You can also get the TDI in the New Beetle. The neat thing about the TDI VWs is that while the horsepower is only around 90-something, the torque is around 150 or 155. That'll make for some nice acceleration, which many people appreciate.
Noone _said_ we really need to have 11 megapixels for most shots. Even Canon doesn't think that, hence the > $5500 US price for this camera (body only, mind).
Your post is like seeing an announcement for a server 1TB RAID array, asking when a desktop version will arrive, and why would most people need a 1TB RAID array on the desktop.
Feh.
This is seriously high-end equipment, and is intended by it's maker as such, and it's priced accordingly.
Also note, according to the premature press release, it's a 'full-frame' sensor, which will make it the first of its kind on the market. Couple that with Canon's excellent line of lenses, and this is a fantastic announcement.
> Out of curiosity, except for issues with dynamic range (which isn't far behind) what do you think film is better at? (In 35mm at any rate.)
1) ISO sensitivity 2) no sensor noise with film 3) chromatic abberations 4) colour reproduction (except for Foveon sensor) 5) true wide-angle lenses 6) resolution still not _quite_ there for poster-size prints if you're a super-picky pro. 10-12megapixels should do it, though, and that's probably gonna be available next year (rumoured Canon EOS-1Ds).
And that's just off the top of my head.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot - cost of camera. Canon's top of the line film camera (EOS-1v) is around $1600 mail-order. Their top of the line digital is the EOS-1D - around $5500 mail-order. It'd take awhile to recoup that cost over the film camera unless you're a pro going through a LOT of film. And by the time you did, your camera would be obsolete, and the EOS-1v film camera wouldn't.
OH MAMA, if I could have OS X running on a Sony PictureBook, I...I don't know how I'd take the ecstasy!
To quote Wayne and Garth: "*Schwing!*":)
in that case...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think that since terrorist Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, that the government should suspend the rights of Christian foreigners and natives, and monitor the activities of Christians. Also, there are a lot of Christians in government posts - they should be monitored especially closely.
> The problem isn't the quality of the programming, it's simply sitting in front of a screen, swallowing images of fictional worlds. Whether one watches Buffy, the History Channel, Dan Rather, or Un Chien Andalou, it's the same thing -- when TV doesn't distort in the name of entertainment, it domesticates.
Then you shouldn't be reading books, either, as you're just sitting there in front of the pages, swallowing written images of fictional worlds. Don't look at any photos, either, as it all depends on one's perspective as to what the photo represents. Don't listen to anyone else's opinion, because hey, that's someone else's point of view, and while we're at it, don't do anything that's entertaining, just for the sake of entertainment, because, well, that's just WRONG, isn't it?
As I said in my first post on this thread, if you can't THINK while watching tv (even the most mindless of programs), you probably can't think at any other time. An independent, THINKING mind cannot be made to STOP thinking just by watching tv.
> just because there is really great writing on TV doesn't change the fact that you're sitting there, doing nothing,
By this argument, the same thing applies to movies, so great films, like, say, Casablanca or City of Lost Children, do nothing for you - you're just sitting there, doing nothing. TV and movies can also stimulate the imagination. I get great ideas from movies, and even if I didn't, what's so bad about being entertained? It's not a dirty word, you know.
> In books the imagination is stimulated
That depends on the book, and upon the reader. I enjoy lots of tv, but I'm also a writer, photographer, and several other things. I find it interesting that someone on Slashdot, of all places, is bitching about tv. Methinks you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
> As an experiment, introduce yourself to people for the next few weeks and mention that you haven't watched TV for x years. Watch the reactions you get. Doesn't this seem a bit odd to you? Perhaps even, dare I say, symptomatic of an addiction?
I'd say that more likely, the reactions are those of people who realize you're an extremist, little different from, say, someone on a macrobiotic diet. As the saying goes, "Just because noone understands you, doesn't mean you're an artist."
> Better yet, burn your TV? Think that's crazy? You've just made my point.
Yep, I do think that's crazy. Not as crazy as burning books, but it's certainly within the same mindset.
At the very least, sell your tv to someone else.:)
> In many ways, I have found life without TV a big improvement, in that I can now think.
