Except Mint hijacks Firefox to use their custom Google search by default and there's no "average user easy" way to disable it. It's one of their primary sources of funding. I find the idea of locking users in this way to be absolutely ridiculous.
I've seen these videos. While not pleasant to watch, they certainly didn't bother me. I hear people talking about extremely disturbing videos and photos, and when I see them, I'm not really affected.
So they had monitoring before 9/11, too? Wow it was really effective. Let's put some more time and energy into wiretapping and monitoring of the American people because it's provent to be so effective up to this point. Not to mention 100% legal.
Last time I checked, Ricoh is no longer in the camera business. Much like Konica-Minolta, they decided that it wasn't profitable and are sticking with copiers and the like.
Ok, I've tried Knoppix. I understand the appeal. And tonight, I booted up another CD-ROM based usable OS, Anonym.OS. It's a great idea. But it suffers from the same problems that every live CD I've used does: it's slow as molasses to load and every action foreces a read from the CD-ROM. Going to a web page? Cool, let me think about it for 45 seconds or so while I read from the CD. Oh, scrolling within a page? Wait, let me read. Starting an IM client? Ok, please wait about 2-3 minutes.
It'd probably be much better to put these live cd distributions on a USB 2.0 flash drive. It'd be faster, certainly.
But on the down side as with any luxury, if we over use it we get comfortable and abuse it. Saying things that should not say and shake things up that if a person had a chance to think twice about it wouldn't shake up. Pushing society too fast is as dangerous as letting it become stagnate, and Luxuries like privacy should be treated well or could be forced to be removed.
I understood what you were trying to say until I read this point. It makes no sense to me. Exactly how does one abuse the "luxury" of privacy? And how is demanding that we be able to enjoy our lives in privacy "pushing society too fast?" And how could privacy not be "treated well," leading to the need for its removal?
I see so many people around me ready to give up certain liberties, written or implied in practice, all for the sake of "safety." Let's get real here, people. Giving up things like privacy and habeas corpus is easy; after all, if you aren't a "terrorist," you have nothing to fear, right? But let's put this into perspective for a minute. These practices and laws are not established to protect criminals. They are in place to protect the innocent from being wrongly accused or persecuted and to ensure that the average citizen can have a reasonable expectation of not being harassed without cause. Any "freedom loving" patriot can see this. Yet, we have people who don't mind giving up their basic liberties because they are either apathetic or they just don't think it will ever affect them.
Are people really that scared? Has the government and the media actually succeeded in its apparent goal of scaring the average person shitless? I don't know about you, but I don't walk around thinking "man I sure am scared today - I wish I could do something, give up something, just so I could feel more secure." Tell, me, exactly: What is the logic here? I have yet to hear anyone who takes a stance similar to this give me a sound, logical, non-emotional reason for it.
For the longest time, the coffee industry has claimed that coffee lowers the risk of colon cancer, gallstones and cirrhosis of the liver, and also contains more antioxidants than green tea. So the idea itself isn't really news.
When you look at experiments and research, however, you'll see that coffee has been shown to produce the carcinogen 3,4 benzopyrene when roasted. Two other possible carcinogens have also been found in coffee. And one study showed a link between coffee intake and pancreatic cancer.
Besides the debate over whether it causes or prevents cancer, coffee is usually served with milk and sugar, and those are not healthy. It is also a stimulant on which you can become dependant and can wreak havoc on the nervous system.
The government keeps on spending money on technology that will keep us "safe" from terrorism. But we're when or where the next attack will happen, so let's just be paranoid and spend a lot of money on stuff like this.
Let's make everything as safe as possible. Coincidentally, the same technology that will "protect" us will also make us more susceptible to government surveillance. Come on, people: wake up. Our civil liberties are being rapidly chipped away every day under the guise of the government "protecting" us. ID cards, cameras in public places, the Patriot Act - when it all doesn't work, they'll use it as an excuse to have even more of these type of "utilities" to "fight" terror. I'm supposed to trust the same entity that gave us a national color-coded "Homeland Security Advisory System" with "protecting" me from an unnamed, ever-changing enemy? Of what utility is this - what does it measure, how scared I'm supposed to be?
Give me a break.
