Just because the base image quality may not be better (for 8x10 and larger from a 35mm sized camera, digital is so much better, but I like analog for 3X5 snapshots) doesn't mean the tricks and effects are neccessarily better.
Photoshop is great software, but no matter how much I try, basic manipulation (on b&w images particularly), especially brightness/contrast adjustment and dodging/burning, always gives me much better results under an enlarger. Same for exposure effects; Photoshop's solarize filter is good, but there's just some intangible warmth and...analog-ness to a well-solarized paper print. Maybe it's just the random scatter and size of the grain of film against the gridded regularity of the digital images, or the slight variation in quality across the print (not imperfect, but not...digitally homogenous), but for purely aesthetic ends, I have to go with film and paper.
When was the last time you saw a fat ugly woman with a beautiful voice in the Billboard charts.
You know, I never really though about it, but it's so true - hell, The First Lady herself probably couldn't land a contract today. Oc course, leaves you wondering how Rosen got where she is...
There's been a lot of research into "space diving"; deorbiting with no surrounding spacecraft - here's a good page with a lot of information. Also, here's the existing Shuttle bailout procedure.
It takes about 3/4 of a second for a person to see something and then act. A lot can change in that much time.
While you do have a good point, in a lot of officer-involved shootings, the police already have their guns drawn, aimed, and fingers on the trigger. One of the major parts of their training is improving their perceptions and reaction times; I suspect in that case they would fire much more quickly. If you're wildly throwing your hands up in the air from behind your back, even if you do plan on surrendering, I can completely see an officer shooting you. Maybe small head-mounted video cameras like bouncers in Scotland use would be better to police the police?
..for cheap home electronic devices you might want to web-enable (i.e. tell the 100-DVD jukebox to have the following playlist ready when you get home, have the fridge print you out dinner recipies, blah blah blah), but with 512kb of flash for the web pages and a (relatively) slow interface, they certainly wouldn't be useful for serving (and they aren't really being sold as such, despite what the tagline says - the PDF mentions serving, but the main push seems to be monitoring & control..good idea for something like this).
Fair enough. Out of curiosity, would you apply the same distinction to PPC boxes, a la 604e-powered IBM servers? I don't know if there are any other "commodity" procs that are migrating up, so I'll leave it at that.
Here it is, OF - a boot loader/bios indeed, but much much more; essentialy a Forth interpreter running on the naked hardware, very useful for manipulating registers, writing boot drivers, and such. A comprehensive guide to using it on a PowerMac is up here, but it probably applies to other systems too.
Stratus' homepage advertises Ultra High Availability Servers. Built around Pentiums and Win2K to be sure, but I fail to see any mention of either Linux or any kind of home-user PC system. Their lowest-end box, the ftServer 3200, is spec'd with 1 or 2 800MHz PIIIs, comes with 2 10/100 and 2 Ultra/160 controllers on the mobo, and has hot-swap everything (PSUs, PCI, fans, disks, CPUs). Sounds like a low-end server offering from Dell or HP uprated with hotswap parts (which is a good idea, reliability needn't be that expensive), but it seems about as similiar to a PC as an BMW M3 GT racer is to a roadgoing edition: the engine is about all they have in common.
...in a smoke-filled dorm room (heavy tobacco smokers, stoners, both resident and transient) knows that dust won't hurt a PC as long as you get it cleaned out. Mine took two cans of air, and I had to strip it down to the parts, but after taking it outside and removing the sludge from it (seriously - the gunk was so builtup on the mobo and fan that it was more sludgy mung than dust), blasting the lens one last time, it worked great. still takes a can every couple of months, but nothing like that first time..
amen! too bad i don't have any mod points. excellent point though; you know you're with The One when you *don't* have to LIE like that to keep things smooth - you can just say "naw, screw that, they're just polygons...i respect your opinion, but i'm going to go play for awhile" and then still be allowed into bed.
There's a (perhaps subtle, but nonetheless real) difference between cowardice in the face of evil and the active propagation of evil.
maybe if i see something evil going on on the street, and i hide out in my house, there's a difference, but in this case i'd say there is no difference. the entire purpose of the demmicans is to oppose what they see as evil; their job is to stand up to it, so cowardice in its face in their position is really just actively propagating it - they allow it to exist just as much as the republicrats do.
