could find the answers) and instead of answering he sent me to the principle for being a troublemaker.
This reminds me of a statistics class I took in my senior year of college. I needed another math class in order to meet the graduation requirements, so I took the only one recommended for my major that I hadn't already taken - Statistics I. Now, by the time the class started, I was halfway through a graduate class in statistics, and of course by that point everything in the undergrad class had already been covered, and in more detail and by a competent professor. The undergrad class was taught by a Chinese professor who was difficult to understand, with TAs who were Chinese grad students and were almost impossible to understand (unless the "taiten to the coo" is some sort of common expression that I was not exposed to in my sheltered upbringing). I have nothing against any particular ethnic group, but communication is a rather important part of education.
As could be expected, I wasn't exactly very engaged in the class. In addition to the communication difficulties, the book was an internally produced book written by three professors, and its quality was everything that you would expect from something published exclusively by photocopier. I started out actually reading the book, but that proved pointless when the professor declared that he would only use the examples from the book in his lectures (students had asked for different examples because the examples from the book did not adequately cover the concepts being taught). I quickly settled into a routine where I would take the slides that were handed out at the beginning of each lecture and go through them before the lecture started, completing all of the examples as I went. When I was done, I went to sleep. An afternoon nap was far more beneficial than the lectures. Still, I tried to understand the material being taught, at least until one particular experience.
In one of the lab exercises (which were taught by the TAs), we were performing an analysis of some sort of distribution (I don't remember the exact details), and the final result was one number that was supposed to be particularly useful. How it was supposed to be particularly useful was not explained in the book or the lab exercise, though both did explain exactly how to obtain the number. Being the good little student that I was, I wanted to know what this number represented, so I called a TA over and asked what the number was supposed to tell us. His response was a simple and definite "no." After a moment of confusion, my brain shut down and I stopped trying to understand what the point of anything was.
That class ranks as the most pointless waste of effort I have ever been through in my entire life. Still, I needed the credit and the only other options were high-level courses that would have done nothing but add work I didn't have time to do. So I went through the motions, and by the time the last exam came up, I knew I only needed to show up to pass and put some ink on the paper to get an A. I quickly went through the questions, not really knowing what it was I was doing, and then handed it in half an hour later, never looking back.
Again, I am another high school student in a supposed 'well-ranked' public school. A lot of my friends are basically the people who take 8 AP courses and no lunch. Personaly, I don't consider all the extra work worth an extra couple of tenths of a GPA. I take basically all the standard classes with the exception of AP Computer Science and AP Statistics. I'm a white upper-middle-class Jewish male, meaning I basically have affirmative action working against me. I still managed to get into the University of Michigan. My parents complain that I basically do no homework every night, rarely study for tests, and that I could do better (I'm waiting for my collegiate rude awakening). Meanwhile, Many of my friends with 8 AP classes are being rejected from all the ivy league institutions.
And you have learned the cruel truth of the world we live in - hard work is rarely rewarded. Of all the people out there who overburden themselves with responsibilities that are well beyond their abilities, only a select few will go on to change the world. Most of the rest will either continually fall short of greatness or simply burn out.
My high school was not among the elite, nor did it offer an insane number of AP classes (there were only 3 or 4 when I went there). My parents never pushed me to do anything I didn't want to do. I still willingly went through most of the upper level track throughout school, not because I felt I had to because of expectations or future necessity, but just because I could. I went through scouting and came away an Eagle Scout, not because of my family's scouting tradition, but because I enjoyed it and it was something productive. I even stuck with the trumpet for 10 years because it was something interesting to do, even though I sucked (and of course I haven't touched it since high school).
I elected to stop taking foreign language classes after I had fulfilled the requirement while others continued on the honors language track, not because it was too hard (my grades were near-perfect most of the time), but because I didn't feel like it. Instead of an extra class and an overloaded schedule, I got an occasional study hall and time to spend on homework or creative work. And while I may not be fluent in any foreign languages, I can still go on a self-guided tour of non-English language museums in many parts of Europe and understand what is being presented. That suits me just fine.
The other area where I stopped just short of the most that was offered was in English. Due to an administrative error, I was left off the list of students who were taking a new senior year English program that taught two college-level English courses (with college credit) in place of the usual senior year English class. The class took up two class periods per day and usually had at least one 5 page paper due per week (on the easy weeks), and most of the students in it hated it. Instead, I ended up in the usual honors English class, with all of nine students in it. The class was so small that we had actual class participation and we were able to have real discussions (we even arranged our desks in a circle, how's that for non-conformity?). There were regularly assigned essays of course (usually one per each major work or type of work), but the topics were open and there was no length requirement. You could use one of the generic essay topics that were well-known for the particular work, or you could come up with your own and actually explore new ideas. I got more out of that class than I ever could have from the "college" class, and as it turns out, it was very similar to the English classes I took in college. Go figure.
So what's the secret? It's simple - just do what you want to do and not what you think is expected of you (and actually work at what you want to do, which is what most people forget to do). There are always things you might not like, but if it's part of something you're working toward by choice, you're stuck with it. In college you'll have to deal w
And I could come up with a few other things to call it, but you probably wouldn't care to hear them. The fundamental flaw here (or at least the one I feel like drawing attention to at the moment, feel free to find your own) is that it is reasonable to assume that a person will have a basic understanding of the operation of a watch and what goes into the manufacture of its components. Considering that most of the world's watches, particularly those of the digital variety, are known to have in fact been constructed by sentient beings (though some would argue about the sentient part), it is not unreasonable to assume that something that looks exactly like a watch, acts exactly like a watch, and may even bear a "Made in Taiwan" stamp has not come about by natural means. Of course, none of this means that the person is not completely off the mark and can't recognize the clear byproduct of some sort of naturally occurring freak transdimensional hiccup. Now, unless you happen to be an ancient Magarathean, I doubt you are well versed in the construction of planets and their associated accessories. I mean, just how many have you even gotten a good look at?
Some textbooks go out of their way to antagonize religion.
Hey, don't blame science for the textbooks. If someone found a completely accurate textbook in the middle of a field, they would probably use it as proof of a supreme being, because it sure as hell wasn't printed on this planet.
We shouldn't pretend that science knows all the answers about evolution, or how life got to the point that it is now.
We don't pretend that science knows all the answers to anything. Oddly enough, the only people I see claiming that science claims to have all the answers are the ones claiming that it doesn't. The whole point of science is to take what we currently understand and expand it, usually by showing that our previous understanding was incomplete, oversimplified, or just plain wrong. This is only a loosely cooperative process, resulting in lots of disagreement and internal politics. There is no one answer about anything, and even if there is, previous answers and misinterpretations of the answer will remain floating around out there for quite some time. The ultimate test of science is whatever works; beyond that, it's all up in the air and open for debate.
