The bandwidth usage of VOIP isn't very high, like 8k/sec or something. I don't even notice it over my cable modem. You'd need a lot of people using them to badly clog a public access point.
Their softphone is a pretty nifty thing, too, but not worth paying extra for. I've been using them for a while now and love their service. It was nice visiting my parents over the holidays and bringing my PAP2 with me, so my phone line followed me, but paying an extra ten bucks a month to use the soft phone seems silly.
I'm sure this will be the same way, if not more expensive.
No doubt... but the claim that the buyer didn't get what they paid for is rediculous. Neither the 650 nor the SDIO WiFi card said that they worked with each other...
So it may not make sense, it may be stupid, but in no way did the buyer not get what they paid for. They didn't get what they wanted, or what they may have assumed they paid for, but they got precisely what they paid for.
Wait, the box says its got WiFi and when its opened and turned on it doesn't?
Then there's a good damn reason to be pissed off. You didn't get what you paid for.
But I suspect you're saying that the fact that you didn't get a feature that wasn't claimed to be in the product means you didn't get what you paid for just because other products in the price range have it?
Well shit, I'm going to sue Dodge because my $30k truck didn't come with navigation, traction control, front ABS, side curtain airbags, an MP3 player or any other feature available on vehicles of the same cost. I mean seriously, I don't even have a trunk! WTF does Dodge think they're doing? They can't get away with that!
Maybe I'll sue Dunkin Donuts, too. My ham egg and cheese didn't come with sausage this morning, and another comparably priced sandwich they sell does come with it! The nerve of those FF's.
You do realize that new UIDs were still five digit when Slashdot stopped making any effort to not be a captive-audience marketing channel, right?
I'd bet 50% of the stories on here are submitted one way or another by someone with a vested interest in the submission... and since half of the remainder are dupes, that leaves at best 25% worth of non-advertising interesting news for nerds. (Although if you have a shoddy short term memory like mine, you might not remember the recent dupes!)
I know thats meant to be funny, but that wouldn't be bad. Corporate users aren't the ones having problems with spyware. A good corporate security policy, firewall, etc will help prevent those problems there.
Its Joe Six Pack who gets infected and is unknowingly running a zombie machine that is the problem.
The question is, whats the penetration of awareness of Firefox already among the particular demographic that actually reads the NY Times outside of the NY area.
I'd bet a large percentage of people likely to see the ad already are familiar with Firefox, considering how much media attention its gotten in magazines, NPR, etc over the last few months.
This strikes me as more of a vanity move than a real marketing move. If the intent was to increase browser awareness, the NYT isn't the place to advertise it. People Magazine is, or the Enquirer, or other demographically focused rags like that which target demographics less likely to already be aware of Firefox.
I could do an 8x10 dye sub at home for less than I can do it in the store, by about fifty cents, but its a hassle, and I don't trust the dye sub prints to be long-term archival.
How many 8x10's are you shooting? I had one printed this weekend, I think it cost me $2.20 or something in that range, for a true photo print. It might cost me $1.75 or $2.00 to print on my Alps, and the quality would've been better, but the hassle of setting it all up and waiting for the print just isn't worth it.
It was more skewed when I bought the printer, though. When Alps was still making them, supplies were a lot cheaper and I could print an 8x10 600dpi dye sub for about 80 cents. 8x10 photo enlargements were upwards of ten bucks, and there really wasn't wide-spread consumer level access to digital printing. (It might cost me $50-$80 to get a digital image transferred onto a 35mm or 4x5 positive and get a cibachrome print made from it).
I haven't used the printer in almost two years now, though.
I'd personally rule out ink jet for photo prints regardless of cost. I expect a lot higher quality than they deliver.
Given the prices of getting real prints made are dropping through the floor, its weird people even bother with photo printers, unless you're shooting pictures you don't want the processor to see.
I have an Alps MD-5000 dye sublimation printer, and at a cost of a buck a print, I can make prints quite a bit better quality than a consumer optical process can do, or those dyesub Kodak kiosks. But for $.24 a print, I can get them printed as true photographs at Wal(greens|mart), and will end up with a quality that is nearly as good for most stuff.
Considering the best ink-jets I've seen aren't even in the ballpark in terms of quality as compared to my Alps or a photo print from a Fuji processor, I find it funny people drop a couple hundred bucks plus ink on a photo printer.
The break-even point is in the thousands of pictures, in terms of cost, and you get grainy, pixelated prints of unknown long-term image stability.
Ummm... most prosumer and pro digital cameras, if not all, are higher than 8-bits per channel.