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are
free" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
I used to work at a camera store while in college. We'd have people come in all the time looking for a digital camera, even though they had no idea what "digital" meant. But they definitely wanted it, whatever it was. Then came the obligatory "so, where does the film go?" followed by "do I have to have a computer?"
The figures that report that digital cameras are dramatically outselling film cameras don't necessarily mean that consumers on the whole prefer digital. It just means that people are purchasing a lot of digital cameras.
See, in the digital market, people are constantly buying new cameras because of the increase in resolution. Buying a new film camera won't really get you that, so there's not much need to constantly replace your trusty 35mm camera.
People with lots of disposable income buy digital cameras like they would buy an ipod or a any other "gadget" - not necessarily for functionality, but more for the "coolness" factor. Normally, these people wouldn't be in the market for a new camera, but digital is "in," so they buy one.
I guess if we want to do it, we'll have to use home-made emulsions on paper.
Interesting - doesn't sound to me like this guy's a pro, or at least not one that has a lot of dark room experience. While Kodak certainly has decent offerings in this area, there are still quite a few companies to choose from that make B&W paper (Ilford, Bergger, and Forte to name a few). There's no need to create your own emulsions.
Kodak's discontinuing paper, not their highly-successful B&W films. They've also invested heavily in chromogenic films - b&w film that can be procesed in standard color chemicals and printed on standard color paper. Producing B&W paper is, for Kodak, catering to a "niche" market, since they provide a wide variety of photo products, most geared toward the average consumer.
For me and, I'm sure, many like me, this won't be much of a loss - while I love shooting T-Max 100 and Tri-X, I print on Ilford Fortezo papers.
I see this question or its variant posted on Slashdot about once a month it seems.
If you're going to college to get a job and that's your goal, then get your MBA. Study nursing. Education. Hell, even political science.
Those all offer promising careers and there's quite a demand right now in the job market for people with training in these areas.
Obviously, you're going to want to avoid solely obtaining CS or any IT-related degrees. If you are to believe most of what's on Slahdot, the market for these jobs sucks right now and, even when you get a job, you're probably going to be dissatisfied because 1) you have to work with MS poducts or 2) you have to work with people who are obviously morons. And all technology workers eventually become bitter cynics.
Now, if you are going to college because you are trying to learn something of interest, that's another story - though, with a few exceptions, I find that investing 10% of what it would cost for tuition in a few good books and a few hours of your time each week to be a much better investment in real education.
In college, I used to work at a photofinishing store, and we constantly had people coming in to get their wedding photos printed. We couldn't print them unless they had a copyright release signed by the photographer. In that case, the responsibilty to not infringe copyright was entirely with the customer. Are there problems with this? Most probably, but I can't recall it being actually challenged.... And if you go to a decent lab, one that deals with pros and advanced amateurs all the time, you'll not have this issue. Personally, I would find the "that looks too good to be something you produced" attitude to be insulting.
I'm a semi-pro. If I photograph a person or event for someone and they pay me for it, I will generally give them the option to purchase the originals for a price and print as many as they like, or for me to have them printed to my specs for a price per photo.
Let's get real. Every time the cops or some authorities do something that clearly oversteps a boundary, they scream "9/11! 9/11!" - but stuff like this shows how fucking stupid those screaming this really are. Yeah, we have to be careful of all those people who go to Best Buy to get car stereos installed and try to pay with fake money. Next thing you know, these people will be bombing buildings, so we have to be careful!
I'm probably considered unpatriotic for not being scared shitless and willing to give up every civil liberty because something very bad happened a few years ago. I'm probably not considered patriotic because I don't have 20 "support our troops" magnets on the back of my car... I just know that putting one on there will convert all those troop-haters out there who are sitting in traffic, so tomorrow, I'll be sure to go spend my $2 at Walmart and buy a Chinese-made magnet to go on the back of my vehicle. I'll also spout support for a president who has destroyed my country's economy and ruined relationships with allies. If I encounter anyone who doesn't support my views, I'll scream until they do.
It's what George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would do, so it's the least I can do for the love of my country.
People seem to forget that, even when "purchasing" music, even at $0.99/song, you don't really "own" the music, just the right to play it on a portable device, burn it onto a CD or two, and play it on a few machines that you own... and a significantly "upgraded" machine is considered a new machine. Upgrade enough times and, with most of the DRM software out there, you can't have your music any more.
