GRUB still lacks LILO's incredibly useful feature of changing the default image to boot for only the next boot process. This functionality is not wholly replaced by the 'fallback' directive either. I use GRUB now but when I used to often dual boot I would use LILO for the ability to be able to say from the command line "boot windows" and then have linux be the default boot image again after I shutdown windows.
If you add a teaspoon of fine wine to a barrel of shit, you still have a barrel shit. On the other hand, if you add a teaspoon of shit to a barrel of fine wine you now have a barrel of shit.
Actually, Canon has the reputation of generally honoring the warranty on grey market products. You're right though in that any reputable dealer (like b&h) will clearly indicate when they are selling you a grey market camera (lots do at a slight discount).
While I agree with your post, it needs to be said that this newspaper and editors have been championing a liberal cause for quite some time. I can only imagine their shock when people started to post thoughts and ideas that were radicaly different than their beliefs. I wonder then, if they then decided to "blame" the people on slashdot.
Why does that need to be said? It's totally irrelevant. This wasn't about differing opinions it was about people posting porn.
"Why do we drink cow's milk? Who was the first guy who first looked at a cow and said 'I think I'll drink whatever comes out of these things when I squeeze em!'?" -- Calvin
The point is that maths is more than simply calculation - it requires insight and understanding, just as painting requires insight and understanding whereas pointing a camera at something doesn't. (BTW, photography can be an art too, I'm aware of that)
'Pointing a camera at something' isn't photography any more than 'putting paint on a canvas' is painting.
I've never met a photographer who wouldn't rather take 10 pictures of the same thing than just one, because it's impossible to tell which picture will end up being the best.
Getting a good photo isn't pure luck, so just firing off a bunch of shots doesn't necessarily increase your chances of getting one. Lots of photographers (myself amongst them) would prefer to spend the time to carefully and thoughtfully set up a single shot than squeeze off ten because that one will probably be far superior to any of the ten.
Of course that doesn't really apply to sports photography which, given the context, maybe you considered implicitly obvious.:-)
Hell, photoshop shouldn't even be in a real journalists office.
Show me what happened, not an artists conception of what happened.
Just because you use photoshop doesn't mean you're mucking with the journalistic integrity of a photo. Color correction, contrast adjustment, sharpening, etc are all perfectly valid processes that don't alter the story of 'what happened'.
To generate pixels that can be encoded in PNG from the CCD data requires lossy signal processing. The exact processing is influenced by a number of parameters which can either be chosen automatically by software (on the camera or a computer) or they can be hand tweaked. Since the process is lossy, you can't go back and do it again without having the original RAW data. The ability to hand tweak is important to anyone who wants the absolute best quality from their images.
Also, for Canon, RAW != TIFF so maybe the files aren't as big as you're thinking. My 6 megapixel Canon 10-D generates 5-6MB RAW images (they vary in size because they have a jpeg embedded in them). Comare this to the ~15MB (8 bit/channel) or ~30MB (16 bit/channel) TIFF files I can generate from the RAW. Further, for an interesting scene (i.e. not with the lens cap on), this is relatively uncompressible data, so even if you could in some way encode the raw CCD data in PNG format, you wouldn't see much of a gain.
No, you're right, it doesn't really take/that/ much time, but it is a pain in the ass, especially considering that, unlike your gas tank which you know when you're going to have to fill it, bulbs die suddenly with no indication and it isn't always convenient to replace them when you need them.
I'm not sure what you meant by the term, but if you are talking about operating systems and kernels, Unix systems are generally monolithic whereas windows (nt and on) are microkernel(ish) architectures.
You say that on Unix you can throw away what you don't need but that on Windows you "can't even see the crapola". You certainly can't open up Solaris, cut out what you don't need, and recompile for a leaner version so I assume you meant Linux or BSD. But obviously you can only do that with those OSes because they are open source, it really has nothing to do with their architecture.
Well I'm strongly against security through obscurity as a security infrastructure. However, as long as you have a solid, proven security infrastructure protecting your enviornment then adding a bit of obscurity over the top as an added layer can only be benefitial.
Yes, except you are implementing this security by fucking with your tcp/ip stack. In other words, you are taking the 'solid, proven security infrastructure' and stirring it up a bit. It is no longer proven to be solid so this bit of obscurity could have cost you some real security. Personally this is not a patch I'd go applying to production machines.
What the article doesn't mention (or I missed) was how they plan to prevent unauthorized transactions. What's to stop someone from walking through the subway or mall with an antenna and grabbing $1 from everyone's wallet?
I'm not saying there aren't solutions to this problem, I'm just curious what solution in particular they are planning on using.
In your argument you've considerably broadened the definitions of both security and obscurity beyond how they are generally used in this context. Amongst other things, according to your logic any sort of encryption at all is 'security through obscurity' because technically the information is obscured. That is clearly absurd and not the intent of the phrase.
Note that I happen to agree than in some cases obscurity can be a reasonable additional layer of security, but the the essence of your point is, dare I say it, obscured by your changes in definition.
The main aim of this is not to raise money. It is to discourage people from driving into central London. All the funds raised have to go into improving public transport (basically buses, as the Tube is at or near capacity) by law.
Unfortunately the way these types of deals work, ime, is that in this case, for example, whatever amount of funds are raised by this new charge is the same amount by which the mass transit funding is decreased from the general budget. So really, the aim is to raise money.