...SBC owns it now. Squabble all you want about how it was paid for and whether or not it should have been handed over to Bell back in the day, but facts is facts, and the lines are owned by SBC. I mean, unless you support the right of the government to take private property and place in the commonwealth, and not just when it's agreeable to *your* ends.
...with the tinfoil hat rant about the 'net Empowering the People and the established oligarchy desperately trying to keep the all-encompassing Enlightenment of the Internet away from the igorant unwashed masses, I might have actually given you some cred for the astute observations you made later on. As is, you sound like a ranting conspiracy theorist.
depends on the cable, i get a full Mb up on optonline. and they don't reeeeeaaly enforce the ToS unless you're clogging up the network...$40/mo well spent.
I'm assuming at least some of you have automatically harvested.jpgs from alt.binaries.pictures.* or a.b.p.erotica.*...there seems to be, at least on cursory inspection, at least as much kiddiepr0n on Usenet as there is on the WWW, if not more, and it's a lot harder to eliminate; while there are entire ngs dedicated to it, there's no reason pics can't be ECP'd to a bunch of legitimate groups too, just to provide wider propagation and availability. Prodigy had an idea with blocking all binary groups (for different reason), but still, this seems like a perfect way to just endrun the law and go wild with the CP...whats PA going to do, ban all of Usenet?
Ahhh, and the thought slowly goes from point A to point B, and the lighbulb goes on...
Same analogy has been found with alcohol - give a kid the odd glass of wine now and then and he's _drastically_ less likely to binge drink when he hits college age.
I'm not saying that kids should be 100% shielded from sex and sexuality, just real explicit non-artistic Pr0n. Going to the alcohol analogy, it's like cracking a bottle of bourbon in front of them (well, sugary-sweet Kiddie Bourbon) and giving them a shot glass; yeah, they're both alcohol, but one is just entirely unsuited for kids. One last analogy (forgive me, I'm feeling verbose today), I'd shield kids from some of Robert Mapplethorpe's works (excellent photographer btw, his flower stuff is amazing, and totally suited for kids) - but I would gladly let them look at all the Helmut Newton they wanted. Both have artistically redeeming value, and I don't happen to think Mapplethorpe is 'obscene' - but I'd rather not have to explain why that man has his fist and forearm stuffed up the other man...
You're right, I agree, but a lot of pr0n isn't just naked people. I really hate to sit on the conservative side of the fence, but a lot of hardcore pr0n does have an extremely objectified, male-oriented, entirely fantastic take on sex, which is something I honestly believe can cause harm to children and young adolescents who haven't formed their views on sexuality yet. A pair of boobs or an ass jiggling onscreen won't hurt little Johnny, but a typical modern pr0n very likely might; I don't think a 10-year old can really be told that "No, that's not how people actually have sex, they go to dinner first, fall in love, blah blah blah". Or something - the caffeine hasn't hit me yet.
The human body is nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing "wrong" with nudity or sex.
Cool, I couldn't agree more - here's a great site to show your kids, or maybe this...they'll LOVE this (kids like animals!). Sex is all fine and dandy, but there ARE a few things I don't want my kids to see (when I have them, that is).
You don't want your child looking at certain things? Teach them that it isn't ok to do so!
OK, now, you might not have kids, but I know you were one once, and since when does telling a kid "Don't look/touch/eat/take/whatever" ever do anythng but make them want it 10x more? Not that I neccessarily support censorware, but any computer that a kid can get onto without direct, constant adult supervision (librarians don't count, they're too busy) should try and keep the hot ass sex to a minimum, without blocking any useful sites. Just my 2c.
I imagine the signals are split as soon as the line comes into the house; it would be rather foolish to bring the data all the way to the computer via the power line - something goes wrong, you now have 120V going straight through your ethernet chip. Another advantage this could have would be the ability to clean up the power in your house - the splitter would probably transmit a pretty clean 60Hz sine out.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the base image quality may not be better (for 8x10 and larger from a 35mm sized camera, digital is so much better, but I like analog for 3X5 snapshots) doesn't mean the tricks and effects are neccessarily better.
