You're confusing one fundamental issue. Gamers require the video cards to be capable of drawing images at faster than 60 fps. However, the monitor need not be capable of displaying them, because a monitor running at 60hz will ALWAYS be constant. Regardless of the frame rate your video card is currently rendering at, the monitor will still be refreshing the screen 60 times per second.
Of course, you're right about the response time and there are some LCDS that have even faster refresh rates nowadays.
I'm sure you've been very well trained to spit this argument out everytime someone mentions it, but it's still clear that you don't know what you are talking about. First of all, the DSLR market is not for everyone. Not everybody needs a digital SLR for the shit that they do. Additionally, some people decide to opt for a regular point and shoot camera when they realize exactly how complicated phototography can get.
However, Digital Camera Backs have been available for years. Granted, these are in the larger format cameras but nevertheless, they are available. Also, high end (even the prosumer models) Canon and Nikon DSLRs derive some of their reputation for their longevity. Some photographers upgrade their gear every year. Others dont.
Also, there is NOT A SINGLE point and shoot camera on the market today better than my old Nikon D1 DSLR (About 3 Megapixels). Resolution is NOT everything in a camera. Any idiot can tell you that. That's why there are some Sony POS cameras that claim ridiculous megapixel numbers that actually SUCK ASS.
Another point where you are dead wrong is that "better film" hasn't been available for years. We're still using Fujichrome Velvia and Reala for most things. Been around for years. "Better film" isn't and won't be a reality anytime soon due to the nature of how film works. And then there is the idiot comment about being able to upgrade the CMOS censors. First, not all censors are CMOS, and second, this is by no means a trivial process. AT ALL. Read up and understand how they work before blowing things out of your ass.
Stick to what you know. Avoid speaking about things you have no clue on. DSLRS are worth it to so many people for so many different reasons. If you can't tell the difference between a DSLR and POS camera, you are not in any way qualified to make comparisons between the two of them.
Those are quite nice panoramas. However, for future reference, the best way to take them and have the exposure remain constant is as follows:
1) Lock the exposure on your camera if it is capable of doing so (most low-end digital cameras are) 2) Run your camera in manual mode and keep the exposure settings consistent (f-stop, ISO, exposure length all the same throughout all the photos)
Not that it matters, but in this way your colours will remain consistent througout the panorama.
Too bad you're wrong. The Mac version has been suffering from fewer graphics options due to some sort of driver issues with ATI/Nvidia. Consequently, that specular shader isn't included with the mac version. Nevertheless, the graphics look far superior to those found in Wish.
Hell, even when I run it on my under-spec Powerbook G4 800 mhz with a mobility radeon 7500 it still looks WAY better.
You can scream and wave about ogg being the best but that doesn't make it true. Especially at the lower bitrates, AAC is noticibly superior.
At 128 kbps, I can't imagine using any other codec other than AAC. At the higher bitrates, most of them start to sort of "equalize" and there is not too much to differentiate them all.
It'd be pretty funny to watch, but not for the reasons that you're probably thinking.
The actors would be handed scripts with spelling errors and completely erroneous information. 90% of the time spent reporting any story would be a "panel of experts" comprised of anybody who's willing to call in. The seats on the set would be modelled after RMS in such a way that an erect, hard cock will be pushed into the ass of anybody who sat down (think: inverted bar stool). Anything and everything MS would be immediately criticized in favour or some pre-alpha-quality open source variant that compiles but doesn't do what it's actually supposed to do.
Oh yeah, and every third show would be a rerun of something already aired that day.
Luckily your humble opinion isn't what actually gets products to market.
1) Poor battery life
I can't really argue with you on this point. The newest iPods claim a 12 hour battery life. Mine typically gets damn near 8 hours but that's still too low.
2) Poor format support (Vorbis? FLAC?)
You have to be kidding? These formats simply DON'T MATTER. Most of the world is now using MP3 and there is no significant benefit to switching formats. Need lossless? The iPod supports AIFF, WAV, and Apple Lossless.
3) Poor playback (no EQ, no Gapless playback)
There is an EQ. Get your facts straight. The beauty of how it works is that you can set is on a PER SONG basis in iTunes. Alternatively, via the iPod interface, you can just set it to a preset that's already been defined.
4) Poor feature set (No FM, no voice recorder, nothing that sets it apart features-whys(sic))
You don't need an FM tuner for an MP3 player. That's why most of them don't have one. Repeat, that's why most of them don't have one. Want a voice recorder? Get a little adapter that'll turn the iPod into one. Most other players don't function as a high-speed firewire HDD either.
5) Still more expensive than most other players
This product works. It plays music. It does this VERY well. Expect to pay a premium for it because this is a top-notch piece of hardware.
