Apparently, you don't believe in backups from what you write below.
I have a box with an IDE RAID controller. Mirrored 120GB drives. I have software on my wife's windows box that backs it up to the RAID box each night, and I back up my box to it as well. So I have three copies of the data.
So let's suppose that, unbeknownst to your wife, software on your her PC corrupts a file. That night, the corrupted file is automatically copied to the small (120GB) RAID array. Several months go by and your wife discovers that the file is corrupted. She goes to the RAID array and discovers that the file is corrupted there, too. Since hubby doesn't believe in archival backup of data, the file is irretrievably lost.
What if your home is burglarized? What if there is a fire? Since you have no archival backups, you can't go to the fire-safe or safe deposit box and get a copy of your valued files.
How would you feel if your bank told you that your account information was stored on a desktop PC, copied nightly to a server with RAID in the same physical location, and that there were no archival backups? No optical media. No DLT, LTO, or DDS4 tapes. Nothing. If it was my money, I'd have it out of that bank in an instant.
You're certainly doing a better job than most people, but don't kid yourself into believing that true, offline backups are unnecessary.
Does anyone know if you can overclock a PowerBook?
It is a "bad idea" on several fronts: Heat, battery life, and stability.
You should be looking for ways to underclock it to extend battery life and reduce heat. I want a laptop that will run on one battery for the longest plane flight I'm going to take, not one that burns through a battery every 73 minutes and singes the hair off of my scrotum.
You fall into your vary same argument, that if you are not "with" the rabid "environmentalists" than you obviously have been duped! The truth is there is no consensus on "global warming".
That is not "the truth." It is a lie perpetrated by right-wing shills like you. Even the EPA's own web site, under the Bush administration, admits that there is global warming and that it is, at least partially, man-made:
What's Known for Certain? Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.
A warming trend of about 1F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.
I'm sorry for your family's loss during the Holocaust.
Thank you for your efforts to set the other poster straight on the seriousness of his accusation. That said, he is a troll who regularly posts lies like the one to which you replied. Unfortunately, he thinks that anonymity grants him a license to say things on here that he would never dare say to people's faces. If you get anything back from him at all, I expect that it will be nothing more than childish insults, lies, and false accusations. I'm sure not holding my breath for an apology.
It's fantastically ignorant to think that people would believe "fables" that were started during the living memory of people who could have just said, "Hey! That's not true, that didn't happen!"
Huh? All fables were started during the living memory of someone, yet they continued to be told for centuries. Just look at Greek and Roman mythology.
That's why nowadays people look at you as stupid when you say the holocaust didn't happen.
Except, of course, that I never said such a thing. You're off your meds again, aren't you?
You've provided links to religious nut-case web sites, a non-peer-reviewed article by someone named "Anita Moon" with no apparent credentials, and an uncredited essay hosted on the site of an English Instructor from Spokane Community College. That uncredited essay actually cites, as one of its sources an "article" on www.christiananswers.net! Yeah, that's real, unbiased, peer-reviewed science, isn't it?
If it upsets you when science effectively disproves the 2000 year old fables, fairy tales, and myths that you need as a psychological crutch, then stay away from web sites which are pro-science.
If I'm out of work, I go fishing, motorcycling, and boating. I also hang out with friends. Eventually, an ex-boss, ex-coworker, or headhunter calls or e-mails and offers me a job. If it sounds good, I take it. If not, I politely bow out and go back to my recreational activities. I initially turned down the job I have now, but was asked to reconsider some months later. Since winter was coming on and I like the guy who wanted me to work for him, I accepted.
Post-Its and e-mail are more than good enough to handle the amount of data I'm dealing with at any given time.
I'm sure you've been very well trained to spit this argument out everytime someone mentions it, but it's still clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
What the f*** do you mean that I've "been very well trained"? I obviously know at least as much about photography, both digital and conventional, as you do. Does it make you feel like a real man to anonymously type out words on Slashdot that you'd be too cowardly to utter face-to-face in the real world?
Not everybody needs a digital SLR for the shit that they do. Additionally, some people decide to opt for a regular point and shoot camera when they realize exactly how complicated phototography can get.