Photoshop is great software, but no matter how much I try, basic manipulation (on b&w images particularly), especially brightness/contrast adjustment and dodging/burning, always gives me much better results under an enlarger. Same for exposure effects; Photoshop's solarize filter is good, but there's just some intangible warmth and...analog-ness to a well-solarized paper print. Maybe it's just the random scatter and size of the grain of film against the gridded regularity of the digital images, or the slight variation in quality across the print (not imperfect, but not...digitally homogenous), but for purely aesthetic ends, I have to go with film and paper.
Since the film was apparently slated to pay him 11M, sucks to be him just as much as us if he doesn't play the part.
:P
Yeah, I'm sure he's *completely* broke after the first Spider-Man...I don't recall it doing hrribly well or anything
When was the last time you saw a fat ugly woman with a beautiful voice in the Billboard charts.
You know, I never really though about it, but it's so true - hell, The First Lady herself probably couldn't land a contract today. Oc course, leaves you wondering how Rosen got where she is...
There's been a lot of research into "space diving"; deorbiting with no surrounding spacecraft - here's a good page with a lot of information. Also, here's the existing Shuttle bailout procedure.
It takes about 3/4 of a second for a person to see something and then act. A lot can change in that much time.
While you do have a good point, in a lot of officer-involved shootings, the police already have their guns drawn, aimed, and fingers on the trigger. One of the major parts of their training is improving their perceptions and reaction times; I suspect in that case they would fire much more quickly. If you're wildly throwing your hands up in the air from behind your back, even if you do plan on surrendering, I can completely see an officer shooting you. Maybe small head-mounted video cameras like bouncers in Scotland use would be better to police the police?
..for cheap home electronic devices you might want to web-enable (i.e. tell the 100-DVD jukebox to have the following playlist ready when you get home, have the fridge print you out dinner recipies, blah blah blah), but with 512kb of flash for the web pages and a (relatively) slow interface, they certainly wouldn't be useful for serving (and they aren't really being sold as such, despite what the tagline says - the PDF mentions serving, but the main push seems to be monitoring & control..good idea for something like this).
..you have good enough filters :)
Right, so my PowerMac is a PC. So are the IBM servers based around the same processors (older, actually) "high-end PCs" or "servers?"
Fair enough. Out of curiosity, would you apply the same distinction to PPC boxes, a la 604e-powered IBM servers? I don't know if there are any other "commodity" procs that are migrating up, so I'll leave it at that.
Here it is, OF - a boot loader/bios indeed, but much much more; essentialy a Forth interpreter running on the naked hardware, very useful for manipulating registers, writing boot drivers, and such. A comprehensive guide to using it on a PowerMac is up here, but it probably applies to other systems too.
Stratus' homepage advertises Ultra High Availability Servers. Built around Pentiums and Win2K to be sure, but I fail to see any mention of either Linux or any kind of home-user PC system. Their lowest-end box, the ftServer 3200, is spec'd with 1 or 2 800MHz PIIIs, comes with 2 10/100 and 2 Ultra/160 controllers on the mobo, and has hot-swap everything (PSUs, PCI, fans, disks, CPUs). Sounds like a low-end server offering from Dell or HP uprated with hotswap parts (which is a good idea, reliability needn't be that expensive), but it seems about as similiar to a PC as an BMW M3 GT racer is to a roadgoing edition: the engine is about all they have in common.
...in a smoke-filled dorm room (heavy tobacco smokers, stoners, both resident and transient) knows that dust won't hurt a PC as long as you get it cleaned out. Mine took two cans of air, and I had to strip it down to the parts, but after taking it outside and removing the sludge from it (seriously - the gunk was so builtup on the mobo and fan that it was more sludgy mung than dust), blasting the lens one last time, it worked great. still takes a can every couple of months, but nothing like that first time..
..between the SIMM sockets and the AGP slot. just a little red LED, but it does help a LOT if you aren't sure if the machine's on.
amen! too bad i don't have any mod points. excellent point though; you know you're with The One when you *don't* have to LIE like that to keep things smooth - you can just say "naw, screw that, they're just polygons...i respect your opinion, but i'm going to go play for awhile" and then still be allowed into bed.
There's a (perhaps subtle, but nonetheless real) difference between cowardice in the face of evil and the active propagation of evil.
maybe if i see something evil going on on the street, and i hide out in my house, there's a difference, but in this case i'd say there is no difference. the entire purpose of the demmicans is to oppose what they see as evil; their job is to stand up to it, so cowardice in its face in their position is really just actively propagating it - they allow it to exist just as much as the republicrats do.
