Well, it's true that we have a somewhat old, quaint document called a constitution, but the real beauty of it is that we can ignore it whenever the hell we please (particularly the first 10 amendments).
The Christian Bible works much the same way. Apparently there's a Republican version of it in which Jesus roams the countryside railing against homosexuals and defending the rich against the poor, but I haven't been able to find it in any bookstores yet.
while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes.
You're either lying or you're an idiot. I just timed it at 0.442 seconds on my box (an Athlon 1800+). What you could possibly be doing that takes 20 minutes is anybody's guess, but it's no surprise that you're a Windows fan...
Pretty easy, actually, but only because Moz makes it so. I do go to new sites often - usually following links - and the "ask" setting can result in being plastered with popup dialogs. Advertising-supported sites in particular set 'em by the boatload. Besides, I don't want to interfere with the setting of cookies; a lot of sites won't work properly if you do that. I just don't want most of them read back after the end of the session.
At least one site I know (which shall go nameless here) uses cookies to permit limited-time unregistered access. Since I generally don't like registering either, I can get around the limit simply by nixing the right cookie periodically. It's just a click of the mouse.
What are your reasons for running the old standby suite over the Firefox/Thunderbird combo?"
Tools->CookieManager->ManageStoredCookies, for one. I'm in there probably a dozen time a day. You can leave the dialog up and watch the cookies as they come in, and delete them whenever you want. Since site access controls are often cookie-based, that can be quite useful. Firefox has a similar interface, but it's buried deep in the Preferences menu and not nearly as convenient to use.
Formerly, I would also have cited control over animated images (I like to let mine cycle only once, since blinking stuff drives me nuts). That was a show-stopper for me until I discovered that you can do it in Firefox by editing a config file (prefs.js, I think). Still, most users aren't going to do that.
Re:No matter how hard C is, gtk/glib is impressive
on
GTK 2.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Use gtkmm.
Indeed. It's a very nice implementation, and much cleaner than the underlying GTK+ interface. I'm surprised that it isn't used more widely than it is.
Post something questioning religion (mainstream), global warming, or man's impact on the environment, then sit back and watch the zealot fireworks show.
Often, the controversy isn't so much from the science as it is from people and groups with economic interests at stake and money to spend defending them. You can bet your ass that if acceptance of the theory of relativity were somehow to cost corporations a lot of money, it would be considered "controversial" regardless of what the experiments were showing.
Maybe a few prints for your wall or your desk, but it makes way more sense to keep most pictures digitalized.
Agreed. It's far easier to keep them organized in digital form, and it takes a lot less time and effort to look at the ones you want. I don't even know where most of my old prints are, and even if I did it probably wouldn't be worth the effort to haul them out unless I wanted to make an afternoon of it. Plus, photos look a lot better on my monitor than they do on paper, and it's easy to share them with others via email or a web gallery...
For me, it's not that; it's the fact that I want to be able to quickly flick between looking at one thing and another.
Just about all of the major Linux desktops let you switch instantly and easily between multiple virtual screens; I use it all the time. Takes up a lot less space (and power) than multiple heads, as well.
I hardly print anything out anymore, because I'm much better at keeping my disks clean and organized than my (physical) desktop. Piles of paper all over the place, with dust collecting in between. Lived in fear of an avalanche most of the time...
Software development is an inherently creative endeavor, but the way it's done commercially usually deprives the developer of the feeling of having created anything, and certainly of having any control over the final product. FOSS is an outlet for all of this pent-up creativity that requires little investment other than your own time.
FOSS is the member of a large orchestra that plays solo in the park because that way she can play what she wants, how she wants. It's the guy who brews his own beer and shares it with his friends, because it's satisfying to do and better than the mass-market swill.
...an air of "holier-than-thou" - something that many already sense from the open-source crowd.
OTOH, partisans of proprietary software have long been dismissive and contemptuous of OSS; only fairly recently have they started to get a little itchy, wondering just why they're writing those checks all of the time. But nothing stirs cognitive dissonance like having already paid!
To get someone to jump to your side they have to feel like they'll be "accepted"
Why should OSS care about market share? As long as it has enough critical mass to attract a talented and vibrant development community, I can't think of a single reason. If paying tribute to Microsoft gives you a feeling of "acceptance", then by all means do so. No skin off of anybody's nose but your own.
You are aware, are you not, that most hard disk failures occur at spinup?
So they say, but... I've been powering down most nights (and rebooting in the morning) for years and years, and my experience with disk longevity has been better than just about anybody I know who runs 24/7/52. In fact, I can't remember ever having a disk failure, at least not in the past 5 years or so.
Hard to draw any statistical conclusions from anecdotal evidence, but I haven't seen any reason to waste power by staying up every night. My machine lives in a corner of the living room, and the peace & quiet after it powers down is kind of nice...
For an example, see books at University of Michigan's Making of America (MoA) Exhibit, which has thousands of 19th century books and periodicals available.
I see they've recently added the complete run of the Journal of the U.S. Association of Charcoal Iron Workers. If I'd known that, I could've saved a bundle on gift subscriptions...