If photography seems complicated for you, then you should stick with a point-and-shoot. I don't find it particularly complicated, but perhaps I've been at it longer than you or have applied myself more.
However, Digital Camera Backs have been available for years. Granted, these are in the larger format cameras but nevertheless, they are available.
Then that's not relevent to the consumer market, which is what we are discussing.
Also, high end (even the prosumer models) Canon and Nikon DSLRs derive some of their reputation for their longevity. Some photographers upgrade their gear every year. Others dont.
If you're shooting photos of political events for a newspaper, then there's little need to upgrade your DSLR. If you are shooting photos for "coffee table books," weddings, or portraits, most of today's digital SLRs are lacking. I can put ISO 100 film in my Nikon SLR and blow up the resultant print to sizes that are just not feasible with a prosumer DSLR
Also, there is NOT A SINGLE point and shoot camera on the market today better than my old Nikon D1 DSLR (About 3 Megapixels). Resolution is NOT everything in a camera.
Thanks for that insight, Ansel Adams. Color accuracy is important, too, and here's what Steve's Digiams had to say about the D1 SLR: We all know that the Nikon D1 is a great camera and we also know that it has been plagued since day one by magenta skin tones and other color irregularities. So is noise, and here's what dpreview said about the D1: The unfortunate thing about the D1's "type of noise" (banding vs. random) is that it's more difficult to remove, your eyes see a regular noise pattern more easily than random noise which is more like film grain. Speed is important, too, and your D1 is sadly lacking there, taking 1.3 to 1.4 seconds per picture.
But now I see where you are coming from: You've got big bucks (list price was over $5,000) invested in a four-year-old, outdated, 2.6 megapixel digital SLR and now you see that it's being outdone by new models that cost a fraction of what you spent. So you're trying to convince yourself that you made a wise decision by spending a princely sum to buy a first-generation digital SLR.
Any idiot can tell you that.
As you have just proven.
Another point where you are dead wrong is that "better film" hasn't been available for years. We're still using Fujichrome Velvia and Reala for most things. Been around for years. "Better film" isn't and won't be a reality anytime soon due to the nature of how film works.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Fujifilm introduced Velvia 100F (print) and Astia 100F (slide) in March of 2003. Just because you're using whatever film they have at the drug store doesn't mean that all film improvements have stopped.
And then there is the idiot comment about being able to upgrade the CMOS censors. First, not all censors are CMOS, and second, this is by no means a trivial process. AT ALL. Read up and understand how they work before blowing things out of your ass.
Talk about "blowing things out of your ass"! You are in way over your head. Sure, some cameras use CCDs and Foveon sensors, but CMOS is going to be the future of the d
You are using a system which has had an Apple supplied part removed and replaced with a non Apple supplied part. This system is not as Apple sold you and is in a condition unknown to them. They are fully entitled to request you revert the system back to the state they sold it to you. If you can't, you are very much out of luck if they are not willing to help you.
That's absurd and untrue. That's like a VW dealer saying "I'm sorry, but you will have to remove the Goodyear tires and put the dealer-supplied BF Goodrich tires back on. You will have to remove the Purolator air filter and put the VW air filter back. You need to remove that NAPA exhaust and put a genuine VW exhaust back in place. You have aftermarket brake pads, so you will need to put VW brake pads on. You need to take out the Exide battery and put a genuine VW-supplied battery in. Only then will we do warranty work to determine why your car is making that squeak you complained about."
Why should they support someone elses part?
They don't have to. They have to support their system. If you bring the system in and they prove that the problem is the aftermarket RAM that you installed, then they have every right to bill you for their time and to hold your system until you have paid the bill.
What's more, tell the end consumer about static safety handling precautions till the cows come home, but you will always get people who don't read the bloody warnings and mess their system up because of it. How is Apple to know that you killed a VLSI though static discharge?