Then again, what shows haven't sucked after seven years?
well, the simpsons were still ok, they hit bottom around...9 to 11 i'd say.
curvy sorry for the guest
curvy (arguably)
curvy
NOT curvy (IMO, yours may vary - more power if they do).
...SBC owns it now. Squabble all you want about how it was paid for and whether or not it should have been handed over to Bell back in the day, but facts is facts, and the lines are owned by SBC. I mean, unless you support the right of the government to take private property and place in the commonwealth, and not just when it's agreeable to *your* ends.
...with the tinfoil hat rant about the 'net Empowering the People and the established oligarchy desperately trying to keep the all-encompassing Enlightenment of the Internet away from the igorant unwashed masses, I might have actually given you some cred for the astute observations you made later on. As is, you sound like a ranting conspiracy theorist.
the upstream of Cable sucks.
depends on the cable, i get a full Mb up on optonline. and they don't reeeeeaaly enforce the ToS unless you're clogging up the network...$40/mo well spent.
I'm assuming at least some of you have automatically harvested .jpgs from alt.binaries.pictures.* or a.b.p.erotica.*...there seems to be, at least on cursory inspection, at least as much kiddiepr0n on Usenet as there is on the WWW, if not more, and it's a lot harder to eliminate; while there are entire ngs dedicated to it, there's no reason pics can't be ECP'd to a bunch of legitimate groups too, just to provide wider propagation and availability. Prodigy had an idea with blocking all binary groups (for different reason), but still, this seems like a perfect way to just endrun the law and go wild with the CP...whats PA going to do, ban all of Usenet?
Ahhh, and the thought slowly goes from point A to point B, and the lighbulb goes on...
Same analogy has been found with alcohol - give a kid the odd glass of wine now and then and he's _drastically_ less likely to binge drink when he hits college age.
I'm not saying that kids should be 100% shielded from sex and sexuality, just real explicit non-artistic Pr0n. Going to the alcohol analogy, it's like cracking a bottle of bourbon in front of them (well, sugary-sweet Kiddie Bourbon) and giving them a shot glass; yeah, they're both alcohol, but one is just entirely unsuited for kids. One last analogy (forgive me, I'm feeling verbose today), I'd shield kids from some of Robert Mapplethorpe's works (excellent photographer btw, his flower stuff is amazing, and totally suited for kids) - but I would gladly let them look at all the Helmut Newton they wanted. Both have artistically redeeming value, and I don't happen to think Mapplethorpe is 'obscene' - but I'd rather not have to explain why that man has his fist and forearm stuffed up the other man...
You're right, I agree, but a lot of pr0n isn't just naked people. I really hate to sit on the conservative side of the fence, but a lot of hardcore pr0n does have an extremely objectified, male-oriented, entirely fantastic take on sex, which is something I honestly believe can cause harm to children and young adolescents who haven't formed their views on sexuality yet. A pair of boobs or an ass jiggling onscreen won't hurt little Johnny, but a typical modern pr0n very likely might; I don't think a 10-year old can really be told that "No, that's not how people actually have sex, they go to dinner first, fall in love, blah blah blah". Or something - the caffeine hasn't hit me yet.
The human body is nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing "wrong" with nudity or sex.
Cool, I couldn't agree more - here's a great site to show your kids, or maybe this...they'll LOVE this (kids like animals!). Sex is all fine and dandy, but there ARE a few things I don't want my kids to see (when I have them, that is).
You don't want your child looking at certain things? Teach them that it isn't ok to do so!
OK, now, you might not have kids, but I know you were one once, and since when does telling a kid "Don't look/touch/eat/take/whatever" ever do anythng but make them want it 10x more? Not that I neccessarily support censorware, but any computer that a kid can get onto without direct, constant adult supervision (librarians don't count, they're too busy) should try and keep the hot ass sex to a minimum, without blocking any useful sites. Just my 2c.
I imagine the signals are split as soon as the line comes into the house; it would be rather foolish to bring the data all the way to the computer via the power line - something goes wrong, you now have 120V going straight through your ethernet chip. Another advantage this could have would be the ability to clean up the power in your house - the splitter would probably transmit a pretty clean 60Hz sine out.