A $600 Canon Digital Rebel is 12-bit internally, and the RAW files are 12-bit. The camera takes each gray-scale 12-bit sample, knows what color filter its sitting behind and interpolates the color image (as a 36-bit color space) accordingly when you save as a JPG internally, but when you use RAW, the software on the computer gets the full 12-bit values. That 50% more information makes a huge difference when you have a lot of stops between your highlights and lowlights, or you need to tweak anything with your color.
I'd bet a lot of lower end cameras do that internally, as well.
FWIW, I haven't had the slightest issue with Vonage since I set my account up a few months ago. Not a single one.
When my account was new, they couldn't get the stuttering dial tone working on my line, but once it got escalated high enough, they got an engineer to figure it out and its been fine since.
Thankfully compiling doesn't take much floating point math;-)
But yeah, I know what you mean... I'd bet you could compile X on one without any major trouble. X with all the options is pretty big, the base applications and a single server isn't that much bigger.
Compiling X on an iPaq
on
Embedded Gentoo?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, I suppose it could be ballparked.
When I first started using Linux back in early '93, compiling was about all you could do. (Pre-slackware, Yggdrisil or something was the only distro, I think).
I remember compiling X on my computer, a 486/66DX2 with eight meg of RAM. It took a few days to build. Considering my busted down four year old iPaq is like 166mhz, and has 64 meg of RAM, it'd certainly be doable, probably take a day or so, maybe less.
Yes. Why? I didn't say the Smart didn't have crumple zones.
What is it with reading comprehension on/.? I said the fact that the Smart may be functionally equivalent of a roll cage with siding doesn't mean its safe, since roll cages are inherantly not safe in a vehicle without substantial restraints.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the cablecard SD and HD support?
I'd order the parts to build one this afternoon if it existed.
And I thought my signature was bad...
Eight times more memory.
;-)
Not to be picky, but as the thinkgeek shirt says, there are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
90k bits per second, not 90k bytes per second. Thats peak, and its adjustable downward if that amount upstream bogs your broadband connection.
The bandwidth usage of VOIP isn't very high, like 8k/sec or something. I don't even notice it over my cable modem. You'd need a lot of people using them to badly clog a public access point.
Their softphone is a pretty nifty thing, too, but not worth paying extra for. I've been using them for a while now and love their service. It was nice visiting my parents over the holidays and bringing my PAP2 with me, so my phone line followed me, but paying an extra ten bucks a month to use the soft phone seems silly.
I'm sure this will be the same way, if not more expensive.
No doubt... but the claim that the buyer didn't get what they paid for is rediculous. Neither the 650 nor the SDIO WiFi card said that they worked with each other...
So it may not make sense, it may be stupid, but in no way did the buyer not get what they paid for. They didn't get what they wanted, or what they may have assumed they paid for, but they got precisely what they paid for.
Wait, the box says its got WiFi and when its opened and turned on it doesn't?
Then there's a good damn reason to be pissed off. You didn't get what you paid for.
But I suspect you're saying that the fact that you didn't get a feature that wasn't claimed to be in the product means you didn't get what you paid for just because other products in the price range have it?
Well shit, I'm going to sue Dodge because my $30k truck didn't come with navigation, traction control, front ABS, side curtain airbags, an MP3 player or any other feature available on vehicles of the same cost. I mean seriously, I don't even have a trunk! WTF does Dodge think they're doing? They can't get away with that!
Maybe I'll sue Dunkin Donuts, too. My ham egg and cheese didn't come with sausage this morning, and another comparably priced sandwich they sell does come with it! The nerve of those FF's.
Did he provide a copy of the death certificate? How do you know who it was or wasn't?
What you did was wrong, and if it wasn't illegal, it should be.
If you didn't want it on your concience, you should've passed the call up the chain of command to someone with more integrity.
You do realize that new UIDs were still five digit when Slashdot stopped making any effort to not be a captive-audience marketing channel, right?
I'd bet 50% of the stories on here are submitted one way or another by someone with a vested interest in the submission... and since half of the remainder are dupes, that leaves at best 25% worth of non-advertising interesting news for nerds. (Although if you have a shoddy short term memory like mine, you might not remember the recent dupes!)
I know thats meant to be funny, but that wouldn't be bad. Corporate users aren't the ones having problems with spyware. A good corporate security policy, firewall, etc will help prevent those problems there.
Its Joe Six Pack who gets infected and is unknowingly running a zombie machine that is the problem.