Intelligent design is an alternative explanation for what happened to start the evolutionary processes that we know work.
Then it should be floating around in the scientific community as we speak and will bubble up into textbooks as soon as its merits are shown to some textbook editor who doesn't know a thing about science. That's how everyone else's pet theories get into textbooks, why should yours be any different?
Yes, there are gaps. This is what critics say about the gaps. End of story!
But where do you draw the line on which critics you include? Your concept works well in a system with one critic (preferably one who is only critical on a small number of items), but it doesn't scale well. How do you tell the "believes drool to be the universe's true currency and urinates on petunias because they asked him so politely" nutcases from the "brain the size of a planet, not that you'd understand or care about what I have to say" geniuses who are just way ahead of their time? We can't even all agree on whether Nostradamus was a visionary who could see into the future or just really fun to have at parties, and he's been dead for centuries. With the attention span of the average American teenager approaching the smallest interval of time that can be measured by watches not found in the middle of a strange field, you really have to go with the best fit solution and print "Here there be monsters" around the outer edge.
seriously. work in the industry for 5 years, then go back to school, experience is more valuable than any piece of paper.
Why not do both? My perspective may be a bit different, being an EE and not a CS, but you can get plenty of good experience in the year or two it takes to get a Master's degree. Having the Master's will usually give you a decent boost in starting salary, and considering that a Master's degree doesn't cost anything more than time and effort (you're doing something wrong if you have to pay any of your own money), it can be a good intermediate step between school and work.
If you're not sure of exactly what you want to do, or if you want some low-risk "real world experience" (complete with never-ending meetings, schedule slips, funding cuts, and other things that go horribly wrong outside your control), a Master's degree makes perfect sense. My Master's degree gave me a nice piece of paper and plenty of good stories that made me look good on paper and in person, giving me my pick of jobs (to the point where my last interview was little more than a trivial formality and a getting to know each other exercise).
Of course, if none of the job listings the original poster has seen have required or preferred a Master's degree, then it might not matter. Maybe CS is different, but in my first EE class, the professor told us that we would get a Master's degree, sooner or later. Where I work, it is practically required to have a Master's degree (or at least be working toward one) for advancement.
On the subject of what degree to get, that is really a personal matter. Pick something that interests you and has thesis opportunities that are similar to the work you eventually want to do (if you're not working full-time, skip any non-thesis options you find; your thesis and any other research is what makes the degree more than just a piece of paper). Don't just get a degree to use as a line on your resume - if you don't have a use for a degree, you could find yourself overqualified for the job you really want.
And whatever you do, make sure you take any opportunities for writing papers and giving presentations. These skills may not be required in whatever job you choose, but they will help you to stand out (which helps a lot when it comes to raises and promotions).
Americans, on the other hand, usually have home ownership as their highest priority, and along with this, the most expensive home their income can afford them. A fat mortgage payment leaves little income to spend on gadgets that'll be obsolete in 6 months. It's even worse when you're spending what's left on the most expensive car payment you can afford.
You're partly right here, but not everyone is trying to spend money for the sake of spending money. You need to consider the kind of financial mentality that comes with buying a house - a house is a large financial commitment that is also intended to be an investment. The goal isn't to spend the most money, but to put your money into something that will keep its value without large additional costs (or can have its value increased with an acceptable amount of cost and effort).
If you carry that thinking over into electronics, it means that you'll want something that will be useful for a good amount of time and can do its job well (or something that is so inexpensive that it can be thrown away when it fails, if the type of use allows for this). The result is a decreased demand for the next big thing and a big split between the high and low ends of the market.
The bottom line is that Americans are concerned about value (either good quality for a price or questionable quality for next to nothing). There will always be some people who are more concerned about style, but the inevitability of purchasing a home and/or car instills a value mentality that is hard to overcome.
I believe there were some mistakes in the MIT data.
I believe the whole thing is a load of crap. After getting tons of 404s from the links in the article, I managed to find the info on WPI. According to Forbes, WPI doesn't offer online classes, doesn't have a computer ethics policy, doesn't provide multimedia equipment, doesn't stream its radio station...
Five minutes at their web site reveals information that Forbes couldn't find. And people get paid to do this? I'm in the wrong racket...
Lock your damn door, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
But keep it open when you're there (and are awake and decent). You want to be social, don't you? At a tech school, just having your door open could make you the most social person around (sad but true).
If you're on the ground floor, don't forget about the windows. One year I watched the guy in the room next to me walk into the building, open his door, and run outside. It turns out that when he opened his door, he saw someone climbing into his window trying to steal his stereo. The building I was in had flimsy screens that would fall out with a slight nudge, making entry simple when the window was open for ventilation.
Oddly enough though, I made it through a year with an unlocked door with almost no trouble. My roommates (I had 3 that year) had trouble remembering to bring their keys with them, so they never locked the door (these doors didn't lock automatically when closed). On the night before I moved out at the end of the year, someone swiped my cheap phone, leaving all of the computer equipment untouched (that was the same night someone put a dead squirrel on my windshield, but that's another story). Thieves are strange, don't think you can understand what they're after.
1. Sex. Women do all their freaky stuff in college, so have an open mind and hit as much of it as you possibly can.
If you're at a tech school, this might be little or none. Don't obsess over sex - women at that age, while appealing, are probably still somewhere between "Oh my god, you'll never guess who looked at me in math class!" and "I wonder what I can get him to buy me if I wear this dress?" Mix in a male/female ratio that is highly in their favor, and you have enough emotional trauma for an entire season of after school specials. If you manage to find a good one, go for it, but you won't know that until you get to know her. Learn to talk to people and get to know them as human beings and not sex objects. Chances are, you'll have fonder memories of late-night conversations that go nowhere than of easy scores. Listen, talk, and don't be afraid to take a few chances.
2. Class. A good education is important, but don't let it interfere with #1.
Don't miss lectures. You still will of course, but don't get it in your head that you don't need to go. Don't fall asleep in the lecture until you've finished going through the day's material and are sure that you understand it better than the professor. If you have to cut corners, don't read the book, especially if it was written by one or more professors at your school.
3. Network. Not TCP/IP, but people. Every job you get in the future is going to be because of who you know, so get to know a LOT of people. Get to know them well so they don't forget you.