Sorry to tell you this but you are not a professional photographer. You have hacked together a really low-end solution for what you want to do using the crappiest hardware and software combinations you could find.
Invest in a slide scanner. Invest in a monitor calibration device such as a spyder. Get a mac or windows machine. Get Photoshop.
Then you'll have the tools. Until then you'll be stuck with sub-par solutions and consequently your work will suffer for it.
Are you an idiot or do you just like pretending to be one?
The type of cards you describe have been available for many years now. Some banks call them stupid names like "cheque cards" but nevertheless, they are affiliated with usually Visa or MC and work everywhere a regular credit card does.
You might be right about the use of the outside-in reading to improve load times, but by that logic your speculation for the use of small media is completely wrong. Think about it, CD-readers read fastest from the outside edge, for the same reason that CD-burners write the fastest towards the outside edge of the CD. A standard 5.25" disk would quickly blow this away, even accounting for spin-up time.
Slashdot has never been revolutionary. It's never really on the cutting edge of anything. Most of the editor's comments end up being incendiary or show that they are profoundly out of touch with reality.
If this were an IE bug you would probably be one of those asshats that would be complaining that it wasn't getting enough coverage. Firefox isn't perfect. The Mac version that I'm currently typing this on is experiencing a lot of problems. The biggest one so far is that it is at least twice as slow as the other versions of Firefox. Additionally, for some reason flash movies run extremely slow inside this version while they run at normal speed on the others. Irresponsible? Give me a break.
Before even knowing what the software can do, or if it will be useful to you, or if you can opt out entirely of its installation you start the whole Anti-MS thing.
I guess I can't blame you. Since this is Slashdot you'll quickly be modded up and I'll be called a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing one fundamental issue.
Gamers require the video cards to be capable of drawing images at faster than 60 fps. However, the monitor need not be capable of displaying them, because a monitor running at 60hz will ALWAYS be constant. Regardless of the frame rate your video card is currently rendering at, the monitor will still be refreshing the screen 60 times per second.
Of course, you're right about the response time and there are some LCDS that have even faster refresh rates nowadays.
I'm sure you've been very well trained to spit this argument out everytime someone mentions it, but it's still clear that you don't know what you are talking about. First of all, the DSLR market is not for everyone. Not everybody needs a digital SLR for the shit that they do. Additionally, some people decide to opt for a regular point and shoot camera when they realize exactly how complicated phototography can get.
However, Digital Camera Backs have been available for years. Granted, these are in the larger format cameras but nevertheless, they are available. Also, high end (even the prosumer models) Canon and Nikon DSLRs derive some of their reputation for their longevity. Some photographers upgrade their gear every year. Others dont.
Also, there is NOT A SINGLE point and shoot camera on the market today better than my old Nikon D1 DSLR (About 3 Megapixels). Resolution is NOT everything in a camera. Any idiot can tell you that. That's why there are some Sony POS cameras that claim ridiculous megapixel numbers that actually SUCK ASS.
Another point where you are dead wrong is that "better film" hasn't been available for years. We're still using Fujichrome Velvia and Reala for most things. Been around for years. "Better film" isn't and won't be a reality anytime soon due to the nature of how film works. And then there is the idiot comment about being able to upgrade the CMOS censors. First, not all censors are CMOS, and second, this is by no means a trivial process. AT ALL. Read up and understand how they work before blowing things out of your ass.
Stick to what you know. Avoid speaking about things you have no clue on. DSLRS are worth it to so many people for so many different reasons. If you can't tell the difference between a DSLR and POS camera, you are not in any way qualified to make comparisons between the two of them.
Those are quite nice panoramas.
However, for future reference, the best way to take them and have the exposure remain constant is as follows:
1) Lock the exposure on your camera if it is capable of doing so (most low-end digital cameras are)
2) Run your camera in manual mode and keep the exposure settings consistent (f-stop, ISO, exposure length all the same throughout all the photos)
Not that it matters, but in this way your colours will remain consistent througout the panorama.
Nevertheless, cool.
Too bad you're wrong.
The Mac version has been suffering from fewer graphics options due to some sort of driver issues with ATI/Nvidia.
Consequently, that specular shader isn't included with the mac version.
Nevertheless, the graphics look far superior to those found in Wish.
Hell, even when I run it on my under-spec Powerbook G4 800 mhz with a mobility radeon 7500 it still looks WAY better.
Listen to this: It doesn't matter if it runs on Linux or not. Stop pretending that it does.
MS Office doesn't run on Linux. Why isn't MS running scared? Why aren't they working on a port for it? Answer: It doesn't matter. At all.
You can scream and wave about ogg being the best but that doesn't make it true. Especially at the lower bitrates, AAC is noticibly superior.
