The deselection you describe is the fault of a spectacularly stupid decision on the part of the Finder's designers.
In List View, if your drag-click starts on the icon or text label of a file, it is interpreted as a drag-and-drop operation; if you start the drag on a blank area in the window, EVEN IF IT IS PART OF THE SELECTION, the Finder interprets it as the start of a new selection.
I can't figure out why they thought this was a good idea, but this is why some drag-and-drops turn into deselections; you have to start dragging a file's icon or name.
"Correction: Jan. 20, 2006: An earlier version of this story reported incorrectly that The Washington Post had closed a blog. The blog has not been shut; it has stopped accepting comments from readers."
disclaimer: i'm an intern at washingtonpost.com; my words are solely mine and not the Company's
Photoshop's color picker can average 3x3 or 5x5 pixels; right-click in the image to select which you want. The crop tool is, and always has been, pixel-accurate at 100% or greater zoom.
No - grinding and then coating some of the precision elements used in modern compound lenses is one of the hardest things we know how to do.
Grinding a SINGLE lens that can be used to examine (or project!) something is actually fairly simple; how do you think Matthew Brady shot his Civil War photographs? With his precision-engineered 70-200/2.8 made in Japan by an army of clean-suited workers?
And gears with little tiny teeth are utterly unnecessary to look at or project something. Speaking as a photographer, you're the one that's a little off his rocker.
Do you really think that anyone (except yourself?) on Slashdot gives two shits about something that only affects Internet Explorer for Windows? *snicker*
the post which begat this one is a (cough) Joke. You see, this Black Parrot chap is implying - and this is the hard part - that his hat is made of tinfoil! Hahahahahahahaa!
+1 Interesting, indeed. Excuse me - I must go down some stiff drinks.
quote follows: -- B1FF was the most famous pseudonym, and the prototypical newbie, on Usenet.
Articles from BIFF were characterised by all uppercase letters sprinkled liberally with bangs, typos, "cute" misspellings (EVRY BUDY LUVS GOOD OLD BIFF CUZ HE'S A K00L DOOD AN HE RITES REEL AWESUM THINGZ IN CAPITULL LETTRS LIKE THIS!!!), use (and often misuse) of fragments of chat abbreviations, a long sig block (sometimes even a doubled sig), and unbounded naïveté. BIFF posts articles using his elder brother's Commodore VIC-20. BIFF's location is a mystery, as his articles appear to come from a variety of sites. However, BITNET seems to be the most frequent origin. The theory that BIFF is a denizen of BITNET is supported by BIFF's (unfortunately invalid) electronic mail address:.
Later information indicates that BIFF was originally created by Joe Talmadge, also the author of the infamous and much-plagiarised "Flamer's Bible". The BIFF filter he wrote was later passed to Richard Sexton, who posted BIFFisms much more widely. Versions have since been posted for the amusement of the net at large.
Yes, you're quite right; SI does shoot RAW. They also shoot basketball with six remote-released Hasselblads. Sports Illustrated isn't a newspaper, and has the time for that stuff.
photos can run upwards of 15-20MB/photo in RAW, this would be a photojournalists/sports photographer's dream not to have to switch out cards every 50 or 80 pictures.
Yeah, except that photojournalists and ESPECIALLY sports photographers can't shoot RAW because of the additional delays in processing (much easier to FTP JPEGs directly to the photo department, and most prepress deadlines occur DURING night games - and there's far more overhead than just prepress); besides, no sane photojournalist would trust a single point of failure for storing photographs. Many newspaper photogs use 256MB cards, for the simple reason that if one fails or its contents are corrupted (no time for Image Rescue or its ilk), you only lose a hundred JPEGs, rather than multiple gigabytes' worth of assignments.
As has been noted by other commenters, the Nikon D2H has supported WiFi transmission since its release, given the optional $400 adapter. It FTPs directly, and supports WEP and whatnot. The only interesting thing about this article is the consumer orientation; personally, I don't see people accepting the dramatic reductions in battery life... not to mention the storage issues...