Apple can't know -- and that's the price of doing business where there are laws to protect consumers. How does your car dealer know whether you destroyed your engine by running too little oil for ten thousand miles? How do they know whether you messed up your electrical system when you originally miswired an aftermarket stereo? They don't, so we revert to a basic principle of law: Where there is uncertainty, the cost is borne by the party with the most means.
true but you shoot a zillion pictures once you have a digicam...
But if the pictures stay in the electronic medium, then it doesn't help Kodak or the local developing labs.
anyway kodak has to do something to survive. analog film is going the way of the dinosaur.
I agree completely. It's going to be several (or more) years before digital is good enough to replace medium format (e.g., what Hasselblad, Bronica, and Rollei shoot). And it may never have the pixel count to replace large format. But in the mass-market up through semi-pro and photojournalism, the handwriting is on the wall: photo-reactive film is going away.
T-Mobile paid you to buy the T610 because it has terrible reception and they want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.
I'm not joking. I work for a dealer...
I've had it for months and it has worked extremely well from New York to Florida. In addition, my friend, his wife, and my girlfriend all have the T610 mobile phone. We have all had multiple mobile phones and all of us are quite satisfied with the T610. Reviews of the T610 do not corroborate your claims and most of them rate the reception as average.
Same could be said about cell phones, harddrives and Operating systems... They are not expected to be kept for several years, as newer better technologiews both hardware and software come out.
My Sony T610 cell phone with color display and (horrible) digital camera cost me $-175 after rebates (yes, T-Mobile paid me $175 to take it). My 200GB hard drive was $29 after rebates (screw-up where rebates overlapped). My 160GB drive was $49 after rebates. My OS did not represent any big investment either -- and I can always download Linux for *BSD.
I don't mind throwing away a $50 hard drive or being paid to take a new cell phone, but that's a lot different than retiring a camera that cost a grand.
Ahh, but it *is*. You may *take* the pictures without film, but Kodak has a staggering share of the store printing business.
True, but how many digital pictures get printed? Maybe 20%? Many people take the picture digitally, put it on their computer, e-mail it to friends, or post it on a web site. Others take a whole bunch of photos and just get a couple of them printed. That's one of the big problems that Kodak and the camera stores are facing: How to convince people that they should turn their digital photos into prints.
Well frankly, I think you're overstating it a little:) A Canon digital rebel will set you back about $800, and has ~6MP.
You're talking about the cheapest of the digital SLRs, and that's still $100 under what the big boys like Crutchfield sell it for. $1,000 is a lot less than most of the digital SLRs out there.
$300 cameras will _not_ have 12MP in a year, that I am pretty sure of.
I'm not so sure of that, but even if I'm off by a year, it's still the same problem in principal: You've invested a handsome sum in a digital SLR and it's not comparable to the current generation.
Even if they did, pixel count is not the only useful measure of a camera's greatness. Once you get to about 6 (for most people) or 10 (for pros) you're good, then it comes down to optics, ease of use, reliability, speed, battery life, metering, AF, choice of lenses etc etc.
It depends on what you do with the camera, but noise level for the sensor is a big issue, speed (e.g. ISO 1600, 3200, etc.) matters, color purity matters. Sure, there are lots of measures, but you just don't get better than your sensor and, if you can't replace that, you're talking about a disposable body.
I still have my Kodak DIGITA-based camera from several years ago and I loved the flexibility, even though the performance is poor by today's standards (long cycle times, poor battery life, etc). Why are digital camera manufacturers keeping the lid on the capabilities of their products, when digital cameras could be so much more than their film-based counterparts?
Because they don't want you keeping their cameras for several years. They want you to upgrade every year or, at most, every two. Most digital cameras are all-in-one affairs -- a one-time purchase. It's not like the days of old when Kodak could sell a 35mm point-and-shoot and count on film sales for years to come. Nor is it like the SLR market, where the camera body is just the initial sale and the consumer will buy multiple lenses, expensive flashes, and filters.
Even in the digital SLR market, the manufacturers still have not introduced replaceable "film" backs that allow consumers to upgrade the CMOS sensors as higher resolution comes out. And that's probably why the digital SLR market is not taking off faster. No one wants to spend over a grand on a digital SLR and then, a year later, find that $300 point-and-shoot cameras have double the resolution. It's not like my Nikon 6006, where I can "upgrade" the camera's performance by purchasing newer, better film.