If you can't think watching tv, you probably can't think without one, either. Get a grip.
People who categorize all tv as evil or stupid are guilty of stupidity themselves. There's _plenty_ of well-done, educational, and inspirational programming on tv (if you count cable channels). Shows like West Wing, Buffy (despite the lead character & actress, this show is amazing. Easily among the best writing around.), and others. When you toss in shows on PBS, channels like Discovery, History Channel, hell, even the Cartoon channel, you've got a lot of great stuff available. It's not all 'Full House', and hasn't been for many years. No matter what you're into, there's something, probably several somethings, somewhere on a cable channel for you. Now, that said, is it worth the money? Depends. Basic cable, or expanded basic, is a great deal. Pay channels usually aren't. Sure, they show uncensored movies, but considering how many times they repeat the movies, I dunno. Most movies aren't worth watching more than once, to me. I'm more likely to watch things on Turner Classic Movies than I am to watch the latest thing on HBO or Showtime. I'm not really into HBO's "original programming", so it's not a big draw for me. I'd be willing to pay for channels like BBC America, though, if it were offered here in Kansas City (which it isn't), and the same goes for Sundance Channel and some others.
The problem with that is trying to combine the phrases 'star trek' and 'well-written'. The two very rarely go hand-in-hand. I always found it amusing that they had Q afraid of Guinan, but could obviously never figure out a reason _why_, when her species was essentially decimated by the Borg, who were nothing to the likes of Q. A neat idea for that episode, but it showed a severe lack of planning. Another reason why I always appreciated Babylon 5, despite it's problems. Planning the major bits of a series out years in advance SHOWS on the screen.
What I'd really like to see is some close to series I liked that didn't get a chance to have a true finale. Space: Above and Beyond is at the top of that list. And despite the extra-crappy nature of many episodes and especially the last episode, I'd love for a true finale to Dark Angel.
Hilarious. The reason Berman gave Wheaton for the cut, it "didn't advance the story." Since _WHEN_ is that an applicable rule for editing a Star Trek movie?! Wil, you're cool, have a great attitude and I really wished you'd been given even a small amount of screentime. You're _owed_ that much. But don't for a _second_ believe that shit. Just watch some of the previous ST: TNG movies for proof that that isn't a valid reason. Star Trek: Insurrection is a prime example.
The one good thing about this movie that I can tell from the trailer - they seem to have discovered 'cinematography'. Finally. But how many movies did it take?
Another character I'd like revisited: Guinan. (yeah, good luck)
I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about 'spam filtering'. What I'm talking about would actually have a massively-positive effect on bandwidth. The base product would be free. Revenue would be based on add-on products and other things. You're right that spam filtering is relatively simple, but that's not what I'm talking about.
> Of course, not funding a nice technical solution to spam is still a terribly good idea, wether five years ago or now.
You must be on crack. Funding a technical solution to spam is a great idea if you have a good business plan with realistic revenue sources. ANY business plan with realistic revenue sources is a good idea to fund! My idea doesn't rely on crude filtering to eliminate spam, and it would also kill it on the server level, thus freeing up all that wasted bandwidth (which filters don't do). It would completely kill the entire spam industry. And the business plan I've come up with has 5 different methods of revenue generation (none of which are based on advertising). I've been through 5 high-tech startups in Seattle in 7 years, and I know where and why things go bad. I'm moving back to Seattle within a month or so, so hopefully I'll be able to find a programmer or two to help me create the initial free version.
> I think it was a bubble that was *bound* to pop, Clinton or not. The heard affect cannot be avoided unless you have a moon-size Clue Stick.
True, as I almost said in my post. Nevertheless, it wouldn't have been when it was, and it probably wouldn't have been nearly as bad. The snowball effect was really quite horrendous. The real bitch of it is I have some really great product ideas _now_ that I couldn't get funded if my life depended on it - nicely useful little things like a technical solution to spam, among other things. *sigh*
> Simple: The Damned future is too hard to accurately predict.
Hardly. The real reason why most dot-coms went belly-up is two-fold.
First, a lot of really genius-level techies came up with some great ideas. Too bad the vast majority weren't marketable, or, the business that they made had no real business PLAN. You can sell just about anything to anyone with a great business plan. Or, like Microsoft, you can sell crap, even with a really bad attitude, with a really great business plan.