Until they have experience, people seem to believe that there is no difference in quality
It's equally true that as the quality/price ratio of consumer gear rises rapidly and quality becomes more widely accessible, enthusiasts become more and more desperate to differentiate themselves from the unwashed masses through the cost of their equipment. They become easy targets for marketers that offer them an opportunity to do just that.
You ignored the last paragraph of my response. I'm not questioning the quality of the DSLRs that are available; I'm looking for features that are necessarily tied to the "SLR" design. E.g., you don't need a reflex mirror to have interchangeable lenses.
On the other hand, you do need the larger format sensor if you want to use your existing stock of SLR lenses, and so that would be a compelling reason to buy one. But if you're not already invested in lenses for a film SLR, the case is a good deal less compelling.
I do not know of any P&S Camera, digital or otherwise, that provides you with the capability of taking extra long exposures
Well, I have an old and cheap Canon A40 with 45 settings between 1/1500 and 15 seconds in Manual mode. Is that what you had in mind?
I looked at your link, but it's more arm-waving than rational explanation. He says that "no camera is an SLR unless it has a flipping reflex mirror" and that somehow because of this, non-SLRs are "too slow and take too darn long to do anything. This is today's limit of technology. It's not you or your particular camera, they all stink." That's as technical as he gets.
Now, I'm not saying that these aren't might fine cameras; I'm just asking how the presence of a relex mirror - the defining characteristic of an SLR - makes a camera so much faster. Most of the lag in a "point & shoot" digital camera is from the autofocus. Is that all there is to it? Is a DSLR faster simply because you're twisting a lens ring instead of relying on autofocus?
You're probably right about the benefits of the larger sensor format, but the main reason it had to be made larger was to work with legacy lenses that were designed to expose 35mm film at the focal plane. Of course, if you have a big collection of those, you'll definitely want a DSLR...
At this moment, I am unable to conceive of a way to explain the difference
Ahhh... So it is just marketing. That indescribable something that comes from spending a lot of money. Interchangeable lenses aside, "serious" photographers simply expect their cameras to have a certain heft and feel, and the DSLRs are being marketed to meet those expectations. The "single lens" tag is meaningless, since all digital cameras are now "single lens".
That's not to say that these aren't fine cameras that are well worth the money for other reasons, by the way. I'm just questioning the underlying "SLR" marketing concept.
I'm not sure I even get the point of a digital SLR. With film, the main advantage of an SLR is the split optical path behind the single lens that lets you see through the viewfinder exactly what's exposing the film, regardless of what lens you're using. Digitals have LCD screens that show you exactly what's falling on the sensor, thereby accomplishing the same thing. Or does "SLR" now just mean "interchangeable lenses"?
That was my reaction, exactly. You only need to render what you can perceive at any given time. It seems that there are many within the "supercomputing" community that are more intellectually invested in justifying their cool (and expensive) toys than in finding efficient solutions to problems...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's true that we have a somewhat old, quaint document called a constitution, but the real beauty of it is that we can ignore it whenever the hell we please (particularly the first 10 amendments).
The Christian Bible works much the same way. Apparently there's a Republican version of it in which Jesus roams the countryside railing against homosexuals and defending the rich against the poor, but I haven't been able to find it in any bookstores yet.
You're either lying or you're an idiot. I just timed it at 0.442 seconds on my box (an Athlon 1800+). What you could possibly be doing that takes 20 minutes is anybody's guess, but it's no surprise that you're a Windows fan...
Is this a response to the parent comment? Who said anything about Kerry and Edwards? Seems that the feudalists are getting a little touchy...
Pretty easy, actually, but only because Moz makes it so. I do go to new sites often - usually following links - and the "ask" setting can result in being plastered with popup dialogs. Advertising-supported sites in particular set 'em by the boatload. Besides, I don't want to interfere with the setting of cookies; a lot of sites won't work properly if you do that. I just don't want most of them read back after the end of the session.
At least one site I know (which shall go nameless here) uses cookies to permit limited-time unregistered access. Since I generally don't like registering either, I can get around the limit simply by nixing the right cookie periodically. It's just a click of the mouse.
Tools->CookieManager->ManageStoredCookies, for one. I'm in there probably a dozen time a day. You can leave the dialog up and watch the cookies as they come in, and delete them whenever you want. Since site access controls are often cookie-based, that can be quite useful. Firefox has a similar interface, but it's buried deep in the Preferences menu and not nearly as convenient to use.
Formerly, I would also have cited control over animated images (I like to let mine cycle only once, since blinking stuff drives me nuts). That was a show-stopper for me until I discovered that you can do it in Firefox by editing a config file (prefs.js, I think). Still, most users aren't going to do that.
Indeed. It's a very nice implementation, and much cleaner than the underlying GTK+ interface. I'm surprised that it isn't used more widely than it is.
I think that would require revealing your identity...
The worst? Our current leaders here in the U.S. would say it's the best.
Often, the controversy isn't so much from the science as it is from people and groups with economic interests at stake and money to spend defending them. You can bet your ass that if acceptance of the theory of relativity were somehow to cost corporations a lot of money, it would be considered "controversial" regardless of what the experiments were showing.