Your ignorance betrays you. Google Desktop Search doesn't rely on a remote server to provide Desktop results; it installs an ipfilter that intercepts queries to google.com/search and injects Desktop results into it. Direct searches against the Desktop engine are provided by HTTP connections to localhost.
Clearly, the ipfilter solution is a bit of a hack, and raises other concerns - but did you really think that Google has both the ability and the desire to transfer store gigabytes of information from your workstation?
Now that you're done with that tinfoil hat - mind if I keep it? I need *something* to wrap this hot dog in. Damn ketchup's going everywhere.
Will we be able to fly rocket cars to the moon someday? Are we going to be able to live under the ocean? Is there going to be a spaceship to Mars? In the future, will my cereal glow in the dark when milk hits it??? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Mommy, I really have to pee!
You're wrong about bokeh. It is more complicated than the shape of each "circle of confusion"; some glass has the light evenly spread through each circle of confusion, making the individual circle look like a perfectly even disc, while others have the light concentrated in the middle - like a flashlight beam - or towards the outside of the circle, like a Hula Hoop. (And then there are mirror lenses, with their donut bokeh.)
It's about the distribution of light within each out-of-focus highlight, not just the shape of its periphery.
Much more ominously, Google's product manager Marissa Mayer said she expected the private queries to generate more hits for google.com. Most people, she believed, would choose to combine personal and web searches resulting in more revenue for Google's ad business.
Slashdot Mirror
The deselection you describe is the fault of a spectacularly stupid decision on the part of the Finder's designers.
In List View, if your drag-click starts on the icon or text label of a file, it is interpreted as a drag-and-drop operation; if you start the drag on a blank area in the window, EVEN IF IT IS PART OF THE SELECTION, the Finder interprets it as the start of a new selection.
I can't figure out why they thought this was a good idea, but this is why some drag-and-drops turn into deselections; you have to start dragging a file's icon or name.
The Post.Blog wasn't closed down - comments were disabled. The New York Times corrected the article.
"Correction: Jan. 20, 2006: An earlier version of this story reported incorrectly that The Washington Post had closed a blog. The blog has not been shut; it has stopped accepting comments from readers."
disclaimer: i'm an intern at washingtonpost.com; my words are solely mine and not the Company's
Photoshop's color picker can average 3x3 or 5x5 pixels; right-click in the image to select which you want. The crop tool is, and always has been, pixel-accurate at 100% or greater zoom.
That user's offline right now. Slashdotted?
So wait, does that mean that some of the chapters are dupes, or just some of the pages?
also, kodak announced they will stop producing film after 2010 (that limit may slide a bit)
I would love to see a source for this statement.
No - grinding and then coating some of the precision elements used in modern compound lenses is one of the hardest things we know how to do.
Grinding a SINGLE lens that can be used to examine (or project!) something is actually fairly simple; how do you think Matthew Brady shot his Civil War photographs? With his precision-engineered 70-200/2.8 made in Japan by an army of clean-suited workers?
And gears with little tiny teeth are utterly unnecessary to look at or project something. Speaking as a photographer, you're the one that's a little off his rocker.
Do you really think that anyone (except yourself?) on Slashdot gives two shits about something that only affects Internet Explorer for Windows? *snicker*
Because it's indicative of systematic neglect on the part of Slashdot's self-declared editors?
the post which begat this one is a (cough) Joke. You see, this Black Parrot chap is implying - and this is the hard part - that his hat is made of tinfoil! Hahahahahahahaa!
+1 Interesting, indeed. Excuse me - I must go down some stiff drinks.
It's B1FF, not BIFF.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1FF
quote follows:
--
B1FF was the most famous pseudonym, and the prototypical newbie, on Usenet.