This might apply at the more well-known schools, but at the smaller ones, the only people there who will be of any importance will have dropped out by their Junior year (they will go back to get honorary degrees and have buildings named after them though). Instead, learn to talk to people. If you can't grab someone's attention from a crowd and get a clear and concise point across, you're not ready to graduate. Work the career fairs, even if you're not looking for a job. You'll still get lots of experience dealing with people, and if you come up with your own unique angle, they will remember you next year (even if the representatives are different). And there's plenty of Free Stuff to grab while you're there...
4. The Law. Graduating from college doesn't erase your law record, so don't get arrested.
And remember, at schools where the students are too geeky to think up good pranks, the cops might have nothing better to do than enforce laws pertaining to the possession and consumption of alcohol. If the police want to have a chat with you when you're out walking late at night, be ca
My Olympus C4040Z will drain a new set of 4 AA's within a few minutes if I leave the LCD on, so I do most of my composing in the tiny optical viewfinder.
It sounds like either your camera is defective or your batteries are garbage. My Olympus C-5050 can go for at least 2 or 3 hours on a single set of 2200mAh batteries, and my old Casio QV-2000 could last around 2 hours on a set of 1550s, all with the LCD on constantly. Even my Apple QuickTake 200 could get a half an hour or so out of a set of alkalines. Maybe you should try some of these.
Small is good - camera's not much use if you can't be bothered to carry it.
Smaller isn't always best. By reducing the size and weight, you sacrifice stability - a larger, heavier camera with a well-made grip will be easier to keep still in a wider variety of situations. Larger size also allows for faster lenses, all of which makes it easier to take good available light pictures in low light conditions. The greater stability also helps when you add a hot shoe flash or filters/lenses.
The bottom line is that one camera won't meet everyone's needs in all situations. A compact camera is nice to carry around for occasional pictures, but a larger camera is better suited to longer engagements.
A lens starting at 28mm is very desirable for me - for capturing vistas and indoor parties. For a 4x lens, give me a 28-112mm over 34-134mm any day (f2.0 of course...).
Depending on the sensor used, that's probably going to be a big lens requiring a large camera body (so much for that compact camera you wanted). For comparison, take a look at the Olympus C-5060 (1/1.8" sensor, 27mm-110mm 4x zoom, F2.8-F4.8 aperture) and Olympus C-8080 (2/3" sensor, 28mm-140mm 5x zoom, F2.4-F3.5 aperture). Without the wide angle, there's the Olympus C-5050 (1/1.8" sensor, 35mm-105mm 3x zoom, F1.8-F2.6 aperture).
Second of all, I'd like to see a movie/series about the beginings of the borg.
How about this plot synopsis I put together for Enterprise after the first few episodes? It has the Q, the beginning of the Borg, and convenient links to the rest of the Star Trek timeline.
Close, but no cigar. If I'm interpreting the preceding post correctly, the point wasn't that the poster disagreed with the content, it was that the content was disagreeable. Network television doesn't like taking risks. Political extremists attract devoted followings of rabid fans, but they miss the vast moderate majority, which just happens to be the key market of network television.
There's also the issue of sponsorship - anything too far one way or the other is likely to cause sponsors to bail. Network television is such a big budget industry that it needs huge ratings and sponsorship from the entire political spectrum in order to survive. Each network might have its own leanings that set it apart, but the extremism will be kept to a minimum.
You'll note a similar phenomenon with political candidates. Candidates that campaign on an extreme platform are weeded out, while the successful ones are essentially the same thing with slightly different spins. The gay marriage issue in particular is one where the moderates in both parties support essentially the same thing, but package it differently to appease their respective extremists. "We must ban gay marriage!" "...but we'll leave the door open to a civil union equivalent." "We must allow gay marriage!" "...but we'll call them civil unions instead and leave marriage for heterosexuals." The extremists on both sides lose not because they are forced out, but because their positions have less universal appeal.
But what do I know, my only source of "celebrity" interviews is The Daily Show, which seems to give interviews to anyone willing to appear on the show, regardless of politics...
Do people want to register with Real? NO!
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I wonder if they know how to take a hint over there...
no@no.no already has an account. nono@no.no already has an account. nonono@no.no already has an account. nononono@no.no already has an account. no@no.no.no already has an account. nono@no.no.no already has an account. nonono@no.no.no already has an account. nononono@no.no.no already has an account. no.no@no.no already has an account. no.no.no@no.no already has an account.
Classifying everyone as either 'jerk' or 'polite' is a gross oversimplification. The truth is that complaining is a fine art, and there are ways to use this art to get what you want without being a jerk.
The reason why the polite person can be overlooked is because there is no pressing need for attention. If there's a severed thumb in your soup and you sit politely and wait for the waiter to return, you aren't going to get particularly prompt service. If you scream, someone will be over to help you rather quickly. The key is to make your displeasure known in such a way that will get immediate attention but will not seem unreasonable to random bystanders. This has the added impact of public opinion - if a potential customer sees a poor effort to resolve a reasonable problem, that person could choose to do business elsewhere.
As an example, I once hated doing business with UPS. Since I have no choice but to pick up packages at the local customer counter after the first delivery attempt, I got to deal with the UPS automated phone system rather frequently. It was such a poorly implemented piece of equine excrement that a simple 'will call' request could take 15 minutes (wading through menus, entering tracking numbers multiple times, then explaining everything to a human being, who would once again request the tracking number and your name, address, phone number, etc.). I inquired about having packages automatically held for pickup after the first delivery attempt (USPS, FedEx, and Airborne all do this to some extent, and FedEx and Airborne even have same day pickup), but I was told repeatedly that this could not be done. After calmly expressing my irritation in person at the rather crowded customer counter, my packages started being held for pickup automatically and I received friendly, personalized service at the customer counter.
They have since stopped allowing automatic holding, but delivery change requests can now be processed quickly and painlessly on the web. Now that those incompetent morons in charge of the USPS have cut back my local post office's hours so much that there is no way I can go there during the week, and with FedEx closing down the office that I drive past every day and moving operations to one that is conveniently located a half hour drive through back roads from where I live (in the opposite direction of where I work), UPS has become my favorite carrier.
And what WAS the purpose in this new version? Was there a goal? Or is it just to survive?
Why not watch it and find out (Sunday night, 7pm-11pm)? It's not like watching a different version of something you like will suck out your soul or something. Don't expect this to be the full Battlestar Galactica story - the miniseries ends at the start of the fleet's journey. The topics you seem to want to see explored were only introduced in the miniseries, but everything seems to be there (I've only seen a few episodes of the original series, so I can't tell if it will be up to your satisfaction). The religion is presented differently in the new version, but you'll have to wait until the end for most of that (or just flip to SciFi at around 10:30pm on Sunday if you want to skip all the character development, battle scenes, moral dilemmas, and sex scenes).