The second problem was started by a combination of Clinton and the British PM, and ignorant daytraders.
Here's what happened:
A company (Celera) was trying to map the human genome, or major parts of it, before the Human Genome Project could, so that they could patent things. Big uproar (duh), and Clinton & his British buddy come out and declare their opposition to patenting human gene information. Instantly (like, to the DAY), traders freak out and start dumping all their gene-related stock. Then stupid daytraders, hearing, "dump all tech-stocks!" start dumping ALL technical-related stocks, not just the stock of the few companies that were planning on patenting human gene sequences. Within a month or two, the dot-com bubble had burst, not because of _anything_ relating to the Internet, but because of a badly-worded speech by Clinton, and the stupidity of daytraders who don't bother to understand what they're doing, or research things they invest in (or dump).
Et voila, the bubble burst. Even business, like a couple I was involved with, with fantastic business plans, with serious revenue potential, could no longer attract investment to complete our projects, because who were most investors in tech startups? Why, people who made money in the first wave of tech startups, of course. At one company, we were a day or two from signing our major round of funding by a guy from Real, when he looked at his stocks and realized he was no longer rich enough to fund us. We lasted about two months after that. *sigh*
By the 2006-2008 timeframe, FMD-ROM technology storing 1 TeraByte will probably be available (working demo already shown - not vaporware as I had feared!), so this could negate the need to compress at all, wouldn't it? Or am I completely mistaken about how much space a movie takes up?
Slashdot Mirror
You can also get the TDI in the New Beetle. The neat thing about the TDI VWs is that while the horsepower is only around 90-something, the torque is around 150 or 155. That'll make for some nice acceleration, which many people appreciate.
> Five digit slashdot account number maxed out on karma!
:)
Five-digit punk.
Noone _said_ we really need to have 11 megapixels for most shots. Even Canon doesn't think that, hence the > $5500 US price for this camera (body only, mind).
Your post is like seeing an announcement for a server 1TB RAID array, asking when a desktop version will arrive, and why would most people need a 1TB RAID array on the desktop.
Feh.
This is seriously high-end equipment, and is intended by it's maker as such, and it's priced accordingly.
Also note, according to the premature press release, it's a 'full-frame' sensor, which will make it the first of its kind on the market. Couple that with Canon's excellent line of lenses, and this is a fantastic announcement.
> I'm sure the DivX version will be on the P2P networks in a matter of hours after the first show.
:)
Whaddaya mean _after_ the first show?
> Out of curiosity, except for issues with dynamic range (which isn't far behind) what do you think film is better at? (In 35mm at any rate.)
1) ISO sensitivity
2) no sensor noise with film
3) chromatic abberations
4) colour reproduction (except for Foveon sensor)
5) true wide-angle lenses
6) resolution still not _quite_ there for poster-size prints if you're a super-picky pro. 10-12megapixels should do it, though, and that's probably gonna be available next year (rumoured Canon EOS-1Ds).
And that's just off the top of my head.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot - cost of camera. Canon's top of the line film camera (EOS-1v) is around $1600 mail-order. Their top of the line digital is the EOS-1D - around $5500 mail-order. It'd take awhile to recoup that cost over the film camera unless you're a pro going through a LOT of film. And by the time you did, your camera would be obsolete, and the EOS-1v film camera wouldn't.
*shrug*
OH MAMA, if I could have OS X running on a Sony PictureBook, I...I don't know how I'd take the ecstasy!
:)
To quote Wayne and Garth: "*Schwing!*"
I think that since terrorist Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, that the government should suspend the rights of Christian foreigners and natives, and monitor the activities of Christians. Also, there are a lot of Christians in government posts - they should be monitored especially closely.
> I counted twenty-seven obscene or profane words in Apollo 13 when I saw it in the theater.
Well, shit, that's just terrible!
> The problem isn't the quality of the programming, it's simply sitting in front of a screen, swallowing images of fictional worlds. Whether one watches Buffy, the History Channel, Dan Rather, or Un Chien Andalou, it's the same thing -- when TV doesn't distort in the name of entertainment, it domesticates.
