Puzzle Pirates is incredibly addictive. I just finished my trial account, and immediately shelled out cash for a subscription. It's exactly the kind of online game I've been waiting for; there's competition, but it's generally friendly competition.
I'm also a big fan of puns, and the shop names always make me smile. People who come up with stores named "Clothier Than Thou", "Frigate About It" and "Apothecary Now" seem like kindred spirits to me.
You could simply not publish the entire photograph. Leave a quarter-inch or so around the edges where the crop won't make a difference in the photo. If it comes down to a copyright battle, you can always show the original image in court. Unless the infringer is a genius with Photoshop, and makes some lucky guesses about the size and contents of the missing border, you're pretty much guaranteed a victory.
The best thing about this is that it doesn't require any special software, works for both film and digital, and is dirt-cheap to do. It's not the most technically advanced solution, but anyone can do it.
Good quality NiMH rechargables can give the photographer anywhere from 200 to 300 shots in the average 2-AA point-and-shoot digital (depending on the exact model). That's the equivalent of 8 to 12 rolls of 24-exp film. An average P&S 35mm uses a 123 or CR2 lithium battery that only lasts for around 15-20 rolls. Again, it depends on the exact model. (I can provide data on request, I just don't want to make this stupid post any lengthier than it already is.) For SLRs, any serious amateur or pro will be using a AA battery grip anyway.
Not many people who use only a P&S 35mm will shoot 20 rolls of film in a year, let alone a week. As long as the P&S digital customer is told up front before buying that they'll need rechargables, they don't mind the extra hassle. And this is coming from someone who sells everything from Canon Owls to Nikon N100/F100's on a daily basis, so I know my facts here.
For printing, almost any lab these days can have digital photos printed at the same cost as 35mm on the same quality paper. Since one can choose which photos ahead of time to print, unpleasant surprises are a thing of the past. I have several regular customers who don't know the first thing about computer, much less own one, but they still love their digital cameras.
As for digital media, one can get a 256MB card in pretty much any format (CF, XD, SD, MS) for less than a hundred bucks these days. And it will last for years. Considering the cost of buying and developing a decent roll of film at an average lab, the card pays for itself after about 10 rolls.
I will concede the point on ultimate image quality being better with film at the moment. Even my lowly Canon Rebel 2000 loaded with Portra 160NC will beat pretty much any sub-$500 digital, and most sub-$1000 digitals. At the moment. Wait a few years, and then you'll see digital SLRs beating the crap out of film SLRs, and offering comparable results in medium format.
Large format will take longer to match, of course. But large format is a rather tiny market now, with the excellent 35mm and 120/220 films out there having replaced most large format uses.
(I hope this post made sense, my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.)
The Canon Digital Rebel can use every single Canon lens made since 1987. The DRebel will work just fine with everything from the cheap-but-essential 50mm/1.8 to the 1200mm L lens. Also, Tamron and Sigma both have excellent, extensive lineups of EOS compatible lenses.
And as far as Nikon being cheaper, what are you smoking? Nikon lenses are just as good as Canon, and just about the same prices, on average. If you want top-of-the-line, you'll pay top dollar.
(Slightly offtopic, but the 50mm/1.8 makes an awesome portrait lens on a digital body. All you Canon DRebel or Nikon D70 owners new to SLR photography, consider picking one up. They're less than a hundred bucks, and have no zoom, but they work in *really* low light without a flash just fine. You won't be disappointed.)
If those are B&W negatives, then yes. They'll last for centuries under good conditions. Color negatives and slides don't last that long. If you're looking for centuries-old records for your descendants, I hope you're shooting non-C41 B&W.
He was right, and you got lucky. Most sales clerks won't be so honest. The Kodaks may look decent on paper for the cost, but the lenses are absolute shit. All the megapixels in the world won't give you a good picture if the lens is bubbled or out of alignment. Ditto for Hewlett Packard. It's amazing how a company that makes such great printers can make such crappy cameras.
I'd take a Canon or Nikon or Olympus 3 megapixel over a Kodak 4 megapixel model anyday. Hell, I'd even rather have some overpriced Sony piece of junk than a Kodak.