It is. More particulates accelerates wear, but 50% more does not mean that the engine will turn to slag in 10,000 miles. It might mean that there's a bit more blow-by at 50K miles or that compression is down just a tad more. For me, I'd sooner put a larger conventional filter. But lots of people use and love K&N.
We're om/. here so why do you use wattage? Of course you mean power consumption.
Because CPU manufacturers specify the power consumption and thermal load of their CPUs as "wattage." Take a look at this Intel document and you will see that the term I used was a correct and accepted one.
To any half clued techie, Wattage sounds just as silly as Ampereage, Faradage, Ohmage and Voltage. (current, capacitance, resistance and potential)
Well, perhaps if I was "half clued techie" I would think it sounded silly. But since I've got some real engineering experience, I recognize that the term is correct.
For air filters, K&N passes approximately 50% more particulate matter than conventional paper filters. If it was a race engine that I was planning to tear down on a regular basis, the slight extra horsepower from the K&N might be worth it, but not for street use. I knew someone who tested K&N filters as part of his automotive engineering job and he said "no way" when asked if he would use them in his car or motorcycle.
You calling me "dumb" is like Paris Hilton calling someone a "slut." You haven't even figured out how to create a user account on Slashdot.
He's talking about stickers on/inside of the case of the Mac Mini to let Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider [discern? determine? know? discover? figure out? How hard is it to include verbs?] that you have opened it and have thus voided the warranty. Not the warranty stickers on a harddrive[sic], which has NO user serviceable parts, and shouldn't be opened.
Then he didn't express himself very clearly since he spoke about such stickers in a generic sense, even bringing in a reference to a non-Apple product. Given your inability to create an articulate sentence (see above), I'm not surprised that you were on his wavelength.
Sure, but the problems arise when the actual act of introducing a 3rd party product does cause damage. You can get into some pretty difficult to resolve finger pointing. You put XYZ memory into an ABC computer and it blows the power supply. ABC shouldn't have to pay for the blown power supply. XYZ claims that you inserted the memory backwards first, destroying the memory. XYZ claims no fault, no liability.
Companies don't want to lose in court. Most will want to be damned sure that the problem was not their fault before denying a warranty claim. XYZ corporation and ABC corporation don't want to find that you've put up www.abcsucks.com and www.xyzsucks.com web pages. Most would rather extend you warranty undeserved warranty service than risk a loss in court and bad press.
Magnusson-Moss really only protects against out-of-warranty claims due to illegal "tie-ins".
Like Apple saying "you didn't use Apple brand memory and you allowed a non-Apple shop to install the memory, so we are denying your warranty claim."
It's mentioned in the article, but it probably bears repeating here: "Apple states that as long as you do not BREAK your Mac Mini while working on the inside, it is still covered under warranty."
Translation: Apple has agreed to abide by the law and by FTC regulations. This is the same as your car dealer saying that your car warranty will remain in effect even if you elect to change your own oil filter, oil, air filter, etc.
Nevertheless, I do wonder if there's some sort of sticker or seal on the inside to let Apple know you've opened the case.
While companies put the "warranty void if this sticker is broken," such stickers would be easy to successfully challenge in court. There are some obvious exceptions, like hard drives where it is unlikely that the owner will have access to a clean room, but this is far different. Consumers have been successfully assembling, upgrading, and repairing personal computers for years. That's not to say that Apple is obliged to give warranty service if you, for example, put a higher wattage CPU in the machine and it causes a thermally-induced failure.
All of this falls under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. Just as the act guarantees your right to install a Fram air filter in your car without warranty repercussions, it allows you to install Crucial RAM in your Apple computer without Apple being able to deny all subsequent warranty claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, CD's are not usefull for data backup.
Apparently, you don't believe in backups from what you write below.
I have a box with an IDE RAID controller. Mirrored 120GB drives. I have software on my wife's windows box that backs it up to the RAID box each night, and I back up my box to it as well. So I have three copies of the data.