Second, when most consumers purchase an iPod, they are purchasing a device that will, within 2-3 years, need to be sent in for "repair" because there is no removable battery. Genius! A $250-$500 device that lasts 2 years and will need "repair" for something that is, what I consider, a design flaw - whether you do it yourself or send it to Apple.
This is what really burns me up about the whole iPod/iTunes marketing campaign, and about DRM in general. It's all about impermanence. I still have CDs I bought back in the 80s. I have an old CD player from that time, too. The player and the music are still "working" as expected almost 20 years later - and it's in digital format.
Don't get me wrong. MS hasn't really gotten it right either - same restrictions (actually, usually the restrictions are worse), and most (not all) of the players compatible with its DRM technology have non-removable batteries.
I have bought songs from iTunes, BuyMusic, and MSN's music service (hell, I've even tried Wal Mart's service). If you think your DRM music is even semi-permanent, you are mistaken unless you burn to a CD - but only if Mr. DRM will "allow" you to do that with music you "own." But, if your final product is going to be a CD from purchasing from iTunes, you'd be better off just buying the CD outright.
A few sections of code I've happened upon (usually written by someone who no longer works for our company) contain some interesting, inappropriate comments.
"Do not touch this code. I am [name] and I am infallible. Everything in this section has been tested, and you don't need to modify it."
"BASTARDS! We don't have the id at this level?"
"This is CRAP! You expect me to react well to this? Assuming minimal functionality from calling code..."
What's most important is that they let us know that, out of the (now) 67,000 people who died in the catastrophe, hundreds of them were Americans. If 200 Americans died as a result of the quake, that accounts for about 0.2% of the total. Does that statistic really make the disaster all that more horrible?
Second, it's important that we know that many celebrities were affected by the disaster. I was really relieved when I found out that Jet Li survived, but I felt saddened when I learned that a friend of Nate Berkus, a regular contributor on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," is unaccounted for.
One thing that has always been present in the "modern" realm of photography is obsession over image size. Serious studio and wedding photographers often use medium format cameras, and some use large format (4x5" or larger). For what I enjoy photographing the most, landscapes, the view camera cannot be beat for control over images.
That being said, I have used 4x5, medium format, 35mm, and SLR and "p&s" digitals, and I can't say that I ever chose the tool I used based solely on its resolution. The "gigapixel revolution" is being fueled by equipment-crazy gadgetheads. And to each his own...
But much more worthwhile is to discuss lighting, technique, and photographic style. Concentrating on the equipment you use to create art is like concentrating on the paintbrushes that Salvador Dali used when painting his The Persistence Of Memory. You miss the overall point and appreciation of the artform.
Asking about the "best" scripting language is kind of like asking what the best motor vehicle is... it all depends on the application and your personal preferences.
Personally, I have to say that I like JavaScript for browser scripting (DHTML) and I use it on a daily basis. It's easy to learn and is perfect for what it was intended to do.
I've used VBScript w/classic ASP quite a bit as well. There's nothing really impressive about the language, it's just easy to learn and read. Unfortunatley, classic ASP tends to automatically encourage "Spaghetti Code," so dealing with VBScript isn't always fun.
I like Perl quite a bit, but as far as I am concerned, Perl is a language I use when I am the only person who is going to be reading my scripts.
One other language I used frequently is PL/SQL. The syntax for Oracle stored procedures is kind of ugly - not hard to understand, just ugly. Unnecessarily so, if you ask me. The MS SQL Server stored procedure syntax is much nicer.... Just my 2 cents.
Slashdot Mirror
Except Mint hijacks Firefox to use their custom Google search by default and there's no "average user easy" way to disable it. It's one of their primary sources of funding. I find the idea of locking users in this way to be absolutely ridiculous.
I'm saying I don't really feel anything. I just watch it and think wow I didn't know the inside of a human [whatever] looked like that.
Perhaps I'm a psychopath.
I've seen these videos. While not pleasant to watch, they certainly didn't bother me. I hear people talking about extremely disturbing videos and photos, and when I see them, I'm not really affected.
Perhaps I'm cut out for this job?