USA Today, People, Enquirer... its all about the same level of journalism, right? ;-)
The question is, whats the penetration of awareness of Firefox already among the particular demographic that actually reads the NY Times outside of the NY area.
I'd bet a large percentage of people likely to see the ad already are familiar with Firefox, considering how much media attention its gotten in magazines, NPR, etc over the last few months.
This strikes me as more of a vanity move than a real marketing move. If the intent was to increase browser awareness, the NYT isn't the place to advertise it. People Magazine is, or the Enquirer, or other demographically focused rags like that which target demographics less likely to already be aware of Firefox.
Why are you loading the images in the spam you get?
I could do an 8x10 dye sub at home for less than I can do it in the store, by about fifty cents, but its a hassle, and I don't trust the dye sub prints to be long-term archival.
How many 8x10's are you shooting? I had one printed this weekend, I think it cost me $2.20 or something in that range, for a true photo print. It might cost me $1.75 or $2.00 to print on my Alps, and the quality would've been better, but the hassle of setting it all up and waiting for the print just isn't worth it.
It was more skewed when I bought the printer, though. When Alps was still making them, supplies were a lot cheaper and I could print an 8x10 600dpi dye sub for about 80 cents. 8x10 photo enlargements were upwards of ten bucks, and there really wasn't wide-spread consumer level access to digital printing. (It might cost me $50-$80 to get a digital image transferred onto a 35mm or 4x5 positive and get a cibachrome print made from it).
I haven't used the printer in almost two years now, though.
I'd personally rule out ink jet for photo prints regardless of cost. I expect a lot higher quality than they deliver.
Given the prices of getting real prints made are dropping through the floor, its weird people even bother with photo printers, unless you're shooting pictures you don't want the processor to see.
I have an Alps MD-5000 dye sublimation printer, and at a cost of a buck a print, I can make prints quite a bit better quality than a consumer optical process can do, or those dyesub Kodak kiosks. But for $.24 a print, I can get them printed as true photographs at Wal(greens|mart), and will end up with a quality that is nearly as good for most stuff.
Considering the best ink-jets I've seen aren't even in the ballpark in terms of quality as compared to my Alps or a photo print from a Fuji processor, I find it funny people drop a couple hundred bucks plus ink on a photo printer.
The break-even point is in the thousands of pictures, in terms of cost, and you get grainy, pixelated prints of unknown long-term image stability.
You can say that because your bedroom didn't have orange shag carpeting in it.
I went nearly blind as a kid from searching for parts.
(I swear, it was from the legos...)
*ahem*
Ummm... most prosumer and pro digital cameras, if not all, are higher than 8-bits per channel.
A $600 Canon Digital Rebel is 12-bit internally, and the RAW files are 12-bit. The camera takes each gray-scale 12-bit sample, knows what color filter its sitting behind and interpolates the color image (as a 36-bit color space) accordingly when you save as a JPG internally, but when you use RAW, the software on the computer gets the full 12-bit values. That 50% more information makes a huge difference when you have a lot of stops between your highlights and lowlights, or you need to tweak anything with your color.
I'd bet a lot of lower end cameras do that internally, as well.
FWIW, I haven't had the slightest issue with Vonage since I set my account up a few months ago. Not a single one.
When my account was new, they couldn't get the stuttering dial tone working on my line, but once it got escalated high enough, they got an engineer to figure it out and its been fine since.
I'd bet its a local problem.
Did I just see someone mention hummers and penis in the same post?
*checks URL*
As long as there's demand for their services, the services will exist. Laws won't stop it. Technology won't stop it.
Demand will stop when the ads stop working. Fact is, though, the ads work.
Thankfully compiling doesn't take much floating point math ;-)
But yeah, I know what you mean... I'd bet you could compile X on one without any major trouble. X with all the options is pretty big, the base applications and a single server isn't that much bigger.
Actually, I suppose it could be ballparked.
When I first started using Linux back in early '93, compiling was about all you could do. (Pre-slackware, Yggdrisil or something was the only distro, I think).
I remember compiling X on my computer, a 486/66DX2 with eight meg of RAM. It took a few days to build. Considering my busted down four year old iPaq is like 166mhz, and has 64 meg of RAM, it'd certainly be doable, probably take a day or so, maybe less.
Just have to do it twice then...
Yes. Why? I didn't say the Smart didn't have crumple zones.
/.? I said the fact that the Smart may be functionally equivalent of a roll cage with siding doesn't mean its safe, since roll cages are inherantly not safe in a vehicle without substantial restraints.
What is it with reading comprehension on