It does not have to run on diesel fuel to be a diesel engine - it merely needs to rely on compression to ignite the fuel rather than a spark. Rudolf Diesel's early engines ran on peanut oil, not petroleum.
IE is heavily integrated into the Windows GUI - My Computer, for example, is IE under a different name. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that 100% of those who use Windows 98 or a newer version are IE users, even if they don't use it as a web browser.
Actually, no, you missed the point. I believe the grandparent's point was that the combination of weapons and aircraft is still a touchy subject at best.
Scanning for viruses is not particularly CPU-intensive - however, it does tend to max out drive controller bandwidth. This system, in addition to being NOT AT ALL NEWSWORTHY, isn't going to let you scan for viruses while playing games unless you have either a hell of a lot of physical RAM or a RAID-1 array.
The site described in the article is US-only; SCART is typically not found on American television sets (which, incidentally, refresh at 60 Hz, not 50.)
It looks like the original wire service report included various bits of unpleasant information from the Brandon Vedas incident. That's some astoundingly sloppy reporting.
I found a cross-site scripting hole in LiveJournal about two years ago, and wrote a very effective proof-of-concept exploit for it. I never disseminated any information about it, but it sounds like Bantown is exploiting similar vulnerabilities. LiveJournal's security is far too easy to circumvent if you can find a way to sneak JavaScript into a journal page.
Upstate New York is full of short-sighted, selfish idiots. These people will continue to be militantly stupid until something impedes their access to cable TV; once that happens, they'll be fighting tooth-and-nail to get wind turbines installed. After that, they'll cover the turbines in bright yellow "Support Our Troops" magnets and sit down in front of the TV until another opportunity to delay technological progress appears.
Not necessarily. Someone who depends on the ability to retake each shot until his camera gets it right probably won't be paying nearly as much attention to what he's doing as someone who knows there's only one chance to get the shot. Relying on repetitive, sloppy, uninvolved photography doesn't really provide that much experience, whereas striving to do everything right the first time really improves one's photographic skills. This is why photography is still taught using manual film cameras rather than fully automated digital equipment - if you know you can just keep snapping away and deleting the bad shots, why would you bother trying to learn how to get a good shot on the first try?
And for the record, I am far from rich. Black-and-white film photography is very affordable if you develop your own film.
You are saying that, for inexperienced photographers, a digital camera can help produce better photographs. The parent poster's argument is that, by encouraging people to think carefully before they shoot, film cameras produce better photographers. Successfully taking one good photo with a manual film camera requires much greater care and attention to detail than trying the same shot forty times in rapid succession with a digital point-and-shoot. If you're shooting film and don't get it right the first time, you're screwed; thus, those who take the time to learn how to get good photographs using film gain skills that make them better photographers. You may be happy with the results you get from repeating the same shot over and over, but I'd much rather have the experience necessary to get it right the first time.
If that was color film, then I'm not surprised. Color film has come a long, long way in the past few decades; even high-speed color negative films rarely have visible grain anymore. Black-and-white negative film such as Kodak's T-Max (which has been around for 25 years) have long offered astoundingly fine grain, but it wasn't until the 1990s that color negative film really managed to catch up.
The depth of field issue has always been a problem for point-and-shoot cameras, digital and film alike. Cheap fixed-focus cameras use a very narrow aperture to make the depth of field wide enough that focusing is unnecessary. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible to isolate the subject through creative use of focus. It's pretty much impossible to get 'artistic' depth of field effects with any camera that lacks manual aperture controls.
Some of us still prefer film. There's something about film's lack of immediacy that's strangely appealing, and the quality of the images that can be produced by inexpensive used photographic gear is just astounding. Digital does have many advantages; however, for hobbyists, film has a price/performance ratio that's hard to beat.
"I couldn't have cared less if I had his address so I could have sent him a response."
This is the first time I've seen someone actually use "I couldn't care less" (rather than the appallingly nonsensical "I could care less") in well over a year. You are a shining beacon of hope in these times of grammatical darkness.
Slashdot Mirror
"...including a device for capturing waste heat from car engines to increase efficiency up to 40%..."
We already have these. They're called turbochargers, and they don't need a big tank of water to operate.
It does not have to run on diesel fuel to be a diesel engine - it merely needs to rely on compression to ignite the fuel rather than a spark. Rudolf Diesel's early engines ran on peanut oil, not petroleum.
http://www.digg.com/ :D
...who will be the real winner in November 2006?
With any luck, the Democrats.
IE is heavily integrated into the Windows GUI - My Computer, for example, is IE under a different name. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that 100% of those who use Windows 98 or a newer version are IE users, even if they don't use it as a web browser.