Please let me know the general geographical area where you work, so that I can plan future vacations accordingly by not venturing anywhere within a thousand kilometers.
Thank you.
Re:Beautiful, simply beautiful.
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 1
That's what I've been doing. In 3.2, it only changes the background image of the current directory. It doesn't set it for all directories.
Why? The iTunes interface works well. There's nothing wrong with ripping off ideas from something that works.
Beautiful, simply beautiful.
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 1
It's my new permanent desktop. And this is coming from a minimalist who's used and loved Windowmaker for seven years. And like everyone else on the planet, I promptly loaded up as many Aqua-clone themes as I could find.:) (Aquafusion and Acqua are sweeeeeet.) Even with all the eyecandy turned on, it's so damn fast and stable. I can't get over the improvements since I last tried KDE, back in the 3.0 days.
I do have one minor problem. I can't figure out how to globally set the background image for the file manager. I know how to do it on a per-directory basis, but not globally.
Correction. I'm wrong! Sorry about that. I was unaware of these new models.
Those bastards at Nikon! No wonder Canon's kicking their ass in the digital world. Canon at least has a reason for using SD in the SD10 and SD100, they're simply too small for CF. Nikon has no excuse. The 2100 and 3100 were tiny, but still used CF.
You're wrong. All Nikon cameras, right down to the entry-level Coolpix 2100, use Compactflash. Every last one of them.
SD is popular because Kodak and HP use it, and idiots think that since Kodak and HP have huge advertising, they're good cameras. Both are cheap junk.
If you need low-cost quality, get Fuji or Olympus. They use another type of card, XD, but the cost of XD is the same as CF, and XD-CF adaptors are easy to find.
Epson has some (allegedly) 100-year archival-quality inks available on their inkjets, starting at around $800 retail, and I know that Kodak has some availablle for their pro line of large-format inkjet printers under the Encad name.
Re:But...I wanted an Atlas!
on
Your Own Mecha
·
· Score: 1
Actually, 1.6 is the focal length multiplier for the lower half of Canon's digital SLRs. It's a double-edged sword. It makes telephoto dirt cheap (you can the equivalent of a 480mm f3.5 with just a plain Sigma 28-300 for around $400. On the other hands, wide angle is astronomically expensive. To get the equivalent of a 24mm f2.8, you've got to spend about $900 on something like the Canon EF 15mm.
The man who created this 1GP image has a camera with a 1.6 multiplier, which makes me think he's got a Canon. Nikon's are typically either full-frame 35mm, or have a multiplier of 1.5.
This, actually, will be easier than building them to destroy humans because you'll be able to build the robots in such a way that they can recognize one-another, so, for example, a US Robot, on seeing a Iraqi Republican Guard Robot, can destroy it, but if the US Robot detects a British robot, it can destroy it.
And that's a change from standard US military tactics, how?
Actually, it will be "Sharon Apple."
on
Synthesized Singers
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I use Epkg, an Encap-compliant manager, along with a typical install command of "PREFIX=/temp/usr/local make install", and then I move the contents of/temp/usr/local into/usr/local/encap/[package name]-[package version], then typed "epkg [package name]". All Epkg does is manage symlinks. There's no database to corrupt or dependencies to worry about.
Almost all programs that can be installed with the "./configure ; make ; make install" dance work fine with Epkg. Gnome is an exception, with that miserable Scrollkeeper nonsense. I've since said "to hell with it!" and dumped Gnome into/usr/local/gnome to solve the problem.
I can completely understand where you're coming from, though. LFS is *definitely* high-maintenance. If I didn't have so much free time, I wouldn't bother with LFS and would use Slackware instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Puzzle Pirates is incredibly addictive. I just finished my trial account, and immediately shelled out cash for a subscription. It's exactly the kind of online game I've been waiting for; there's competition, but it's generally friendly competition.
I'm also a big fan of puns, and the shop names always make me smile. People who come up with stores named "Clothier Than Thou", "Frigate About It" and "Apothecary Now" seem like kindred spirits to me.