Then you shouldn't be reading books, either, as you're just sitting there in front of the pages, swallowing written images of fictional worlds. Don't look at any photos, either, as it all depends on one's perspective as to what the photo represents. Don't listen to anyone else's opinion, because hey, that's someone else's point of view, and while we're at it, don't do anything that's entertaining, just for the sake of entertainment, because, well, that's just WRONG, isn't it?
As I said in my first post on this thread, if you can't THINK while watching tv (even the most mindless of programs), you probably can't think at any other time. An independent, THINKING mind cannot be made to STOP thinking just by watching tv.
> just because there is really great writing on TV doesn't change the fact that you're sitting there, doing nothing,
:)
By this argument, the same thing applies to movies, so great films, like, say, Casablanca or City of Lost Children, do nothing for you - you're just sitting there, doing nothing. TV and movies can also stimulate the imagination. I get great ideas from movies, and even if I didn't, what's so bad about being entertained? It's not a dirty word, you know.
> In books the imagination is stimulated
That depends on the book, and upon the reader. I enjoy lots of tv, but I'm also a writer, photographer, and several other things. I find it interesting that someone on Slashdot, of all places, is bitching about tv. Methinks you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
> As an experiment, introduce yourself to people for the next few weeks and mention that you haven't watched TV for x years. Watch the reactions you get. Doesn't this seem a bit odd to you? Perhaps even, dare I say, symptomatic of an addiction?
I'd say that more likely, the reactions are those of people who realize you're an extremist, little different from, say, someone on a macrobiotic diet. As the saying goes, "Just because noone understands you, doesn't mean you're an artist."
> Better yet, burn your TV? Think that's crazy? You've just made my point.
Yep, I do think that's crazy. Not as crazy as burning books, but it's certainly within the same mindset.
At the very least, sell your tv to someone else.
> In many ways, I have found life without TV a big improvement, in that I can now think.
If you can't think watching tv, you probably can't think without one, either. Get a grip.
People who categorize all tv as evil or stupid are guilty of stupidity themselves. There's _plenty_ of well-done, educational, and inspirational programming on tv (if you count cable channels). Shows like West Wing, Buffy (despite the lead character & actress, this show is amazing. Easily among the best writing around.), and others. When you toss in shows on PBS, channels like Discovery, History Channel, hell, even the Cartoon channel, you've got a lot of great stuff available. It's not all 'Full House', and hasn't been for many years. No matter what you're into, there's something, probably several somethings, somewhere on a cable channel for you. Now, that said, is it worth the money? Depends. Basic cable, or expanded basic, is a great deal. Pay channels usually aren't. Sure, they show uncensored movies, but considering how many times they repeat the movies, I dunno. Most movies aren't worth watching more than once, to me. I'm more likely to watch things on Turner Classic Movies than I am to watch the latest thing on HBO or Showtime. I'm not really into HBO's "original programming", so it's not a big draw for me. I'd be willing to pay for channels like BBC America, though, if it were offered here in Kansas City (which it isn't), and the same goes for Sundance Channel and some others.
http://www.weebl.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b3ta/pie.htm l
Hey, if Weebl likes pie, you should, too!
The problem with that is trying to combine the phrases 'star trek' and 'well-written'. The two very rarely go hand-in-hand. I always found it amusing that they had Q afraid of Guinan, but could obviously never figure out a reason _why_, when her species was essentially decimated by the Borg, who were nothing to the likes of Q. A neat idea for that episode, but it showed a severe lack of planning. Another reason why I always appreciated Babylon 5, despite it's problems. Planning the major bits of a series out years in advance SHOWS on the screen.
What I'd really like to see is some close to series I liked that didn't get a chance to have a true finale. Space: Above and Beyond is at the top of that list. And despite the extra-crappy nature of many episodes and especially the last episode, I'd love for a true finale to Dark Angel.
Hilarious. The reason Berman gave Wheaton for the cut, it "didn't advance the story." Since _WHEN_ is that an applicable rule for editing a Star Trek movie?! Wil, you're cool, have a great attitude and I really wished you'd been given even a small amount of screentime. You're _owed_ that much. But don't for a _second_ believe that shit. Just watch some of the previous ST: TNG movies for proof that that isn't a valid reason. Star Trek: Insurrection is a prime example.
