Why no try alt.rec.photo or something?/. is hardly the place to come to for advice on the best begginer 35mm film SRL cameras.
Besides? What's wrong with digital? It's much more fun learing with a digital than with a film camera IMHO, you get instant feedback etc. Film stuff still costs a fair bit even if you have your own darkroom.
Well, we may not get to see RotK before anyone else, but there is a free outdoor screening of the Two Towers down near Te Papa (near the hill thing, I think).
Wrong. The CSS specs have both max-height, max-width, min-height, min-width...or something like that. The problem is that IE doesn't support it (as usual). Mozilla has no probs with it (as usual).
Opps, just realised that won't do what you're asking exactly. But there are more display types other than inline and block, like compact and run-in. I think they have the effect that you (and me, to) are after. But not even Mozilla supports them yet.
He he, did that once with my new bike, and first time with clip-on shoes. After I realised that the shoes have a little ellastic loop thing about half way down the zig-zaq/join, you tuck them in there once you've done you're shoes up. Never had a problem since. It wouldn't be too hard to add it to any shoes, just need a small strip of elastic. No more wrecked laces, no more embarising "I'm going to fall over, and there's nothing I can do about it" moments;)
You are wrong about efficiency. Belts and chains may feel like they have a lot of friction when unloaded. But the the thing is, the amount of friction in the drivetrain will not increase when the load increses. With a gear system, the friction will increase as the load increases.
Chains are the most effiecient thing we have for bikes at the moment. That's a fact. There are plently of posts above saying this.
Apple doesn't need to listen to his details, because Apple already knows what to do. What they need to do is acctually give a fuck about their customers. What people like John do--hopefully--is put pressure on Apple to do what they already know is right, aswell as educate the masses (programmers) about the importance of things like spatial positioning etc.
Don't mod me down, reply. I wasn't bad mouthing the author. Perhaps you need to read more of his mac articals?. He quite oftern critizises the finder in OS X because it isn't like the one in OS 9, which was much better IMHO (and his), for the detailed reasons he gives.
If only some photographers are overpaid, the it's not really an overpaid job then is it?
Anyway, about wedding photographers. Most wedding photographers I know of are not just wedding photographers, they they do weddings just to put bread on the table. Most certinaly aren't rolling around in the cash. And if that guy thinks that the photos are just mediocre, then perhaps he should give his camera to an amature, and see what kind of photos they manage to produce.
Let me say something here. And this is going to piss a lot of people off, it's not flamebait, it the truth: Mulitple desktops are a bad hack to a problem.
Having multiple desktop allows you to group windows together, it's basicly a way to arrange/group windows. You don't nessesarity need acctual multiple desktops to work around this problem.
Expose shows us that there are solutions to a lot of the problems we have with current GUIs, it just takes a bit of work. Maybe the Linux community will come up with a proper alternative to mulitple desktops in the future.
And saying that Windows "tile all windows" feature is the same as Expose is a joke. "Tile all windows" can't even put you windows back the way they were when you're done. The two simply don't compare, and the only person who would even compare them would be someone who knows nothing about UI and usability.
Sounds like that will just give you a blury photo, perhaps with a fake 3Dish look. To create 3D photos, you MUST take 2 photos that are taken from a seperate position (~15cm "slid to the side" I think). Just taking a photo with different focal points isn't going to give you a 3D image any more than sticking feathers up your but is going to make you a chicken.
I really doubt you'd be able to keep it the same size as an iPod with current tech. You'll need many times the battery capasity of the iPod for the following reasons:
Larger, brighter backlight on all the time
More proccessing than music
HD will have to be spinning pretty much all the time, or significatly more, since the bandwidth will be higher
My iPod locked-up once, I left it for a while becuase I was busy, it was almost flat after doing nothing but just spinning the HD for an hour.
If you read the text more carefully, you'd have read the part where it says that a lot of the workers took their safty gear off for the camera. So they do accutally wear saftey gear.
Out of all the comments out there so far. I think yours is the only one worth any real merit. All the others just seem to be along the lines of bigoted sarcasim: "Idiots! Why don't we just ban X-Rays and TV/radio stations aswell!"
Wi-Fi networks may be dangerous. They may even cause cancer. But everything is harmfull if you take too much or too little of it. It's all about balance. And unfortuanly neither the paranoid soccer mom, or the technophile geek realise this.
If MS had a hard time deffending it's self, then Mozilla stands less of a chance.
Having to pay for the licencing basicly means that IE will have plug-in support, and no one else will (sure, there may be other ways to embed the data, but developers will prolly go with the IE way if it's easier).
No matter what the outcome of this suit, it will be bad for the other browsers.
Also, this isn't going to do jack for silly patents. Your average user is still going to be cluless on the complex, silly legal issues regarding as to why he has to click an "OK" box several times now.
The standard is not based on pixels. I am not aware of any CSS properly which can only be specified in pixels. If you believe so, please link me to the relivant part in the CSS spec. Pixels are simply one of many units that can be used in CSS properties.
Now, you're not spreading FUD, you just simply don't know what you are talking about.
The problem not with the specs. If you're fonts are small when your increase you resolution, they will be small for everything, not just web-sites. It's not the CSS specs problem if the OS you are using dosn't let you adjust font sizes.
For many developers, I don't think that UI considerations are all that important.