So let's suppose that, unbeknownst to your wife, software on your her PC corrupts a file. That night, the corrupted file is automatically copied to the small (120GB) RAID array. Several months go by and your wife discovers that the file is corrupted. She goes to the RAID array and discovers that the file is corrupted there, too. Since hubby doesn't believe in archival backup of data, the file is irretrievably lost.
What if your home is burglarized? What if there is a fire? Since you have no archival backups, you can't go to the fire-safe or safe deposit box and get a copy of your valued files.
How would you feel if your bank told you that your account information was stored on a desktop PC, copied nightly to a server with RAID in the same physical location, and that there were no archival backups? No optical media. No DLT, LTO, or DDS4 tapes. Nothing. If it was my money, I'd have it out of that bank in an instant.
You're certainly doing a better job than most people, but don't kid yourself into believing that true, offline backups are unnecessary.
Does anyone know if you can overclock a PowerBook?
It is a "bad idea" on several fronts: Heat, battery life, and stability.
You should be looking for ways to underclock it to extend battery life and reduce heat. I want a laptop that will run on one battery for the longest plane flight I'm going to take, not one that burns through a battery every 73 minutes and singes the hair off of my scrotum.
but if you can overclock a mini, why not?
Because they are completely different machines?
That is not "the truth." It is a lie perpetrated by right-wing shills like you. Even the EPA's own web site, under the Bush administration, admits that there is global warming and that it is, at least partially, man-made:
Stop spreading lies.
I'm sorry for your family's loss during the Holocaust.
Thank you for your efforts to set the other poster straight on the seriousness of his accusation. That said, he is a troll who regularly posts lies like the one to which you replied. Unfortunately, he thinks that anonymity grants him a license to say things on here that he would never dare say to people's faces. If you get anything back from him at all, I expect that it will be nothing more than childish insults, lies, and false accusations. I'm sure not holding my breath for an apology.
It's fantastically ignorant to think that people would believe "fables" that were started during the living memory of people who could have just said, "Hey! That's not true, that didn't happen!"
Huh? All fables were started during the living memory of someone, yet they continued to be told for centuries. Just look at Greek and Roman mythology.
That's why nowadays people look at you as stupid when you say the holocaust didn't happen.
Except, of course, that I never said such a thing. You're off your meds again, aren't you?
You've provided links to religious nut-case web sites, a non-peer-reviewed article by someone named "Anita Moon" with no apparent credentials, and an uncredited essay hosted on the site of an English Instructor from Spokane Community College. That uncredited essay actually cites, as one of its sources an "article" on www.christiananswers.net! Yeah, that's real, unbiased, peer-reviewed science, isn't it?
If it upsets you when science effectively disproves the 2000 year old fables, fairy tales, and myths that you need as a psychological crutch, then stay away from web sites which are pro-science.
If I'm out of work, I go fishing, motorcycling, and boating. I also hang out with friends. Eventually, an ex-boss, ex-coworker, or headhunter calls or e-mails and offers me a job. If it sounds good, I take it. If not, I politely bow out and go back to my recreational activities. I initially turned down the job I have now, but was asked to reconsider some months later. Since winter was coming on and I like the guy who wanted me to work for him, I accepted.
Post-Its and e-mail are more than good enough to handle the amount of data I'm dealing with at any given time.
I'm sure you've been very well trained to spit this argument out everytime someone mentions it, but it's still clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
What the f*** do you mean that I've "been very well trained"? I obviously know at least as much about photography, both digital and conventional, as you do. Does it make you feel like a real man to anonymously type out words on Slashdot that you'd be too cowardly to utter face-to-face in the real world?
Not everybody needs a digital SLR for the shit that they do. Additionally, some people decide to opt for a regular point and shoot camera when they realize exactly how complicated phototography can get.
If photography seems complicated for you, then you should stick with a point-and-shoot. I don't find it particularly complicated, but perhaps I've been at it longer than you or have applied myself more.
However, Digital Camera Backs have been available for years. Granted, these are in the larger format cameras but nevertheless, they are available.