The one good thing about this movie that I can tell from the trailer - they seem to have discovered 'cinematography'. Finally. But how many movies did it take?
Another character I'd like revisited: Guinan. (yeah, good luck)
> And they're traditionally considered bad luck for romantic purposes because of their changeability
If that had any truth to it, ANY romantic relationship with a female is doomed. *shrug*
I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about 'spam filtering'. What I'm talking about would actually have a massively-positive effect on bandwidth. The base product would be free. Revenue would be based on add-on products and other things. You're right that spam filtering is relatively simple, but that's not what I'm talking about.
> Of course, not funding a nice technical solution to spam is still a terribly good idea, wether five years ago or now.
You must be on crack. Funding a technical solution to spam is a great idea if you have a good business plan with realistic revenue sources. ANY business plan with realistic revenue sources is a good idea to fund! My idea doesn't rely on crude filtering to eliminate spam, and it would also kill it on the server level, thus freeing up all that wasted bandwidth (which filters don't do). It would completely kill the entire spam industry. And the business plan I've come up with has 5 different methods of revenue generation (none of which are based on advertising). I've been through 5 high-tech startups in Seattle in 7 years, and I know where and why things go bad. I'm moving back to Seattle within a month or so, so hopefully I'll be able to find a programmer or two to help me create the initial free version.
> I think it was a bubble that was *bound* to pop, Clinton or not. The heard affect cannot be avoided unless you have a moon-size Clue Stick.
True, as I almost said in my post. Nevertheless, it wouldn't have been when it was, and it probably wouldn't have been nearly as bad. The snowball effect was really quite horrendous. The real bitch of it is I have some really great product ideas _now_ that I couldn't get funded if my life depended on it - nicely useful little things like a technical solution to spam, among other things. *sigh*
> Simple: The Damned future is too hard to accurately predict.
Hardly. The real reason why most dot-coms went belly-up is two-fold.
First, a lot of really genius-level techies came up with some great ideas. Too bad the vast majority weren't marketable, or, the business that they made had no real business PLAN. You can sell just about anything to anyone with a great business plan. Or, like Microsoft, you can sell crap, even with a really bad attitude, with a really great business plan.
The second problem was started by a combination of Clinton and the British PM, and ignorant daytraders.
Here's what happened:
A company (Celera) was trying to map the human genome, or major parts of it, before the Human Genome Project could, so that they could patent things. Big uproar (duh), and Clinton & his British buddy come out and declare their opposition to patenting human gene information. Instantly (like, to the DAY), traders freak out and start dumping all their gene-related stock. Then stupid daytraders, hearing, "dump all tech-stocks!" start dumping ALL technical-related stocks, not just the stock of the few companies that were planning on patenting human gene sequences. Within a month or two, the dot-com bubble had burst, not because of _anything_ relating to the Internet, but because of a badly-worded speech by Clinton, and the stupidity of daytraders who don't bother to understand what they're doing, or research things they invest in (or dump).
Et voila, the bubble burst. Even business, like a couple I was involved with, with fantastic business plans, with serious revenue potential, could no longer attract investment to complete our projects, because who were most investors in tech startups? Why, people who made money in the first wave of tech startups, of course. At one company, we were a day or two from signing our major round of funding by a guy from Real, when he looked at his stocks and realized he was no longer rich enough to fund us. We lasted about two months after that. *sigh*
By the 2006-2008 timeframe, FMD-ROM technology storing 1 TeraByte will probably be available (working demo already shown - not vaporware as I had feared!), so this could negate the need to compress at all, wouldn't it? Or am I completely mistaken about how much space a movie takes up?
Don't be foolish; clearly they used Python.
To paraphrase Q, it's not that hard, just change the gravitational constant of the universe.
Geez.
Have you not tried NEdit? It sounds like what you'd want in a UNIX GUI text editor...
http://www.textpad.com. Cheap, powerful, fast, & very stable.
Awesome. Thanks for the tip! I just remembered I have a spare machine laying around doing nothing - I think maybe I should put Darwin/x86 on it. :)