If nothing else, at least watch it before complaining about how horrible it is compared to the original, especially if you're going to bring Galactica 1980 into this...
It's not moot, it was in the article. It may be incorrect but it's there.
Considering how much of that comment was based on what was actually in the article (read almost none "for god's sake"), I think the article should be considered moot for the purposes of this discussion.
Wait a second, how did you know what was in the article? Real/. readers don't read the articles (I'm a fake/. reader myself, so I am exempt from this rule), which means you must be a... RIAA SPY!!!!!
Um, I think they were trying to make the point that she has an Apple as Kazaa doesn't run on Apple, per TFA.
Let's read the comment again:
In the 'oops' category, the RIAA was forced to withdraw its suit against a 66 year old computer neophyte (read Apple User for god's sake) when they discovered she thought 'Kazaa' was a magician playing at local kids' birthday parties.
It is quite clear that neophyte is being equated to Apple user and the comment is meant to be read as "She's obviously clueless about computers, after all, she's an Apple User. And she thinks Kazaa is a magician. What a moron!" In other words, the person who submitted the article was just being a jackass and doesn't deserve to be defended. Her computer's ability to run the software was never brought up; instead, she was portrayed as too clueless to use it. And since there are Kazaa clients available for Macs, the point about her not being able to run it is moot.
To facilitate the VIN's usefulness for these laudable governmental purposes, federal law requires that the VIN be placed in the plain view of someone outside the automobile: [475 U.S. 106, 112]
"The VIN for passenger cars [manufactured after 1969] shall be located inside the passenger compartment. It shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar. Each character in the VIN subject to this paragraph shall have a minimum height of 4 mm." 49 CFR 571.115 (S4.6) (1984) (emphasis added).
Take specialists from multiple fields with 150+ years of research behind them, have them work together and share ideas freely... just imagine the type of genious that would be it's output.
You do realize that this is just a variation on the "lock a dozen vicious animals in a room to find out which is the strongest" theme, right? After all, of those "150+ years of research," maybe 20 would be spent on actual work, with the remaining 130+ being spent defending the work from all other ideas, regardless of their validity.
Maybe some people could continue innovating for over a century, but the vast majority would either reach the limit of their abilities or lock themselves into a particular (and probably somewhat flawed) mindset long before then. Add to that the amount of education required just to understand the after dinner conversation of the lucky few, and you'll have a system that is incredibly resistant to change.
The one big unknown in all of this is how well someone would be able to learn at the age of 200 vs. 20 or 12. Part of this would be purely biological (the brain's ability to process new information over time), but another part would be psychological (the person's willingness to accept new ideas after spending decades learning other ideas, regardless of how the new relate to the old). Advances in teaching methods could also make it possible to keep children up to speed with the latest knowledge from the multicentenarian intellectual elite (at a casual, not technical, level), creating a huge knowledge gap between generations.
In other words, if you're planning a 150 year career, neuroscience is probably a good place to start.
Slashdot Mirror
So, region coding was invented, the idea being that you could sell a DVD to Thailand for £4 and one to the west for £15 and maximise profits.
There's a little more to it than that. Quite often, different companies will have the rights to distribute a film in different regions. A technical limitation that keeps other distributors' versions of a film from running in your region makes the distribution deal more valuable, thus making more money for the studio. And of course in countries like the UK, it allows for delayed releases to be coordinated with the theater release schedule, creating the illusion of geographic separation in an increasingly connected world. The studio spin is that this allows content to be made available to people who might not have been able to afford it otherwise. Can you imagine what it would be like to go through life without Adam Sandler movies?
Different versions for different regions might also have different content, so extra features on the region 1 DVD might not be included on the region 2 DVD. The studios will spin this by making it sound like region coding protects you from "accidentally" purchasing an inferior product, but in reality they don't want you to have the choice of not paying extra for content that someone decided that your market could bear. The primary belief in all of this is that consumers are stupid and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between different versions of the same movie. The possibility that someone might want an "inferior" version or different content like Portuguese subtitles is not a consideration.
Speaking as a freelance photographer, things are worse than people think. Not only can you not sell, but nobody will help you to publish such photos.
Try sending them to the Boston Globe. They will gladly publish your photos, even if they don't have your permission or even know who took the picture. They're clearly fighting for our civil liberties by blatantly violating our copyrights...
Look, the $$ from ads (selling your eyeballs) gives us a lot of "free" stuff - TV, radio, local newpapers, etc.
Take your eyeballs off the ads for a few minutes and you'll see that it's all a lie. In that "free" stuff, what percentage of it isn't ads? What was the percentage 20 years ago? What do you think it will be in 20 years? Look beyond the "free" stuff - how much has advertising expanded in the stuff we still have to pay for? Ever wonder where the money goes?
Think about it, the movie company that puts a 15 second trailer in a game is probably spending tens of millions of dollars to advertise a movie that will be lucky to break even after all of the costs are factored in (even before cooking the books to eliminate any real profit). So the film companies pass on the cost to the theaters, which then raise ticket prices and concession prices, and then run ads before the movies. Now the soft drink companies pay the theaters to bombard you with ads before you watch a movie that you paid the advertising agency of to bombard you with ads for in a game that you paid the developer to have an ad agency pay for ads on the side of soda cans that you paid more for so they could run ads before the movie you just watched...
Advertising is a tax, and the more places it gets into, the more tax you're paying for stuff that was easier and cheaper to get without the advertising. The big companies don't care because they have the cash to pay for it up front and they know you'll foot the bill for them later on. It also has a nice side effect of raising the barrier to entry that keeps smaller companies from being able to compete with them.
For the unfortunate "consumer," there is no way out. The advertising will go on whether we want it or not. If we don't watch it, they'll just make more and more until it finds us, and the bill will get tucked inside the price of the product. If we don't buy the product, they'll just buy up or force out the alternative until there is no choice but to buy from them or a similar competitor. The best anyone can hope for is to pass as much of the cost on to someone else. Skip the ads, buy on sale, do without. Sure, children are going to bed hungry because I don't want to pay for some ad exec's Porche, but some things in this universe aren't under my control.
The older computers often go to departments which don't have enough grant money to afford newer ones.
This is the point people (even those at colleges) don't seem to understand - even if a college is constantly buying new computers, only a small percentage of the installed base gets replaced at any given time. Back around 1997 or so, the college I went to started to get rid of its 8086-based PCs. These ancient computers had worked their way from lab to lab and from department to department until they made it to the humanities professors, which was the end of the line. At the time, computers were on a 10 year life cycle, which was a bit absurd even then.