So they had monitoring before 9/11, too? Wow it was really effective. Let's put some more time and energy into wiretapping and monitoring of the American people because it's provent to be so effective up to this point. Not to mention 100% legal.
Last time I checked, Ricoh is no longer in the camera business. Much like Konica-Minolta, they decided that it wasn't profitable and are sticking with copiers and the like.
Oh god, its going to be a "Mac Pro", isn't it. Boo.
Well, according to this article, you may be correct.
This beta seems to create some interesting issues with Windows Media Player 10. When opening some vidoes, WMP hangs.
What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates?
Does anyone proofread any more? Seriously, "be a showmen" should be "being a showman" and there is no such word as "missionaire."
Wow, I don't want people to know about my sufing habits. I mean, if I'm sufing, please just leave me the fuck alone. Sufing is my own private right.
Ok, I've tried Knoppix. I understand the appeal. And tonight, I booted up another CD-ROM based usable OS, Anonym.OS. It's a great idea. But it suffers from the same problems that every live CD I've used does: it's slow as molasses to load and every action foreces a read from the CD-ROM. Going to a web page? Cool, let me think about it for 45 seconds or so while I read from the CD. Oh, scrolling within a page? Wait, let me read. Starting an IM client? Ok, please wait about 2-3 minutes.
It'd probably be much better to put these live cd distributions on a USB 2.0 flash drive. It'd be faster, certainly.
But on the down side as with any luxury, if we over use it we get comfortable and abuse it. Saying things that should not say and shake things up that if a person had a chance to think twice about it wouldn't shake up. Pushing society too fast is as dangerous as letting it become stagnate, and Luxuries like privacy should be treated well or could be forced to be removed.
I understood what you were trying to say until I read this point. It makes no sense to me. Exactly how does one abuse the "luxury" of privacy? And how is demanding that we be able to enjoy our lives in privacy "pushing society too fast?" And how could privacy not be "treated well," leading to the need for its removal?
I see so many people around me ready to give up certain liberties, written or implied in practice, all for the sake of "safety." Let's get real here, people. Giving up things like privacy and habeas corpus is easy; after all, if you aren't a "terrorist," you have nothing to fear, right? But let's put this into perspective for a minute. These practices and laws are not established to protect criminals. They are in place to protect the innocent from being wrongly accused or persecuted and to ensure that the average citizen can have a reasonable expectation of not being harassed without cause. Any "freedom loving" patriot can see this. Yet, we have people who don't mind giving up their basic liberties because they are either apathetic or they just don't think it will ever affect them.
Are people really that scared? Has the government and the media actually succeeded in its apparent goal of scaring the average person shitless? I don't know about you, but I don't walk around thinking "man I sure am scared today - I wish I could do something, give up something, just so I could feel more secure." Tell, me, exactly: What is the logic here? I have yet to hear anyone who takes a stance similar to this give me a sound, logical, non-emotional reason for it.
Indeed it does, indeed, need to be patched. Indeed.
For the longest time, the coffee industry has claimed that coffee lowers the risk of colon cancer, gallstones and cirrhosis of the liver, and also contains more antioxidants than green tea. So the idea itself isn't really news.
When you look at experiments and research, however, you'll see that coffee has been shown to produce the carcinogen 3,4 benzopyrene when roasted. Two other possible carcinogens have also been found in coffee. And one study showed a link between coffee intake and pancreatic cancer.
Besides the debate over whether it causes or prevents cancer, coffee is usually served with milk and sugar, and those are not healthy. It is also a stimulant on which you can become dependant and can wreak havoc on the nervous system.
A health drink, coffee is not.
The government keeps on spending money on technology that will keep us "safe" from terrorism. But we're when or where the next attack will happen, so let's just be paranoid and spend a lot of money on stuff like this.
Let's make everything as safe as possible. Coincidentally, the same technology that will "protect" us will also make us more susceptible to government surveillance. Come on, people: wake up. Our civil liberties are being rapidly chipped away every day under the guise of the government "protecting" us. ID cards, cameras in public places, the Patriot Act - when it all doesn't work, they'll use it as an excuse to have even more of these type of "utilities" to "fight" terror. I'm supposed to trust the same entity that gave us a national color-coded "Homeland Security Advisory System" with "protecting" me from an unnamed, ever-changing enemy? Of what utility is this - what does it measure, how scared I'm supposed to be?