Agreed. It's far easier to keep them organized in digital form, and it takes a lot less time and effort to look at the ones you want. I don't even know where most of my old prints are, and even if I did it probably wouldn't be worth the effort to haul them out unless I wanted to make an afternoon of it. Plus, photos look a lot better on my monitor than they do on paper, and it's easy to share them with others via email or a web gallery...
Just about all of the major Linux desktops let you switch instantly and easily between multiple virtual screens; I use it all the time. Takes up a lot less space (and power) than multiple heads, as well.
I hardly print anything out anymore, because I'm much better at keeping my disks clean and organized than my (physical) desktop. Piles of paper all over the place, with dust collecting in between. Lived in fear of an avalanche most of the time...
Software development is an inherently creative endeavor, but the way it's done commercially usually deprives the developer of the feeling of having created anything, and certainly of having any control over the final product. FOSS is an outlet for all of this pent-up creativity that requires little investment other than your own time.
FOSS is the member of a large orchestra that plays solo in the park because that way she can play what she wants, how she wants. It's the guy who brews his own beer and shares it with his friends, because it's satisfying to do and better than the mass-market swill.
OTOH, partisans of proprietary software have long been dismissive and contemptuous of OSS; only fairly recently have they started to get a little itchy, wondering just why they're writing those checks all of the time. But nothing stirs cognitive dissonance like having already paid!
To get someone to jump to your side they have to feel like they'll be "accepted"
Why should OSS care about market share? As long as it has enough critical mass to attract a talented and vibrant development community, I can't think of a single reason. If paying tribute to Microsoft gives you a feeling of "acceptance", then by all means do so. No skin off of anybody's nose but your own.
So they say, but... I've been powering down most nights (and rebooting in the morning) for years and years, and my experience with disk longevity has been better than just about anybody I know who runs 24/7/52. In fact, I can't remember ever having a disk failure, at least not in the past 5 years or so.
Hard to draw any statistical conclusions from anecdotal evidence, but I haven't seen any reason to waste power by staying up every night. My machine lives in a corner of the living room, and the peace & quiet after it powers down is kind of nice...
I see they've recently added the complete run of the Journal of the U.S. Association of Charcoal Iron Workers. If I'd known that, I could've saved a bundle on gift subscriptions...
Probably. But beating out an old Canon A40 isn't exactly what you pay the big bucks for, is it?
It's equally true that as the quality/price ratio of consumer gear rises rapidly and quality becomes more widely accessible, enthusiasts become more and more desperate to differentiate themselves from the unwashed masses through the cost of their equipment. They become easy targets for marketers that offer them an opportunity to do just that.
You ignored the last paragraph of my response. I'm not questioning the quality of the DSLRs that are available; I'm looking for features that are necessarily tied to the "SLR" design. E.g., you don't need a reflex mirror to have interchangeable lenses.
On the other hand, you do need the larger format sensor if you want to use your existing stock of SLR lenses, and so that would be a compelling reason to buy one. But if you're not already invested in lenses for a film SLR, the case is a good deal less compelling.
I do not know of any P&S Camera, digital or otherwise, that provides you with the capability of taking extra long exposures
Well, I have an old and cheap Canon A40 with 45 settings between 1/1500 and 15 seconds in Manual mode. Is that what you had in mind?
Now, I'm not saying that these aren't might fine cameras; I'm just asking how the presence of a relex mirror - the defining characteristic of an SLR - makes a camera so much faster. Most of the lag in a "point & shoot" digital camera is from the autofocus. Is that all there is to it? Is a DSLR faster simply because you're twisting a lens ring instead of relying on autofocus?
You're probably right about the benefits of the larger sensor format, but the main reason it had to be made larger was to work with legacy lenses that were designed to expose 35mm film at the focal plane. Of course, if you have a big collection of those, you'll definitely want a DSLR...
Ahhh... So it is just marketing. That indescribable something that comes from spending a lot of money. Interchangeable lenses aside, "serious" photographers simply expect their cameras to have a certain heft and feel, and the DSLRs are being marketed to meet those expectations. The "single lens" tag is meaningless, since all digital cameras are now "single lens".
That's not to say that these aren't fine cameras that are well worth the money for other reasons, by the way. I'm just questioning the underlying "SLR" marketing concept.
How does the sensor have any effect on depth of field? Just askin'...
Of course in that case, neither will the viewfinder on a digital SLR...
I'm not sure I even get the point of a digital SLR. With film, the main advantage of an SLR is the split optical path behind the single lens that lets you see through the viewfinder exactly what's exposing the film, regardless of what lens you're using. Digitals have LCD screens that show you exactly what's falling on the sensor, thereby accomplishing the same thing. Or does "SLR" now just mean "interchangeable lenses"?
That was my reaction, exactly. You only need to render what you can perceive at any given time. It seems that there are many within the "supercomputing" community that are more intellectually invested in justifying their cool (and expensive) toys than in finding efficient solutions to problems...
I once dropped a tray full of mine. Cards all over the place. Talk about spaghetti code...