Yeah, and they cost two to three times as much.
Typically, yes, but some of them can be found on clearance in the US for around $25. In cases like the nearly impossible to find Alternators Tracks, the discounted Binaltech figure is actually cheaper than the insane price you would have to pay for the Alternators version on eBay. And of course the packaging and included bio card (in Japanese, but still...) make it a much better deal.
I've got a number of imports (including a re-issue Megatron that has a spring mechanism to actually fire little bullets), and I'm very very happy that Hasbro is selling most of the good stuff domestically. It makes my habit less frighteningly expensive.
Of course, you also have to take into account the fact that Hasbro usually finds ways to make the domestic releases slightly less appealing than the Japanese releases. In the case of reissues of the original figures, they're stuck making modifications due to current child safety laws (and many figures released overseas will never be sold in the US because of these laws). The new figures are all designed with these laws in mind, but Hasbro still manages to make the figures look worse by changing the coloring and detailing. The differences are minor in most cases, but some are just bizarre (Armada Tidal Wave for instance).
What really keeps this kind of habit less expensive is how Hasbro overproduces everything, apparently linking production run inversely to demand (the most popular figures are produced in limited quantities, while the least popular can be found stacked to the ceiling in most toy stores). Just wait for the inevitable clearances and pick up whatever you want at half price or less.
Can you see Disney _ever_ being willing to explore a mature theme in a "cartoon" they make? They've walled themselves off into the G rating only corner and seem to like it there. That's not to say a G rated animation has to suck, just that Disney seems to think it can't have any mature themes period.
Disney is simply delivering what American parents want. Have you forgotten last November already? Some of us realize that it is futile and counterproductive to try to hide kids from reality, but we are in the minority. Some of us also realize that not all animation is appropriate for all age groups, but again, this is not the majority. Put the two together, and it makes sense that Disney would aim low in terms of MPAA ratings - that's where the money is.
US-produced children's entertainment is in a big rut right now, partly because of "family values" and partly because of the success of Japanese imports (often even after excessive and senseless editing). Like what happened in the comic book industry, the animation industry is afraid of running afoul of the morality police. Look at what happened when PBS was set to air something that showed kids that homosexual couples exist (without this even being the focus of the episode). Look at where almost all of the complaints to the FCC come from. Creativity in this country is being stifled "for the children."
As with most things however, this is just a temporary setback that will disappear in a few decades when a generation or two of parents have died off. All of these "values" issues are non-issues to the younger generations, and thanks to Japan, kids are being exposed to "mature" themes without bringing on the end of the world. In fact, not only are horrible things not happening, but kids are actually taking an interest in things like reading as a result of Japan's influence. Graphic novels might not be the height of modern literature, but anything that gets kids into bookstores on a regular basis can't be all bad. Change happens, but it is a slow process.
When I was a junior in high school, I had the most amateur math teacher I've ever had the misfortune of having to sit through. He'd get to a new section to teach (this was my high schools highest level math class offered by the way) and one in particular I remember was how to solve a matrix. We'd get aa grid of numbers, and following his bouncy ball method, come up with an answer. My question was, where did the grid of numbers come from, what did they represent, and what the heck did the answer mean? I could solve those things in a flash, but never did know what they meant. I kept pushing for an answer (I suppose it was more of the question I was after, I could find the answers) and instead of answering he sent me to the principle for being a troublemaker.
This reminds me of a statistics class I took in my senior year of college. I needed another math class in order to meet the graduation requirements, so I took the only one recommended for my major that I hadn't already taken - Statistics I. Now, by the time the class started, I was halfway through a graduate class in statistics, and of course by that point everything in the undergrad class had already been covered, and in more detail and by a competent professor. The undergrad class was taught by a Chinese professor who was difficult to understand, with TAs who were Chinese grad students and were almost impossible to understand (unless the "taiten to the coo" is some sort of common expression that I was not exposed to in my sheltered upbringing). I have nothing against any particular ethnic group, but communication is a rather important part of education.
As could be expected, I wasn't exactly very engaged in the class. In addition to the communication difficulties, the book was an internally produced book written by three professors, and its quality was everything that you would expect from something published exclusively by photocopier. I started out actually reading the book, but that proved pointless when the professor declared that he would only use the examples from the book in his lectures (students had asked for different examples because the examples from the book did not adequately cover the concepts being taught). I quickly settled into a routine where I would take the slides that were handed out at the beginning of each lecture and go through them before the lecture started, completing all of the examples as I went. When I was done, I went to sleep. An afternoon nap was far more beneficial than the lectures. Still, I tried to understand the material being taught, at least until one particular experience.
In one of the lab exercises (which were taught by the TAs), we were performing an analysis of some sort of distribution (I don't remember the exact details), and the final result was one number that was supposed to be particularly useful. How it was supposed to be particularly useful was not explained in the book or the lab exercise, though both did explain exactly how to obtain the number. Being the good little student that I was, I wanted to know what this number represented, so I called a TA over and asked what the number was supposed to tell us. His response was a simple and definite "no." After a moment of confusion, my brain shut down and I stopped trying to understand what the point of anything was.
That class ranks as the most pointless waste of effort I have ever been through in my entire life. Still, I needed the credit and the only other options were high-level courses that would have done nothing but add work I didn't have time to do. So I went through the motions, and by the time the last exam came up, I knew I only needed to show up to pass and put some ink on the paper to get an A. I quickly went through the questions, not really knowing what it was I was doing, and then handed it in half an hour later, never looking back.
Again, I am another high school student in a supposed 'well-ranked' public school. A lot of my friends are basically the people who take 8 AP courses and no lunch. Personaly, I don't consider all the extra work worth an extra couple of tenths of a GPA. I take basically all the standard classes with the exception of AP Computer Science and AP Statistics. I'm a white upper-middle-class Jewish male, meaning I basically have affirmative action working against me. I still managed to get into the University of Michigan. My parents complain that I basically do no homework every night, rarely study for tests, and that I could do better (I'm waiting for my collegiate rude awakening). Meanwhile, Many of my friends with 8 AP classes are being rejected from all the ivy league institutions.
And you have learned the cruel truth of the world we live in - hard work is rarely rewarded. Of all the people out there who overburden themselves with responsibilities that are well beyond their abilities, only a select few will go on to change the world. Most of the rest will either continually fall short of greatness or simply burn out.