You could simply not publish the entire photograph. Leave a quarter-inch or so around the edges where the crop won't make a difference in the photo. If it comes down to a copyright battle, you can always show the original image in court. Unless the infringer is a genius with Photoshop, and makes some lucky guesses about the size and contents of the missing border, you're pretty much guaranteed a victory.
The best thing about this is that it doesn't require any special software, works for both film and digital, and is dirt-cheap to do. It's not the most technically advanced solution, but anyone can do it.
Done and done.
Maybe looking at Canon's own website under "Compatible Lenses" might help. In case you were unaware, every Canon lens made since 1987's mount switch is an EF lens.
Yeah, yeah. I know. I'm feeding the troll. But I've got time to kill.
Good quality NiMH rechargables can give the photographer anywhere from 200 to 300 shots in the average 2-AA point-and-shoot digital (depending on the exact model). That's the equivalent of 8 to 12 rolls of 24-exp film. An average P&S 35mm uses a 123 or CR2 lithium battery that only lasts for around 15-20 rolls. Again, it depends on the exact model. (I can provide data on request, I just don't want to make this stupid post any lengthier than it already is.) For SLRs, any serious amateur or pro will be using a AA battery grip anyway.
Not many people who use only a P&S 35mm will shoot 20 rolls of film in a year, let alone a week. As long as the P&S digital customer is told up front before buying that they'll need rechargables, they don't mind the extra hassle. And this is coming from someone who sells everything from Canon Owls to Nikon N100/F100's on a daily basis, so I know my facts here.
For printing, almost any lab these days can have digital photos printed at the same cost as 35mm on the same quality paper. Since one can choose which photos ahead of time to print, unpleasant surprises are a thing of the past. I have several regular customers who don't know the first thing about computer, much less own one, but they still love their digital cameras.
As for digital media, one can get a 256MB card in pretty much any format (CF, XD, SD, MS) for less than a hundred bucks these days. And it will last for years. Considering the cost of buying and developing a decent roll of film at an average lab, the card pays for itself after about 10 rolls.
I will concede the point on ultimate image quality being better with film at the moment. Even my lowly Canon Rebel 2000 loaded with Portra 160NC will beat pretty much any sub-$500 digital, and most sub-$1000 digitals. At the moment. Wait a few years, and then you'll see digital SLRs beating the crap out of film SLRs, and offering comparable results in medium format.
Large format will take longer to match, of course. But large format is a rather tiny market now, with the excellent 35mm and 120/220 films out there having replaced most large format uses.
(I hope this post made sense, my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.)
The Canon Digital Rebel can use every single Canon lens made since 1987. The DRebel will work just fine with everything from the cheap-but-essential 50mm/1.8 to the 1200mm L lens. Also, Tamron and Sigma both have excellent, extensive lineups of EOS compatible lenses.
And as far as Nikon being cheaper, what are you smoking? Nikon lenses are just as good as Canon, and just about the same prices, on average. If you want top-of-the-line, you'll pay top dollar.
(Slightly offtopic, but the 50mm/1.8 makes an awesome portrait lens on a digital body. All you Canon DRebel or Nikon D70 owners new to SLR photography, consider picking one up. They're less than a hundred bucks, and have no zoom, but they work in *really* low light without a flash just fine. You won't be disappointed.)
If those are B&W negatives, then yes. They'll last for centuries under good conditions. Color negatives and slides don't last that long. If you're looking for centuries-old records for your descendants, I hope you're shooting non-C41 B&W.
He was right, and you got lucky. Most sales clerks won't be so honest. The Kodaks may look decent on paper for the cost, but the lenses are absolute shit. All the megapixels in the world won't give you a good picture if the lens is bubbled or out of alignment. Ditto for Hewlett Packard. It's amazing how a company that makes such great printers can make such crappy cameras.
I'd take a Canon or Nikon or Olympus 3 megapixel over a Kodak 4 megapixel model anyday. Hell, I'd even rather have some overpriced Sony piece of junk than a Kodak.