Then that's not relevent to the consumer market, which is what we are discussing.
Also, high end (even the prosumer models) Canon and Nikon DSLRs derive some of their reputation for their longevity. Some photographers upgrade their gear every year. Others dont.
If you're shooting photos of political events for a newspaper, then there's little need to upgrade your DSLR. If you are shooting photos for "coffee table books," weddings, or portraits, most of today's digital SLRs are lacking. I can put ISO 100 film in my Nikon SLR and blow up the resultant print to sizes that are just not feasible with a prosumer DSLR
Also, there is NOT A SINGLE point and shoot camera on the market today better than my old Nikon D1 DSLR (About 3 Megapixels). Resolution is NOT everything in a camera.
Thanks for that insight, Ansel Adams. Color accuracy is important, too, and here's what Steve's Digiams had to say about the D1 SLR: We all know that the Nikon D1 is a great camera and we also know that it has been plagued since day one by magenta skin tones and other color irregularities. So is noise, and here's what dpreview said about the D1: The unfortunate thing about the D1's "type of noise" (banding vs. random) is that it's more difficult to remove, your eyes see a regular noise pattern more easily than random noise which is more like film grain. Speed is important, too, and your D1 is sadly lacking there, taking 1.3 to 1.4 seconds per picture.
But now I see where you are coming from: You've got big bucks (list price was over $5,000) invested in a four-year-old, outdated, 2.6 megapixel digital SLR and now you see that it's being outdone by new models that cost a fraction of what you spent. So you're trying to convince yourself that you made a wise decision by spending a princely sum to buy a first-generation digital SLR.
Any idiot can tell you that.
As you have just proven.
Another point where you are dead wrong is that "better film" hasn't been available for years. We're still using Fujichrome Velvia and Reala for most things. Been around for years. "Better film" isn't and won't be a reality anytime soon due to the nature of how film works.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Fujifilm introduced Velvia 100F (print) and Astia 100F (slide) in March of 2003. Just because you're using whatever film they have at the drug store doesn't mean that all film improvements have stopped.
And then there is the idiot comment about being able to upgrade the CMOS censors. First, not all censors are CMOS, and second, this is by no means a trivial process. AT ALL. Read up and understand how they work before blowing things out of your ass.
Talk about "blowing things out of your ass"! You are in way over your head. Sure, some cameras use CCDs and Foveon sensors, but CMOS is going to be the future of the d
You are using a system which has had an Apple supplied part removed and replaced with a non Apple supplied part. This system is not as Apple sold you and is in a condition unknown to them. They are fully entitled to request you revert the system back to the state they sold it to you. If you can't, you are very much out of luck if they are not willing to help you.
That's absurd and untrue. That's like a VW dealer saying "I'm sorry, but you will have to remove the Goodyear tires and put the dealer-supplied BF Goodrich tires back on. You will have to remove the Purolator air filter and put the VW air filter back. You need to remove that NAPA exhaust and put a genuine VW exhaust back in place. You have aftermarket brake pads, so you will need to put VW brake pads on. You need to take out the Exide battery and put a genuine VW-supplied battery in. Only then will we do warranty work to determine why your car is making that squeak you complained about."
Why should they support someone elses part?
They don't have to. They have to support their system. If you bring the system in and they prove that the problem is the aftermarket RAM that you installed, then they have every right to bill you for their time and to hold your system until you have paid the bill.
What's more, tell the end consumer about static safety handling precautions till the cows come home, but you will always get people who don't read the bloody warnings and mess their system up because of it. How is Apple to know that you killed a VLSI though static discharge?
Apple can't know -- and that's the price of doing business where there are laws to protect consumers. How does your car dealer know whether you destroyed your engine by running too little oil for ten thousand miles? How do they know whether you messed up your electrical system when you originally miswired an aftermarket stereo? They don't, so we revert to a basic principle of law: Where there is uncertainty, the cost is borne by the party with the most means.
true but you shoot a zillion pictures once you have a digicam...
But if the pictures stay in the electronic medium, then it doesn't help Kodak or the local developing labs.
anyway kodak has to do something to survive. analog film is going the way of the dinosaur.