How do you explain the sucsess of the iPod? When it first came out, a lot of people on/. said it would never sell very well. But they forgot one thing: It wasn't just first HDD MP3 player that was small and looked nice, it was the first to have a decent interface. Using and updating the iPod is so easy to do. The iPod is now the leading MP3 player, it's Apple's best selling products...all because they made it easy to use.
And I think that many developers *are* adept at designing systems that are usable
Unfortuantly most aren't (along with graphics artists to though), that's why there is so many bad UIs out there. Programmers design UIs that are too complex, because that's what they think is best, most of the time it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
no text
Besides? What's wrong with digital? It's much more fun learing with a digital than with a film camera IMHO, you get instant feedback etc. Film stuff still costs a fair bit even if you have your own darkroom.
My 2c anyway.
Well, we may not get to see RotK before anyone else, but there is a free outdoor screening of the Two Towers down near Te Papa (near the hill thing, I think).
Opps, just realised that won't do what you're asking exactly. But there are more display types other than inline and block, like compact and run-in. I think they have the effect that you (and me, to) are after. But not even Mozilla supports them yet.
He he, did that once with my new bike, and first time with clip-on shoes. After I realised that the shoes have a little ellastic loop thing about half way down the zig-zaq/join, you tuck them in there once you've done you're shoes up. Never had a problem since. It wouldn't be too hard to add it to any shoes, just need a small strip of elastic. No more wrecked laces, no more embarising "I'm going to fall over, and there's nothing I can do about it" moments ;)
Chains are the most effiecient thing we have for bikes at the moment. That's a fact. There are plently of posts above saying this.
I'd say full suspension is quite a change.
Apple doesn't need to listen to his details, because Apple already knows what to do. What they need to do is acctually give a fuck about their customers. What people like John do--hopefully--is put pressure on Apple to do what they already know is right, aswell as educate the masses (programmers) about the importance of things like spatial positioning etc.
Don't mod me down, reply. I wasn't bad mouthing the author. Perhaps you need to read more of his mac articals?. He quite oftern critizises the finder in OS X because it isn't like the one in OS 9, which was much better IMHO (and his), for the detailed reasons he gives.
Anyway, about wedding photographers. Most wedding photographers I know of are not just wedding photographers, they they do weddings just to put bread on the table. Most certinaly aren't rolling around in the cash. And if that guy thinks that the photos are just mediocre, then perhaps he should give his camera to an amature, and see what kind of photos they manage to produce.
Having multiple desktop allows you to group windows together, it's basicly a way to arrange/group windows. You don't nessesarity need acctual multiple desktops to work around this problem.
Expose shows us that there are solutions to a lot of the problems we have with current GUIs, it just takes a bit of work. Maybe the Linux community will come up with a proper alternative to mulitple desktops in the future.
And saying that Windows "tile all windows" feature is the same as Expose is a joke. "Tile all windows" can't even put you windows back the way they were when you're done. The two simply don't compare, and the only person who would even compare them would be someone who knows nothing about UI and usability.
Apple doesn't need to hire him, they just need to wake up and listen to him--they already have the people there to do it.
Sounds like that will just give you a blury photo, perhaps with a fake 3Dish look. To create 3D photos, you MUST take 2 photos that are taken from a seperate position (~15cm "slid to the side" I think). Just taking a photo with different focal points isn't going to give you a 3D image any more than sticking feathers up your but is going to make you a chicken.
- Larger, brighter backlight on all the time
- More proccessing than music
- HD will have to be spinning pretty much all the time, or significatly more, since the bandwidth will be higher
My iPod locked-up once, I left it for a while becuase I was busy, it was almost flat after doing nothing but just spinning the HD for an hour.If you read the text more carefully, you'd have read the part where it says that a lot of the workers took their safty gear off for the camera. So they do accutally wear saftey gear.
Wi-Fi networks may be dangerous. They may even cause cancer. But everything is harmfull if you take too much or too little of it. It's all about balance. And unfortuanly neither the paranoid soccer mom, or the technophile geek realise this.
No text!
Having to pay for the licencing basicly means that IE will have plug-in support, and no one else will (sure, there may be other ways to embed the data, but developers will prolly go with the IE way if it's easier).
No matter what the outcome of this suit, it will be bad for the other browsers.
Also, this isn't going to do jack for silly patents. Your average user is still going to be cluless on the complex, silly legal issues regarding as to why he has to click an "OK" box several times now.
That should read: Didn't know Apple made a beige iMac.
Didn't know made a beige iMac ;)
Actually, it is for the majority of Apple's users. Even for web-developers like me, it's just easier and quicker to use a GUI for things like FTP.
In my (and others) experience, Win2000 and WinXP are about the same.
It's so sad/funny/pathetic when you can't tell the difference between satire about him, and something he acutally said.
Now, you're not spreading FUD, you just simply don't know what you are talking about.
The problem not with the specs. If you're fonts are small when your increase you resolution, they will be small for everything, not just web-sites. It's not the CSS specs problem if the OS you are using dosn't let you adjust font sizes.
How do you explain the sucsess of the iPod? When it first came out, a lot of people on /. said it would never sell very well. But they forgot one thing: It wasn't just first HDD MP3 player that was small and looked nice, it was the first to have a decent interface. Using and updating the iPod is so easy to do. The iPod is now the leading MP3 player, it's Apple's best selling products...all because they made it easy to use.
And I think that many developers *are* adept at designing systems that are usable
Unfortuantly most aren't (along with graphics artists to though), that's why there is so many bad UIs out there. Programmers design UIs that are too complex, because that's what they think is best, most of the time it's not.