I always enjoyed his "Neutron Tide". It's only about a page long, but funny as hell. Also, "Tales From The White Hart" was great.
KDE does this as well. As of 3.2, anyway. I have no idea if it did before.
Please let me know the general geographical area where you work, so that I can plan future vacations accordingly by not venturing anywhere within a thousand kilometers.
Thank you.
That's what I've been doing. In 3.2, it only changes the background image of the current directory. It doesn't set it for all directories.
Why? The iTunes interface works well. There's nothing wrong with ripping off ideas from something that works.
It's my new permanent desktop. And this is coming from a minimalist who's used and loved Windowmaker for seven years. And like everyone else on the planet, I promptly loaded up as many Aqua-clone themes as I could find. :) (Aquafusion and Acqua are sweeeeeet.) Even with all the eyecandy turned on, it's so damn fast and stable. I can't get over the improvements since I last tried KDE, back in the 3.0 days.
I do have one minor problem. I can't figure out how to globally set the background image for the file manager. I know how to do it on a per-directory basis, but not globally.
Correction. I'm wrong! Sorry about that. I was unaware of these new models.
Those bastards at Nikon! No wonder Canon's kicking their ass in the digital world. Canon at least has a reason for using SD in the SD10 and SD100, they're simply too small for CF. Nikon has no excuse. The 2100 and 3100 were tiny, but still used CF.
You're wrong. All Nikon cameras, right down to the entry-level Coolpix 2100, use Compactflash. Every last one of them.
SD is popular because Kodak and HP use it, and idiots think that since Kodak and HP have huge advertising, they're good cameras. Both are cheap junk.
If you need low-cost quality, get Fuji or Olympus. They use another type of card, XD, but the cost of XD is the same as CF, and XD-CF adaptors are easy to find.
Can't buy what doesn't exist. Most people buy Chinese products these days.
I disagree. I know a much better candidate to play Gendo Ikari.
(Link deliberately left as plain text so I might not be Slashdotted so badly. And the quality is awful, since I only spent one minute on it.)
http://oz.no-ip.org/media/ikari.jpg
Epson has some (allegedly) 100-year archival-quality inks available on their inkjets, starting at around $800 retail, and I know that Kodak has some availablle for their pro line of large-format inkjet printers under the Encad name.
Battletech/Mechwarrior fans, take note. :)
I don't know about you, but I'd rather half 2.54cm per inch. Just a wacky idea of mine.
Actually, 1.6 is the focal length multiplier for the lower half of Canon's digital SLRs. It's a double-edged sword. It makes telephoto dirt cheap (you can the equivalent of a 480mm f3.5 with just a plain Sigma 28-300 for around $400. On the other hands, wide angle is astronomically expensive. To get the equivalent of a 24mm f2.8, you've got to spend about $900 on something like the Canon EF 15mm.
The man who created this 1GP image has a camera with a 1.6 multiplier, which makes me think he's got a Canon. Nikon's are typically either full-frame 35mm, or have a multiplier of 1.5.
This, actually, will be easier than building them to destroy humans because you'll be able to build the robots in such a way that they can recognize one-another, so, for example, a US Robot, on seeing a Iraqi Republican Guard Robot, can destroy it, but if the US Robot detects a British robot, it can destroy it.
And that's a change from standard US military tactics, how?
Only test pilots need fear the result, fear not.
I use Epkg, an Encap-compliant manager, along with a typical install command of "PREFIX=/temp/usr/local make install", and then I move the contents of /temp/usr/local into /usr/local/encap/[package name]-[package version], then typed "epkg [package name]". All Epkg does is manage symlinks. There's no database to corrupt or dependencies to worry about.
/usr/local/gnome to solve the problem.
Almost all programs that can be installed with the "./configure ; make ; make install" dance work fine with Epkg. Gnome is an exception, with that miserable Scrollkeeper nonsense. I've since said "to hell with it!" and dumped Gnome into
I can completely understand where you're coming from, though. LFS is *definitely* high-maintenance. If I didn't have so much free time, I wouldn't bother with LFS and would use Slackware instead.