At 128 kbps, I can't imagine using any other codec other than AAC. At the higher bitrates, most of them start to sort of "equalize" and there is not too much to differentiate them all.
Slashdot Channel?
It'd be pretty funny to watch, but not for the reasons that you're probably thinking.
The actors would be handed scripts with spelling errors and completely erroneous information. 90% of the time spent reporting any story would be a "panel of experts" comprised of anybody who's willing to call in. The seats on the set would be modelled after RMS in such a way that an erect, hard cock will be pushed into the ass of anybody who sat down (think: inverted bar stool). Anything and everything MS would be immediately criticized in favour or some pre-alpha-quality open source variant that compiles but doesn't do what it's actually supposed to do.
Oh yeah, and every third show would be a rerun of something already aired that day.
I don't really like to bring it down to this level, but your assertion that Photoshop and Gimp accomplish the same thing is entirely wrong.
It is not possible to move from Photoshop to Gimp in many, incredibly common, situations. Assuming one would even want to.
Russia is not part of Asia
Yes, perhaps changing it's name to "The Gimp" would help?
The best part about this is that to further aid in confusing the hell out of people, we have implemented BOTH systems in Canada.
Luckily your humble opinion isn't what actually gets products to market.
1) Poor battery life
I can't really argue with you on this point. The newest iPods claim a 12 hour battery life. Mine typically gets damn near 8 hours but that's still too low.
2) Poor format support (Vorbis? FLAC?)
You have to be kidding? These formats simply DON'T MATTER. Most of the world is now using MP3 and there is no significant benefit to switching formats. Need lossless? The iPod supports AIFF, WAV, and Apple Lossless.
3) Poor playback (no EQ, no Gapless playback)
There is an EQ. Get your facts straight. The beauty of how it works is that you can set is on a PER SONG basis in iTunes. Alternatively, via the iPod interface, you can just set it to a preset that's already been defined.
4) Poor feature set (No FM, no voice recorder, nothing that sets it apart features-whys(sic))
You don't need an FM tuner for an MP3 player. That's why most of them don't have one. Repeat, that's why most of them don't have one. Want a voice recorder? Get a little adapter that'll turn the iPod into one. Most other players don't function as a high-speed firewire HDD either.
5) Still more expensive than most other players
This product works. It plays music. It does this VERY well. Expect to pay a premium for it because this is a top-notch piece of hardware.
but wouldn't knowing exactly what is in your cabinets and having a ready-made grocery list be a useful feature for any kitchen?
No.
Her problem is she forgets to proofread, but it still looks just as bad.
Go back and proofread that sentence. What the hell does it mean?
Pot calling the kettle black?
To hell with that, my time is my time, and work time is work time.
This is probably the main reaon you'll be swabbing toilets for the rest of your life.
Sorry to tell you this but you are not a professional photographer. You have hacked together a really low-end solution for what you want to do using the crappiest hardware and software combinations you could find.
Invest in a slide scanner.
Invest in a monitor calibration device such as a spyder.
Get a mac or windows machine.
Get Photoshop.
Then you'll have the tools. Until then you'll be stuck with sub-par solutions and consequently your work will suffer for it.
Are you an idiot or do you just like pretending to be one?
The type of cards you describe have been available for many years now. Some banks call them stupid names like "cheque cards" but nevertheless, they are affiliated with usually Visa or MC and work everywhere a regular credit card does.
You might be right about the use of the outside-in reading to improve load times, but by that logic your speculation for the use of small media is completely wrong. Think about it, CD-readers read fastest from the outside edge, for the same reason that CD-burners write the fastest towards the outside edge of the CD. A standard 5.25" disk would quickly blow this away, even accounting for spin-up time.
Slashdot has never been revolutionary. It's never really on the cutting edge of anything. Most of the editor's comments end up being incendiary or show that they are profoundly out of touch with reality.
Your time is not as important as you think it is. If it were, you wouldn't be posting here because you would have better things to be doing.
If this were an IE bug you would probably be one of those asshats that would be complaining that it wasn't getting enough coverage. Firefox isn't perfect. The Mac version that I'm currently typing this on is experiencing a lot of problems. The biggest one so far is that it is at least twice as slow as the other versions of Firefox. Additionally, for some reason flash movies run extremely slow inside this version while they run at normal speed on the others. Irresponsible? Give me a break.
Install windows, it'll work great.
Ahh stupidity and fundamentalism...
Before even knowing what the software can do, or if it will be useful to you, or if you can opt out entirely of its installation you start the whole Anti-MS thing.
I guess I can't blame you. Since this is Slashdot you'll quickly be modded up and I'll be called a troll.
No, this is slashdot, your original statement stands.