Give me a break.
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
I used to work at a camera store while in college. We'd have people come in all the time looking for a digital camera, even though they had no idea what "digital" meant. But they definitely wanted it, whatever it was. Then came the obligatory "so, where does the film go?" followed by "do I have to have a computer?"
The figures that report that digital cameras are dramatically outselling film cameras don't necessarily mean that consumers on the whole prefer digital. It just means that people are purchasing a lot of digital cameras.
See, in the digital market, people are constantly buying new cameras because of the increase in resolution. Buying a new film camera won't really get you that, so there's not much need to constantly replace your trusty 35mm camera.
People with lots of disposable income buy digital cameras like they would buy an ipod or a any other "gadget" - not necessarily for functionality, but more for the "coolness" factor. Normally, these people wouldn't be in the market for a new camera, but digital is "in," so they buy one.
In ar article about the search company looking for new executive chefs, the article states...
:)
Ok, then, no complaints about chef.
An article about the space shuttle still remains with Emegency in its title.
Spell checker is nice.
I guess if we want to do it, we'll have to use home-made emulsions on paper.
Interesting - doesn't sound to me like this guy's a pro, or at least not one that has a lot of dark room experience. While Kodak certainly has decent offerings in this area, there are still quite a few companies to choose from that make B&W paper (Ilford, Bergger, and Forte to name a few). There's no need to create your own emulsions.
Kodak's discontinuing paper, not their highly-successful B&W films. They've also invested heavily in chromogenic films - b&w film that can be procesed in standard color chemicals and printed on standard color paper. Producing B&W paper is, for Kodak, catering to a "niche" market, since they provide a wide variety of photo products, most geared toward the average consumer.
For me and, I'm sure, many like me, this won't be much of a loss - while I love shooting T-Max 100 and Tri-X, I print on Ilford Fortezo papers.
I see this question or its variant posted on Slashdot about once a month it seems.
;-)
If you're going to college to get a job and that's your goal, then get your MBA. Study nursing. Education. Hell, even political science.
Those all offer promising careers and there's quite a demand right now in the job market for people with training in these areas.
Obviously, you're going to want to avoid solely obtaining CS or any IT-related degrees. If you are to believe most of what's on Slahdot, the market for these jobs sucks right now and, even when you get a job, you're probably going to be dissatisfied because 1) you have to work with MS poducts or 2) you have to work with people who are obviously morons. And all technology workers eventually become bitter cynics.
Now, if you are going to college because you are trying to learn something of interest, that's another story - though, with a few exceptions, I find that investing 10% of what it would cost for tuition in a few good books and a few hours of your time each week to be a much better investment in real education.
But I'm just a bitter cynic.
In college, I used to work at a photofinishing store, and we constantly had people coming in to get their wedding photos printed. We couldn't print them unless they had a copyright release signed by the photographer. In that case, the responsibilty to not infringe copyright was entirely with the customer. Are there problems with this? Most probably, but I can't recall it being actually challenged. ... And if you go to a decent lab, one that deals with pros and advanced amateurs all the time, you'll not have this issue. Personally, I would find the "that looks too good to be something you produced" attitude to be insulting.
I'm a semi-pro. If I photograph a person or event for someone and they pay me for it, I will generally give them the option to purchase the originals for a price and print as many as they like, or for me to have them printed to my specs for a price per photo.
Well, you know, in a post-9/11 world...
Let's get real. Every time the cops or some authorities do something that clearly oversteps a boundary, they scream "9/11! 9/11!" - but stuff like this shows how fucking stupid those screaming this really are. Yeah, we have to be careful of all those people who go to Best Buy to get car stereos installed and try to pay with fake money. Next thing you know, these people will be bombing buildings, so we have to be careful!
I'm probably considered unpatriotic for not being scared shitless and willing to give up every civil liberty because something very bad happened a few years ago. I'm probably not considered patriotic because I don't have 20 "support our troops" magnets on the back of my car... I just know that putting one on there will convert all those troop-haters out there who are sitting in traffic, so tomorrow, I'll be sure to go spend my $2 at Walmart and buy a Chinese-made magnet to go on the back of my vehicle. I'll also spout support for a president who has destroyed my country's economy and ruined relationships with allies. If I encounter anyone who doesn't support my views, I'll scream until they do.