My high school was not among the elite, nor did it offer an insane number of AP classes (there were only 3 or 4 when I went there). My parents never pushed me to do anything I didn't want to do. I still willingly went through most of the upper level track throughout school, not because I felt I had to because of expectations or future necessity, but just because I could. I went through scouting and came away an Eagle Scout, not because of my family's scouting tradition, but because I enjoyed it and it was something productive. I even stuck with the trumpet for 10 years because it was something interesting to do, even though I sucked (and of course I haven't touched it since high school).
I elected to stop taking foreign language classes after I had fulfilled the requirement while others continued on the honors language track, not because it was too hard (my grades were near-perfect most of the time), but because I didn't feel like it. Instead of an extra class and an overloaded schedule, I got an occasional study hall and time to spend on homework or creative work. And while I may not be fluent in any foreign languages, I can still go on a self-guided tour of non-English language museums in many parts of Europe and understand what is being presented. That suits me just fine.
The other area where I stopped just short of the most that was offered was in English. Due to an administrative error, I was left off the list of students who were taking a new senior year English program that taught two college-level English courses (with college credit) in place of the usual senior year English class. The class took up two class periods per day and usually had at least one 5 page paper due per week (on the easy weeks), and most of the students in it hated it. Instead, I ended up in the usual honors English class, with all of nine students in it. The class was so small that we had actual class participation and we were able to have real discussions (we even arranged our desks in a circle, how's that for non-conformity?). There were regularly assigned essays of course (usually one per each major work or type of work), but the topics were open and there was no length requirement. You could use one of the generic essay topics that were well-known for the particular work, or you could come up with your own and actually explore new ideas. I got more out of that class than I ever could have from the "college" class, and as it turns out, it was very similar to the English classes I took in college. Go figure.
So what's the secret? It's simple - just do what you want to do and not what you think is expected of you (and actually work at what you want to do, which is what most people forget to do). There are always things you might not like, but if it's part of something you're working toward by choice, you're stuck with it. In college you'll have to deal w
It's called the Watchmaker approach.
And I could come up with a few other things to call it, but you probably wouldn't care to hear them. The fundamental flaw here (or at least the one I feel like drawing attention to at the moment, feel free to find your own) is that it is reasonable to assume that a person will have a basic understanding of the operation of a watch and what goes into the manufacture of its components. Considering that most of the world's watches, particularly those of the digital variety, are known to have in fact been constructed by sentient beings (though some would argue about the sentient part), it is not unreasonable to assume that something that looks exactly like a watch, acts exactly like a watch, and may even bear a "Made in Taiwan" stamp has not come about by natural means. Of course, none of this means that the person is not completely off the mark and can't recognize the clear byproduct of some sort of naturally occurring freak transdimensional hiccup. Now, unless you happen to be an ancient Magarathean, I doubt you are well versed in the construction of planets and their associated accessories. I mean, just how many have you even gotten a good look at?
Some textbooks go out of their way to antagonize religion.
Hey, don't blame science for the textbooks. If someone found a completely accurate textbook in the middle of a field, they would probably use it as proof of a supreme being, because it sure as hell wasn't printed on this planet.
We shouldn't pretend that science knows all the answers about evolution, or how life got to the point that it is now.
We don't pretend that science knows all the answers to anything. Oddly enough, the only people I see claiming that science claims to have all the answers are the ones claiming that it doesn't. The whole point of science is to take what we currently understand and expand it, usually by showing that our previous understanding was incomplete, oversimplified, or just plain wrong. This is only a loosely cooperative process, resulting in lots of disagreement and internal politics. There is no one answer about anything, and even if there is, previous answers and misinterpretations of the answer will remain floating around out there for quite some time. The ultimate test of science is whatever works; beyond that, it's all up in the air and open for debate.
Intelligent design is an alternative explanation for what happened to start the evolutionary processes that we know work.
Then it should be floating around in the scientific community as we speak and will bubble up into textbooks as soon as its merits are shown to some textbook editor who doesn't know a thing about science. That's how everyone else's pet theories get into textbooks, why should yours be any different?
Yes, there are gaps. This is what critics say about the gaps. End of story!
But where do you draw the line on which critics you include? Your concept works well in a system with one critic (preferably one who is only critical on a small number of items), but it doesn't scale well. How do you tell the "believes drool to be the universe's true currency and urinates on petunias because they asked him so politely" nutcases from the "brain the size of a planet, not that you'd understand or care about what I have to say" geniuses who are just way ahead of their time? We can't even all agree on whether Nostradamus was a visionary who could see into the future or just really fun to have at parties, and he's been dead for centuries. With the attention span of the average American teenager approaching the smallest interval of time that can be measured by watches not found in the middle of a strange field, you really have to go with the best fit solution and print "Here there be monsters" around the outer edge.
seriously. work in the industry for 5 years, then go back to school, experience is more valuable than any piece of paper.
Why not do both? My perspective may be a bit different, being an EE and not a CS, but you can get plenty of good experience in the year or two it takes to get a Master's degree. Having the Master's will usually give you a decent boost in starting salary, and considering that a Master's degree doesn't cost anything more than time and effort (you're doing something wrong if you have to pay any of your own money), it can be a good intermediate step between school and work.
If you're not sure of exactly what you want to do, or if you want some low-risk "real world experience" (complete with never-ending meetings, schedule slips, funding cuts, and other things that go horribly wrong outside your control), a Master's degree makes perfect sense. My Master's degree gave me a nice piece of paper and plenty of good stories that made me look good on paper and in person, giving me my pick of jobs (to the point where my last interview was little more than a trivial formality and a getting to know each other exercise).
Of course, if none of the job listings the original poster has seen have required or preferred a Master's degree, then it might not matter. Maybe CS is different, but in my first EE class, the professor told us that we would get a Master's degree, sooner or later. Where I work, it is practically required to have a Master's degree (or at least be working toward one) for advancement.
On the subject of what degree to get, that is really a personal matter. Pick something that interests you and has thesis opportunities that are similar to the work you eventually want to do (if you're not working full-time, skip any non-thesis options you find; your thesis and any other research is what makes the degree more than just a piece of paper). Don't just get a degree to use as a line on your resume - if you don't have a use for a degree, you could find yourself overqualified for the job you really want.
And whatever you do, make sure you take any opportunities for writing papers and giving presentations. These skills may not be required in whatever job you choose, but they will help you to stand out (which helps a lot when it comes to raises and promotions).
Americans, on the other hand, usually have home ownership as their highest priority, and along with this, the most expensive home their income can afford them. A fat mortgage payment leaves little income to spend on gadgets that'll be obsolete in 6 months. It's even worse when you're spending what's left on the most expensive car payment you can afford.