Actually, no, you missed the point. I believe the grandparent's point was that the combination of weapons and aircraft is still a touchy subject at best.
Scanning for viruses is not particularly CPU-intensive - however, it does tend to max out drive controller bandwidth. This system, in addition to being NOT AT ALL NEWSWORTHY, isn't going to let you scan for viruses while playing games unless you have either a hell of a lot of physical RAM or a RAID-1 array.
What a strange coincidence - it was coded by fucking retarded monkeys!
(And its users aren't much better.)
2. Supplying alcohol to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.
In many states, it is actually legal to serve alcohol to your own children (or to an underage spouse.)
The site described in the article is US-only; SCART is typically not found on American television sets (which, incidentally, refresh at 60 Hz, not 50.)
It looks like the original wire service report included various bits of unpleasant information from the Brandon Vedas incident. That's some astoundingly sloppy reporting.
I found a cross-site scripting hole in LiveJournal about two years ago, and wrote a very effective proof-of-concept exploit for it. I never disseminated any information about it, but it sounds like Bantown is exploiting similar vulnerabilities. LiveJournal's security is far too easy to circumvent if you can find a way to sneak JavaScript into a journal page.
New Yorkers want the benefits of the power while shouldering *none* of the costs.
It's the American way!
Upstate New York is full of short-sighted, selfish idiots. These people will continue to be militantly stupid until something impedes their access to cable TV; once that happens, they'll be fighting tooth-and-nail to get wind turbines installed. After that, they'll cover the turbines in bright yellow "Support Our Troops" magnets and sit down in front of the TV until another opportunity to delay technological progress appears.
Black and white films are already expensive compared to color films of the same quality.
You're kidding, right? Tri-X and T-Max can be had for around $3 a roll. Where can you get high-quality color film for that sort of price?
Not necessarily. Someone who depends on the ability to retake each shot until his camera gets it right probably won't be paying nearly as much attention to what he's doing as someone who knows there's only one chance to get the shot. Relying on repetitive, sloppy, uninvolved photography doesn't really provide that much experience, whereas striving to do everything right the first time really improves one's photographic skills. This is why photography is still taught using manual film cameras rather than fully automated digital equipment - if you know you can just keep snapping away and deleting the bad shots, why would you bother trying to learn how to get a good shot on the first try?
And for the record, I am far from rich. Black-and-white film photography is very affordable if you develop your own film.
Seven and a quarter? I usually develop for 6 minutes and 45 seconds in D-76 at 68 degrees F.
You are saying that, for inexperienced photographers, a digital camera can help produce better photographs. The parent poster's argument is that, by encouraging people to think carefully before they shoot, film cameras produce better photographers. Successfully taking one good photo with a manual film camera requires much greater care and attention to detail than trying the same shot forty times in rapid succession with a digital point-and-shoot. If you're shooting film and don't get it right the first time, you're screwed; thus, those who take the time to learn how to get good photographs using film gain skills that make them better photographers. You may be happy with the results you get from repeating the same shot over and over, but I'd much rather have the experience necessary to get it right the first time.
In my not-particularly-humble opinion, Tri-X is top-notch film. Nothing else has quite the same look.
If that was color film, then I'm not surprised. Color film has come a long, long way in the past few decades; even high-speed color negative films rarely have visible grain anymore. Black-and-white negative film such as Kodak's T-Max (which has been around for 25 years) have long offered astoundingly fine grain, but it wasn't until the 1990s that color negative film really managed to catch up.
The depth of field issue has always been a problem for point-and-shoot cameras, digital and film alike. Cheap fixed-focus cameras use a very narrow aperture to make the depth of field wide enough that focusing is unnecessary. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible to isolate the subject through creative use of focus. It's pretty much impossible to get 'artistic' depth of field effects with any camera that lacks manual aperture controls.
Some of us still prefer film. There's something about film's lack of immediacy that's strangely appealing, and the quality of the images that can be produced by inexpensive used photographic gear is just astounding. Digital does have many advantages; however, for hobbyists, film has a price/performance ratio that's hard to beat.
"I couldn't have cared less if I had his address so I could have sent him a response."
This is the first time I've seen someone actually use "I couldn't care less" (rather than the appallingly nonsensical "I could care less") in well over a year. You are a shining beacon of hope in these times of grammatical darkness.
idspispopd?
I can't believe I still remember that.
Neither does the rest of the post. The whole thing's pretty incoherent.
(I still haven't figured out what "(It's (s/b) aside)" means.)