Slashdot Mirror
GRUB still lacks LILO's incredibly useful feature of changing the default image to boot for only the next boot process. This functionality is not wholly replaced by the 'fallback' directive either. I use GRUB now but when I used to often dual boot I would use LILO for the ability to be able to say from the command line "boot windows" and then have linux be the default boot image again after I shutdown windows.
If you add a teaspoon of fine wine to a barrel of shit, you still have a barrel shit. On the other hand, if you add a teaspoon of shit to a barrel of fine wine you now have a barrel of shit.
Actually, Canon has the reputation of generally honoring the warranty on grey market products. You're right though in that any reputable dealer (like b&h) will clearly indicate when they are selling you a grey market camera (lots do at a slight discount).
Not so says, well, pretty much everyone else
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller9018.html
Anyone remember this April Fool's post to linux-kernel?
Why does that need to be said? It's totally irrelevant. This wasn't about differing opinions it was about people posting porn.
Seems pretty clear to me that the patch is a derivative work of the original.
Now called ForecastFox.
Please, can someone tell me how to use this new-fangled google thing I keep hearing about?
"Why do we drink cow's milk? Who was the first guy who first looked at a cow
and said 'I think I'll drink whatever comes out of these things when I squeeze
em!'?" -- Calvin
"The line between human and machines has blurred beyond distinction...and humans have forgotten that they are human"
Ugh. Well, their translators haven't gotten any better.
I guess hoping for a subtitled version in theaters is too much?
d.
The point is that maths is more than simply calculation - it requires insight and understanding, just as painting requires insight and understanding whereas pointing a camera at something doesn't. (BTW, photography can be an art too, I'm aware of that)
'Pointing a camera at something' isn't photography any more than 'putting paint on a canvas' is painting.
I've never met a photographer who wouldn't rather take 10 pictures of the same thing than just one, because it's impossible to tell which picture will end up being the best.
:-)
Getting a good photo isn't pure luck, so just firing off a bunch of shots doesn't necessarily increase your chances of getting one. Lots of photographers (myself amongst them) would prefer to spend the time to carefully and thoughtfully set up a single shot than squeeze off ten because that one will probably be far superior to any of the ten.
Of course that doesn't really apply to sports photography which, given the context, maybe you considered implicitly obvious.
Sorry, facts and well-reasoned opinions have absolutely no place in a Canon/Nikon debate.
Hell, photoshop shouldn't even be in a real journalists office.
Show me what happened, not an artists conception of what happened.
Just because you use photoshop doesn't mean you're mucking with the journalistic integrity of a photo. Color correction, contrast adjustment, sharpening, etc are all perfectly valid processes that don't alter the story of 'what happened'.
dan.
To generate pixels that can be encoded in PNG from the CCD data requires lossy signal processing. The exact processing is influenced by a number of parameters which can either be chosen automatically by software (on the camera or a computer) or they can be hand tweaked. Since the process is lossy, you can't go back and do it again without having the original RAW data. The ability to hand tweak is important to anyone who wants the absolute best quality from their images.
Also, for Canon, RAW != TIFF so maybe the files aren't as big as you're thinking. My 6 megapixel Canon 10-D generates 5-6MB RAW images (they vary in size because they have a jpeg embedded in them). Comare this to the ~15MB (8 bit/channel) or ~30MB (16 bit/channel) TIFF files I can generate from the RAW. Further, for an interesting scene (i.e. not with the lens cap on), this is relatively uncompressible data, so even if you could in some way encode the raw CCD data in PNG format, you wouldn't see much of a gain.
dan.
I think you mean pictures of schooners, right?
No, you're right, it doesn't really take /that/ much time, but it is a pain in the ass, especially considering that, unlike your gas tank which you know when you're going to have to fill it, bulbs die suddenly with no indication and it isn't always convenient to replace them when you need them.
I'm not sure what you meant by the term, but if you are talking about operating systems and kernels, Unix systems are generally monolithic whereas windows (nt and on) are microkernel(ish) architectures.
You say that on Unix you can throw away what you don't need but that on Windows you "can't even see the crapola". You certainly can't open up Solaris, cut out what you don't need, and recompile for a leaner version so I assume you meant Linux or BSD. But obviously you can only do that with those OSes because they are open source, it really has nothing to do with their architecture.
dan.
Well I'm strongly against security through obscurity as a security infrastructure. However, as long as you have a solid, proven security infrastructure protecting your enviornment then adding a bit of obscurity over the top as an added layer can only be benefitial.
Yes, except you are implementing this security by fucking with your tcp/ip stack. In other words, you are taking the 'solid, proven security infrastructure' and stirring it up a bit. It is no longer proven to be solid so this bit of obscurity could have cost you some real security. Personally this is not a patch I'd go applying to production machines.
dan.
What the article doesn't mention (or I missed) was how they plan to prevent unauthorized transactions. What's to stop someone from walking through the subway or mall with an antenna and grabbing $1 from everyone's wallet?
I'm not saying there aren't solutions to this problem, I'm just curious what solution in particular they are planning on using.
dan.
Looks like Google is Amazoning WordSpy.
In your argument you've considerably broadened the definitions of both security and obscurity beyond how they are generally used in this context. Amongst other things, according to your logic any sort of encryption at all is 'security through obscurity' because technically the information is obscured. That is clearly absurd and not the intent of the phrase.
Note that I happen to agree than in some cases obscurity can be a reasonable additional layer of security, but the the essence of your point is, dare I say it, obscured by your changes in definition.
...Faraday shopping bag?