I agree completely. It's going to be several (or more) years before digital is good enough to replace medium format (e.g., what Hasselblad, Bronica, and Rollei shoot). And it may never have the pixel count to replace large format. But in the mass-market up through semi-pro and photojournalism, the handwriting is on the wall: photo-reactive film is going away.
T-Mobile paid you to buy the T610 because it has terrible reception and they want to get rid of them as quickly as possible.
I'm not joking. I work for a dealer...
I've had it for months and it has worked extremely well from New York to Florida. In addition, my friend, his wife, and my girlfriend all have the T610 mobile phone. We have all had multiple mobile phones and all of us are quite satisfied with the T610. Reviews of the T610 do not corroborate your claims and most of them rate the reception as average.
Same could be said about cell phones, harddrives and Operating systems... They are not expected to be kept for several years, as newer better technologiews both hardware and software come out.
My Sony T610 cell phone with color display and (horrible) digital camera cost me $-175 after rebates (yes, T-Mobile paid me $175 to take it). My 200GB hard drive was $29 after rebates (screw-up where rebates overlapped). My 160GB drive was $49 after rebates. My OS did not represent any big investment either -- and I can always download Linux for *BSD.
I don't mind throwing away a $50 hard drive or being paid to take a new cell phone, but that's a lot different than retiring a camera that cost a grand.
Ahh, but it *is*. You may *take* the pictures without film, but Kodak has a staggering share of the store printing business.
True, but how many digital pictures get printed? Maybe 20%? Many people take the picture digitally, put it on their computer, e-mail it to friends, or post it on a web site. Others take a whole bunch of photos and just get a couple of them printed. That's one of the big problems that Kodak and the camera stores are facing: How to convince people that they should turn their digital photos into prints.
Well frankly, I think you're overstating it a little :) A Canon digital rebel will set you back about $800, and has ~6MP.
You're talking about the cheapest of the digital SLRs, and that's still $100 under what the big boys like Crutchfield sell it for. $1,000 is a lot less than most of the digital SLRs out there.
$300 cameras will _not_ have 12MP in a year, that I am pretty sure of.
I'm not so sure of that, but even if I'm off by a year, it's still the same problem in principal: You've invested a handsome sum in a digital SLR and it's not comparable to the current generation.
Even if they did, pixel count is not the only useful measure of a camera's greatness. Once you get to about 6 (for most people) or 10 (for pros) you're good, then it comes down to optics, ease of use, reliability, speed, battery life, metering, AF, choice of lenses etc etc.
It depends on what you do with the camera, but noise level for the sensor is a big issue, speed (e.g. ISO 1600, 3200, etc.) matters, color purity matters. Sure, there are lots of measures, but you just don't get better than your sensor and, if you can't replace that, you're talking about a disposable body.
I still have my Kodak DIGITA-based camera from several years ago and I loved the flexibility, even though the performance is poor by today's standards (long cycle times, poor battery life, etc). Why are digital camera manufacturers keeping the lid on the capabilities of their products, when digital cameras could be so much more than their film-based counterparts?
Because they don't want you keeping their cameras for several years. They want you to upgrade every year or, at most, every two. Most digital cameras are all-in-one affairs -- a one-time purchase. It's not like the days of old when Kodak could sell a 35mm point-and-shoot and count on film sales for years to come. Nor is it like the SLR market, where the camera body is just the initial sale and the consumer will buy multiple lenses, expensive flashes, and filters.
Even in the digital SLR market, the manufacturers still have not introduced replaceable "film" backs that allow consumers to upgrade the CMOS sensors as higher resolution comes out. And that's probably why the digital SLR market is not taking off faster. No one wants to spend over a grand on a digital SLR and then, a year later, find that $300 point-and-shoot cameras have double the resolution. It's not like my Nikon 6006, where I can "upgrade" the camera's performance by purchasing newer, better film.
No, I'm just not a trailer-park leech like you.
Perhaps it's a YMMV thing...