You're partly right here, but not everyone is trying to spend money for the sake of spending money. You need to consider the kind of financial mentality that comes with buying a house - a house is a large financial commitment that is also intended to be an investment. The goal isn't to spend the most money, but to put your money into something that will keep its value without large additional costs (or can have its value increased with an acceptable amount of cost and effort).
If you carry that thinking over into electronics, it means that you'll want something that will be useful for a good amount of time and can do its job well (or something that is so inexpensive that it can be thrown away when it fails, if the type of use allows for this). The result is a decreased demand for the next big thing and a big split between the high and low ends of the market.
The bottom line is that Americans are concerned about value (either good quality for a price or questionable quality for next to nothing). There will always be some people who are more concerned about style, but the inevitability of purchasing a home and/or car instills a value mentality that is hard to overcome.
I believe there were some mistakes in the MIT data.
I believe the whole thing is a load of crap. After getting tons of 404s from the links in the article, I managed to find the info on WPI. According to Forbes, WPI doesn't offer online classes, doesn't have a computer ethics policy, doesn't provide multimedia equipment, doesn't stream its radio station...
Five minutes at their web site reveals information that Forbes couldn't find. And people get paid to do this? I'm in the wrong racket...
Lock your damn door, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
But keep it open when you're there (and are awake and decent). You want to be social, don't you? At a tech school, just having your door open could make you the most social person around (sad but true).
If you're on the ground floor, don't forget about the windows. One year I watched the guy in the room next to me walk into the building, open his door, and run outside. It turns out that when he opened his door, he saw someone climbing into his window trying to steal his stereo. The building I was in had flimsy screens that would fall out with a slight nudge, making entry simple when the window was open for ventilation.
Oddly enough though, I made it through a year with an unlocked door with almost no trouble. My roommates (I had 3 that year) had trouble remembering to bring their keys with them, so they never locked the door (these doors didn't lock automatically when closed). On the night before I moved out at the end of the year, someone swiped my cheap phone, leaving all of the computer equipment untouched (that was the same night someone put a dead squirrel on my windshield, but that's another story). Thieves are strange, don't think you can understand what they're after.
1. Sex. Women do all their freaky stuff in college, so have an open mind and hit as much of it as you possibly can.
If you're at a tech school, this might be little or none. Don't obsess over sex - women at that age, while appealing, are probably still somewhere between "Oh my god, you'll never guess who looked at me in math class!" and "I wonder what I can get him to buy me if I wear this dress?" Mix in a male/female ratio that is highly in their favor, and you have enough emotional trauma for an entire season of after school specials. If you manage to find a good one, go for it, but you won't know that until you get to know her. Learn to talk to people and get to know them as human beings and not sex objects. Chances are, you'll have fonder memories of late-night conversations that go nowhere than of easy scores. Listen, talk, and don't be afraid to take a few chances.
2. Class. A good education is important, but don't let it interfere with #1.
Don't miss lectures. You still will of course, but don't get it in your head that you don't need to go. Don't fall asleep in the lecture until you've finished going through the day's material and are sure that you understand it better than the professor. If you have to cut corners, don't read the book, especially if it was written by one or more professors at your school.
3. Network. Not TCP/IP, but people. Every job you get in the future is going to be because of who you know, so get to know a LOT of people. Get to know them well so they don't forget you.
This might apply at the more well-known schools, but at the smaller ones, the only people there who will be of any importance will have dropped out by their Junior year (they will go back to get honorary degrees and have buildings named after them though). Instead, learn to talk to people. If you can't grab someone's attention from a crowd and get a clear and concise point across, you're not ready to graduate. Work the career fairs, even if you're not looking for a job. You'll still get lots of experience dealing with people, and if you come up with your own unique angle, they will remember you next year (even if the representatives are different). And there's plenty of Free Stuff to grab while you're there...
4. The Law. Graduating from college doesn't erase your law record, so don't get arrested.
And remember, at schools where the students are too geeky to think up good pranks, the cops might have nothing better to do than enforce laws pertaining to the possession and consumption of alcohol. If the police want to have a chat with you when you're out walking late at night, be ca
My Olympus C4040Z will drain a new set of 4 AA's within a few minutes if I leave the LCD on, so I do most of my composing in the tiny optical viewfinder.
It sounds like either your camera is defective or your batteries are garbage. My Olympus C-5050 can go for at least 2 or 3 hours on a single set of 2200mAh batteries, and my old Casio QV-2000 could last around 2 hours on a set of 1550s, all with the LCD on constantly. Even my Apple QuickTake 200 could get a half an hour or so out of a set of alkalines. Maybe you should try some of these.
Small is good - camera's not much use if you can't be bothered to carry it.
Smaller isn't always best. By reducing the size and weight, you sacrifice stability - a larger, heavier camera with a well-made grip will be easier to keep still in a wider variety of situations. Larger size also allows for faster lenses, all of which makes it easier to take good available light pictures in low light conditions. The greater stability also helps when you add a hot shoe flash or filters/lenses.
The bottom line is that one camera won't meet everyone's needs in all situations. A compact camera is nice to carry around for occasional pictures, but a larger camera is better suited to longer engagements.
A lens starting at 28mm is very desirable for me - for capturing vistas and indoor parties. For a 4x lens, give me a 28-112mm over 34-134mm any day (f2.0 of course...).
Depending on the sensor used, that's probably going to be a big lens requiring a large camera body (so much for that compact camera you wanted). For comparison, take a look at the Olympus C-5060 (1/1.8" sensor, 27mm-110mm 4x zoom, F2.8-F4.8 aperture) and Olympus C-8080 (2/3" sensor, 28mm-140mm 5x zoom, F2.4-F3.5 aperture). Without the wide angle, there's the Olympus C-5050 (1/1.8" sensor, 35mm-105mm 3x zoom, F1.8-F2.6 aperture).
What I'd like to see: a compelling movie about Q.
Second of all, I'd like to see a movie/series about the beginings of the borg.
How about this plot synopsis I put together for Enterprise after the first few episodes? It has the Q, the beginning of the Borg, and convenient links to the rest of the Star Trek timeline.
Close, but no cigar. If I'm interpreting the preceding post correctly, the point wasn't that the poster disagreed with the content, it was that the content was disagreeable. Network television doesn't like taking risks. Political extremists attract devoted followings of rabid fans, but they miss the vast moderate majority, which just happens to be the key market of network television.