It's what George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would do, so it's the least I can do for the love of my country.
People seem to forget that, even when "purchasing" music, even at $0.99/song, you don't really "own" the music, just the right to play it on a portable device, burn it onto a CD or two, and play it on a few machines that you own... and a significantly "upgraded" machine is considered a new machine. Upgrade enough times and, with most of the DRM software out there, you can't have your music any more.
Second, when most consumers purchase an iPod, they are purchasing a device that will, within 2-3 years, need to be sent in for "repair" because there is no removable battery. Genius! A $250-$500 device that lasts 2 years and will need "repair" for something that is, what I consider, a design flaw - whether you do it yourself or send it to Apple. This is what really burns me up about the whole iPod/iTunes marketing campaign, and about DRM in general. It's all about impermanence. I still have CDs I bought back in the 80s. I have an old CD player from that time, too. The player and the music are still "working" as expected almost 20 years later - and it's in digital format.
Don't get me wrong. MS hasn't really gotten it right either - same restrictions (actually, usually the restrictions are worse), and most (not all) of the players compatible with its DRM technology have non-removable batteries.
I have bought songs from iTunes, BuyMusic, and MSN's music service (hell, I've even tried Wal Mart's service). If you think your DRM music is even semi-permanent, you are mistaken unless you burn to a CD - but only if Mr. DRM will "allow" you to do that with music you "own." But, if your final product is going to be a CD from purchasing from iTunes, you'd be better off just buying the CD outright.
My 2 cents.
I work for a company developing Web applications.
A few sections of code I've happened upon (usually written by someone who no longer works for our company) contain some interesting, inappropriate comments.
"Do not touch this code. I am [name] and I am infallible. Everything in this section has been tested, and you don't need to modify it."
"BASTARDS! We don't have the id at this level?"
"This is CRAP! You expect me to react well to this? Assuming minimal functionality from calling code..."
"Comment: this is not my code. I am not stupid."
I love the American news media.
What's most important is that they let us know that, out of the (now) 67,000 people who died in the catastrophe, hundreds of them were Americans. If 200 Americans died as a result of the quake, that accounts for about 0.2% of the total. Does that statistic really make the disaster all that more horrible?
Second, it's important that we know that many celebrities were affected by the disaster. I was really relieved when I found out that Jet Li survived, but I felt saddened when I learned that a friend of Nate Berkus, a regular contributor on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," is unaccounted for.
Please, give me a break.
One thing that has always been present in the "modern" realm of photography is obsession over image size. Serious studio and wedding photographers often use medium format cameras, and some use large format (4x5" or larger). For what I enjoy photographing the most, landscapes, the view camera cannot be beat for control over images.
That being said, I have used 4x5, medium format, 35mm, and SLR and "p&s" digitals, and I can't say that I ever chose the tool I used based solely on its resolution. The "gigapixel revolution" is being fueled by equipment-crazy gadgetheads. And to each his own...
But much more worthwhile is to discuss lighting, technique, and photographic style. Concentrating on the equipment you use to create art is like concentrating on the paintbrushes that Salvador Dali used when painting his The Persistence Of Memory. You miss the overall point and appreciation of the artform.
Asking about the "best" scripting language is kind of like asking what the best motor vehicle is... it all depends on the application and your personal preferences.
... Just my 2 cents.
Personally, I have to say that I like JavaScript for browser scripting (DHTML) and I use it on a daily basis. It's easy to learn and is perfect for what it was intended to do.
I've used VBScript w/classic ASP quite a bit as well. There's nothing really impressive about the language, it's just easy to learn and read. Unfortunatley, classic ASP tends to automatically encourage "Spaghetti Code," so dealing with VBScript isn't always fun.
I like Perl quite a bit, but as far as I am concerned, Perl is a language I use when I am the only person who is going to be reading my scripts.
One other language I used frequently is PL/SQL. The syntax for Oracle stored procedures is kind of ugly - not hard to understand, just ugly. Unnecessarily so, if you ask me. The MS SQL Server stored procedure syntax is much nicer.