It is. More particulates accelerates wear, but 50% more does not mean that the engine will turn to slag in 10,000 miles. It might mean that there's a bit more blow-by at 50K miles or that compression is down just a tad more. For me, I'd sooner put a larger conventional filter. But lots of people use and love K&N.
We're om /. here so why do you use wattage? Of course you mean power consumption.
Because CPU manufacturers specify the power consumption and thermal load of their CPUs as "wattage." Take a look at this Intel document and you will see that the term I used was a correct and accepted one.
To any half clued techie, Wattage sounds just as silly as Ampereage, Faradage, Ohmage and Voltage. (current, capacitance, resistance and potential)
Well, perhaps if I was "half clued techie" I would think it sounded silly. But since I've got some real engineering experience, I recognize that the term is correct.
For air filters, K&N passes approximately 50% more particulate matter than conventional paper filters. If it was a race engine that I was planning to tear down on a regular basis, the slight extra horsepower from the K&N might be worth it, but not for street use. I knew someone who tested K&N filters as part of his automotive engineering job and he said "no way" when asked if he would use them in his car or motorcycle.
I didn't mean it toward you. I should have put it in more of an FYI toward everyone format. Sorry bout that.
No problem. Sorry for being touchy. I also avoid Fram, preferring Purolator or Bosch.
You're quite dumb.
You calling me "dumb" is like Paris Hilton calling someone a "slut." You haven't even figured out how to create a user account on Slashdot.
He's talking about stickers on/inside of the case of the Mac Mini to let Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider [discern? determine? know? discover? figure out? How hard is it to include verbs?] that you have opened it and have thus voided the warranty. Not the warranty stickers on a harddrive[sic], which has NO user serviceable parts, and shouldn't be opened.
Then he didn't express himself very clearly since he spoke about such stickers in a generic sense, even bringing in a reference to a non-Apple product. Given your inability to create an articulate sentence (see above), I'm not surprised that you were on his wavelength.
Sure, but the problems arise when the actual act of introducing a 3rd party product does cause damage. You can get into some pretty difficult to resolve finger pointing. You put XYZ memory into an ABC computer and it blows the power supply. ABC shouldn't have to pay for the blown power supply. XYZ claims that you inserted the memory backwards first, destroying the memory. XYZ claims no fault, no liability.
Companies don't want to lose in court. Most will want to be damned sure that the problem was not their fault before denying a warranty claim. XYZ corporation and ABC corporation don't want to find that you've put up www.abcsucks.com and www.xyzsucks.com web pages. Most would rather extend you warranty undeserved warranty service than risk a loss in court and bad press.
Magnusson-Moss really only protects against out-of-warranty claims due to illegal "tie-ins".
Like Apple saying "you didn't use Apple brand memory and you allowed a non-Apple shop to install the memory, so we are denying your warranty claim."
Do not EVER put a Fram oil filter into any car. They are the worst of the worst:
It was just an example. Don't get your sphincter constricted.
The stickers must be vapourware just like the Phantom because I've never seen one.
Then perhaps you should look more closely.
It's mentioned in the article, but it probably bears repeating here: "Apple states that as long as you do not BREAK your Mac Mini while working on the inside, it is still covered under warranty."
Translation: Apple has agreed to abide by the law and by FTC regulations. This is the same as your car dealer saying that your car warranty will remain in effect even if you elect to change your own oil filter, oil, air filter, etc.
Nevertheless, I do wonder if there's some sort of sticker or seal on the inside to let Apple know you've opened the case.
While companies put the "warranty void if this sticker is broken," such stickers would be easy to successfully challenge in court. There are some obvious exceptions, like hard drives where it is unlikely that the owner will have access to a clean room, but this is far different. Consumers have been successfully assembling, upgrading, and repairing personal computers for years. That's not to say that Apple is obliged to give warranty service if you, for example, put a higher wattage CPU in the machine and it causes a thermally-induced failure.
All of this falls under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. Just as the act guarantees your right to install a Fram air filter in your car without warranty repercussions, it allows you to install Crucial RAM in your Apple computer without Apple being able to deny all subsequent warranty claims.
Just my $.02.