Articles from BIFF were characterised by all uppercase letters sprinkled liberally with bangs, typos, "cute" misspellings (EVRY BUDY LUVS GOOD OLD BIFF CUZ HE'S A K00L DOOD AN HE RITES REEL AWESUM THINGZ IN CAPITULL LETTRS LIKE THIS!!!), use (and often misuse) of fragments of chat abbreviations, a long sig block (sometimes even a doubled sig), and unbounded naïveté. BIFF posts articles using his elder brother's Commodore VIC-20. BIFF's location is a mystery, as his articles appear to come from a variety of sites. However, BITNET seems to be the most frequent origin. The theory that BIFF is a denizen of BITNET is supported by BIFF's (unfortunately invalid) electronic mail address:
Later information indicates that BIFF was originally created by Joe Talmadge, also the author of the infamous and much-plagiarised "Flamer's Bible". The BIFF filter he wrote was later passed to Richard Sexton, who posted BIFFisms much more widely. Versions have since been posted for the amusement of the net at large.
Yes, you're quite right; SI does shoot RAW. They also shoot basketball with six remote-released Hasselblads. Sports Illustrated isn't a newspaper, and has the time for that stuff.
Here's the actual link to the Wikipedia article about GIS. Editors, or button-pushers?
That "Dutch porn dialer" was cat.exe, a Win32 port of the Unix utility "cat". Hope you don't use shell scripts!
photos can run upwards of 15-20MB/photo in RAW, this would be a photojournalists/sports photographer's dream not to have to switch out cards every 50 or 80 pictures.
Yeah, except that photojournalists and ESPECIALLY sports photographers can't shoot RAW because of the additional delays in processing (much easier to FTP JPEGs directly to the photo department, and most prepress deadlines occur DURING night games - and there's far more overhead than just prepress); besides, no sane photojournalist would trust a single point of failure for storing photographs. Many newspaper photogs use 256MB cards, for the simple reason that if one fails or its contents are corrupted (no time for Image Rescue or its ilk), you only lose a hundred JPEGs, rather than multiple gigabytes' worth of assignments.
As has been noted by other commenters, the Nikon D2H has supported WiFi transmission since its release, given the optional $400 adapter. It FTPs directly, and supports WEP and whatnot. The only interesting thing about this article is the consumer orientation; personally, I don't see people accepting the dramatic reductions in battery life... not to mention the storage issues...
Your ignorance betrays you. Google Desktop Search doesn't rely on a remote server to provide Desktop results; it installs an ipfilter that intercepts queries to google.com/search and injects Desktop results into it. Direct searches against the Desktop engine are provided by HTTP connections to localhost.
Clearly, the ipfilter solution is a bit of a hack, and raises other concerns - but did you really think that Google has both the ability and the desire to transfer store gigabytes of information from your workstation?
Now that you're done with that tinfoil hat - mind if I keep it? I need *something* to wrap this hot dog in. Damn ketchup's going everywhere.
Will we be able to fly rocket cars to the moon someday? Are we going to be able to live under the ocean? Is there going to be a spaceship to Mars? In the future, will my cereal glow in the dark when milk hits it??? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Mommy, I really have to pee!
You're wrong about bokeh. It is more complicated than the shape of each "circle of confusion"; some glass has the light evenly spread through each circle of confusion, making the individual circle look like a perfectly even disc, while others have the light concentrated in the middle - like a flashlight beam - or towards the outside of the circle, like a Hula Hoop. (And then there are mirror lenses, with their donut bokeh.)
It's about the distribution of light within each out-of-focus highlight, not just the shape of its periphery.
Personally, I think it's just a lot of hot air.
There was a brief report of Philadelphia machines being deployed with pre-existing votes for Kerry, but it was fundamentally wrong...
Haha, you wacky slashdotters.
The Giver won't be pleased!
You're aware that Yahoo News is merely running a Reuters story, right?
Much more ominously, Google's product manager Marissa Mayer said she expected the private queries to generate more hits for google.com. Most people, she believed, would choose to combine personal and web searches resulting in more revenue for Google's ad business.
MOTHER OF FUCK! No! That's just wrong.
Regrettably, those two options are mutually exclusive - GPS support was dropped from D2H and D2X, and WiFi support was added with D2H and D2X.
While we're at it, let's spell the name of one of the Internet's oldest commercial successes correctly.