There's also the issue of sponsorship - anything too far one way or the other is likely to cause sponsors to bail. Network television is such a big budget industry that it needs huge ratings and sponsorship from the entire political spectrum in order to survive. Each network might have its own leanings that set it apart, but the extremism will be kept to a minimum.
You'll note a similar phenomenon with political candidates. Candidates that campaign on an extreme platform are weeded out, while the successful ones are essentially the same thing with slightly different spins. The gay marriage issue in particular is one where the moderates in both parties support essentially the same thing, but package it differently to appease their respective extremists. "We must ban gay marriage!" "...but we'll leave the door open to a civil union equivalent." "We must allow gay marriage!" "...but we'll call them civil unions instead and leave marriage for heterosexuals." The extremists on both sides lose not because they are forced out, but because their positions have less universal appeal.
But what do I know, my only source of "celebrity" interviews is The Daily Show, which seems to give interviews to anyone willing to appear on the show, regardless of politics...
I wonder if they know how to take a hint over there...
no@no.no already has an account.
nono@no.no already has an account.
nonono@no.no already has an account.
nononono@no.no already has an account.
no@no.no.no already has an account.
nono@no.no.no already has an account.
nonono@no.no.no already has an account.
nononono@no.no.no already has an account.
no.no@no.no already has an account.
no.no.no@no.no already has an account.
When you add in shipping, $13.86 US isn't even enough to buy the new #1 CD by Norah Jones
Sure it is. In just a few seconds, I found it for much less here. If you're going to buy CDs, you might as well pay as little as possible...
Classifying everyone as either 'jerk' or 'polite' is a gross oversimplification. The truth is that complaining is a fine art, and there are ways to use this art to get what you want without being a jerk.
The reason why the polite person can be overlooked is because there is no pressing need for attention. If there's a severed thumb in your soup and you sit politely and wait for the waiter to return, you aren't going to get particularly prompt service. If you scream, someone will be over to help you rather quickly. The key is to make your displeasure known in such a way that will get immediate attention but will not seem unreasonable to random bystanders. This has the added impact of public opinion - if a potential customer sees a poor effort to resolve a reasonable problem, that person could choose to do business elsewhere.
As an example, I once hated doing business with UPS. Since I have no choice but to pick up packages at the local customer counter after the first delivery attempt, I got to deal with the UPS automated phone system rather frequently. It was such a poorly implemented piece of equine excrement that a simple 'will call' request could take 15 minutes (wading through menus, entering tracking numbers multiple times, then explaining everything to a human being, who would once again request the tracking number and your name, address, phone number, etc.). I inquired about having packages automatically held for pickup after the first delivery attempt (USPS, FedEx, and Airborne all do this to some extent, and FedEx and Airborne even have same day pickup), but I was told repeatedly that this could not be done. After calmly expressing my irritation in person at the rather crowded customer counter, my packages started being held for pickup automatically and I received friendly, personalized service at the customer counter.
They have since stopped allowing automatic holding, but delivery change requests can now be processed quickly and painlessly on the web. Now that those incompetent morons in charge of the USPS have cut back my local post office's hours so much that there is no way I can go there during the week, and with FedEx closing down the office that I drive past every day and moving operations to one that is conveniently located a half hour drive through back roads from where I live (in the opposite direction of where I work), UPS has become my favorite carrier.
And what WAS the purpose in this new version? Was there a goal? Or is it just to survive?
Why not watch it and find out (Sunday night, 7pm-11pm)? It's not like watching a different version of something you like will suck out your soul or something. Don't expect this to be the full Battlestar Galactica story - the miniseries ends at the start of the fleet's journey. The topics you seem to want to see explored were only introduced in the miniseries, but everything seems to be there (I've only seen a few episodes of the original series, so I can't tell if it will be up to your satisfaction). The religion is presented differently in the new version, but you'll have to wait until the end for most of that (or just flip to SciFi at around 10:30pm on Sunday if you want to skip all the character development, battle scenes, moral dilemmas, and sex scenes).
If nothing else, at least watch it before complaining about how horrible it is compared to the original, especially if you're going to bring Galactica 1980 into this...
It's not moot, it was in the article. It may be incorrect but it's there.
Considering how much of that comment was based on what was actually in the article (read almost none "for god's sake"), I think the article should be considered moot for the purposes of this discussion.
Wait a second, how did you know what was in the article? Real /. readers don't read the articles (I'm a fake /. reader myself, so I am exempt from this rule), which means you must be a ... RIAA SPY!!!!!
Um, I think they were trying to make the point that she has an Apple as Kazaa doesn't run on Apple, per TFA.
Let's read the comment again:
In the 'oops' category, the RIAA was forced to withdraw its suit against a 66 year old computer neophyte (read Apple User for god's sake) when they discovered she thought 'Kazaa' was a magician playing at local kids' birthday parties.
It is quite clear that neophyte is being equated to Apple user and the comment is meant to be read as "She's obviously clueless about computers, after all, she's an Apple User. And she thinks Kazaa is a magician. What a moron!" In other words, the person who submitted the article was just being a jackass and doesn't deserve to be defended. Her computer's ability to run the software was never brought up; instead, she was portrayed as too clueless to use it. And since there are Kazaa clients available for Macs, the point about her not being able to run it is moot.
Tape over that damned number.
Go ahead, if you don't care about violating federal law and giving the police a reason to believe that the car has been stolen. From U.S. Supreme Court case NEW YORK v. CLASS, 475 U.S. 106 (1986):
Take specialists from multiple fields with 150+ years of research behind them, have them work together and share ideas freely... just imagine the type of genious that would be it's output.
You do realize that this is just a variation on the "lock a dozen vicious animals in a room to find out which is the strongest" theme, right? After all, of those "150+ years of research," maybe 20 would be spent on actual work, with the remaining 130+ being spent defending the work from all other ideas, regardless of their validity.
Maybe some people could continue innovating for over a century, but the vast majority would either reach the limit of their abilities or lock themselves into a particular (and probably somewhat flawed) mindset long before then. Add to that the amount of education required just to understand the after dinner conversation of the lucky few, and you'll have a system that is incredibly resistant to change.
The one big unknown in all of this is how well someone would be able to learn at the age of 200 vs. 20 or 12. Part of this would be purely biological (the brain's ability to process new information over time), but another part would be psychological (the person's willingness to accept new ideas after spending decades learning other ideas, regardless of how the new relate to the old). Advances in teaching methods could also make it possible to keep children up to speed with the latest knowledge from the multicentenarian intellectual elite (at a casual, not technical, level), creating a huge knowledge gap between generations.
In other words, if you're planning a 150 year career, neuroscience is probably a good place to start.