No. It's called 'trying to make the world a better and caring place'.
If you were an anarchist, then maybe you would have a good point.
You live in a democratic, capitalist society. And unless you are will to to change it, you have no point, You have accepted it, and you have to take the good with the bad.
Your making it sound like a big task, that's going to mean 2x the ammount of work need to create a site, and creating new standards and new protocols. It's just not nessesary. The tools are already there. And you don't have to do much to make a big difference.
Nobody is asking us to make the experience perfect for dissabled people, just usable. It's not an unfair or hard request.
And where is the blind person going to get the number from? And that's not supposed to be a smart-ass comment. I want to know. Are there places you can ring up etc?
Do they produce brail phone books?
Of course, you could always get the number from their web-site...
BTW. It's piss easy to make a site accessable for blind. A few Alt tags here and there. And a bit more consideration in the layout flow, and it should be fine (Proper flow is something that lacks on most sites, and should be done anyway).
Anyone who says it's too hard is probably just too fsking lazy.
Does anyone know how to do freaken back-ups any more? Has everyone forgotten how to copy CDs?
Does the word CD suddenly put most people's brain into a mode where they forget the fundamental concepts of digital media?
Seriously....Whenever "CD" and "back-up" are mentioned in the same aritcal, there's always about 20 posts along the lines of "CDs only last XX years", "But who would still have a CD-ROM in XX years time?", "By that time...".
Your cat in the sink is a classic.
A perfect place for a cat I spose, except for the fact it has a tap hovering right over it's head....Ignorance is bliss;)
That's a very ambiguous/generalised statment. It's something that need to be taken into account, yes. Because it affects the end result. But saying that it alone, matters, isn't right.
It's like saying a low CG (center of gravity) matters for road cars. But auto makers still stick to a certain height, when they could easly be making them as low as Lamborghinis etc.
Maybe there is a bit of confusion going on here. I know that unsprung weight needs to be considered/matters. But you were making it sound as if this car would be a horrible ride or a bad performer just because it dosn't have the optimal unsprung weight for it's design.
I'm lucky to have a hard drive last longer than three.
Well, you'll be fucked along with the rest of the data on your HD if you don't replace it like everyone else does?
The possibility of the great photographs of our day being erased with an accidental click of a button or the failure of a hard drive read head worries me.
What worries me are people who have valuble data and never do back-ups.
If the data is important to you, you will back it up and move it to new mediums when they come along.
If you can't do that, then digital media is not for you. It's as simple as than.
The person who posted the article confused the resolution of scanners with that of cameras. The article had the wrong title. It should have been "Digital Camera Quality Passing Scanners?"
*sigh*
Quote from stright form the artical:
Of course there will now be a chorus of those who say, "Ya, but a drum scan would have really shown a bigger difference in favour of film." Humm. Maybe. But here are my thoughts on this recurring topic. I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. There simply isn't that much more information on film than about 4,000 PPI. Above that we get bigger files, but not much more information. Maybe, 20% more than the 3200 PPI scans that my Imacon Flextight Photo scanner is capable of, but not 2 or 3 times as some inexperienced people presume from the numbers. Also, such scans are huge, 500 or 600MB and almost impossible to work with. Oh yes, these scans cost hundreds of dollars each. How many of these are you going to make on a regular basis?
Don't forget the flexibilty to go so wide that most expensive wide-angle leses look like giant telephoto lenes. All of that with no lens distrortion either:)
Of course, with exposure times that run into the minuets for sunny days, they're a bit lacking in the high-speed photography area.
*sigh* Unless you racing that car. Unsprung weight is a non-issue in most passanger cars(or should I say bus in this case). The suspention setup could easly be designed to make up for the extra unsprung weight.
If you looked at the car, you'll know that it's obviouly not built for performace at all, just speed. Cars that are tuned for performace will have a horrible ride anyway. The only thing this car is going to be lacking is cornering performace. But since it's not a racing car, who cares?
Anyway. The point in putting it all in the wheel means there is more space in the chassis, the also, the biggie, hardly any moving parts at all. No gears, no diffs, not even a driveshaft anywhere.
I think it's an electrical charge over a certain amount of area. If I touch mine with a metal object that's sharp. It doesn't do much. But if I use something more blunt, it can get it to work.
Seriously, at least when I type my password, other people have a hard time seeing what I type. If I sit there gesturing at the computer though...
How do you come to that conclution? Typing your password on a keyboard is a gesture. An obvious one at that.
If you can type fast, they you can gesture fast to. With a keyboard there is also a limited number of 'gestures' that one could perform.
Yes, you are right to some degree. But I think you will still find what they said is true.
Since the output of most computers are visual, the is makes more sence for the input to be visualy based to.
Plus there has been an artical on/. saying that bascily, when you're speaking, you don't think as well....We all know about cellphone drivers (yes, there are people who claim not to be affected. But they are still are, just less than most).
Anyway. Do you really want to be talking out loud all the time? I know I wouldn't. Especialy since I do a lot of photoshop work (another point to, voice will still be much slower at a lot of things).
Agreed. Although, MacSlash still not as bad as MacCentral.com.
Kinda funny when the best place to disscuss Apple stuff is not on an Apple realted site, but in the small section of a non-Apple realated site.
It goes to show how bad Mac zealots really are. Even the Linux zealots aren't as bad;)
I think that certain group of Mac users just take life too seriously. Steve is not god, and their iMacs are not really temples of worship. Apple's just a company that's a bit better than some of the others around at the moment.
It's not just the RPM, but the amount of torque it can produce (in this case, these little motors won't be putting out that much).
I'm pretty sure your average (standard 27(?) turn \) 540 is about 18,000rpm. The amount of power they produce won't have changed much since they're a regulatored stock motor, they will be pretty similar to 15 years ago.
Todays modified 540s can range from anywhere between 20,000 and 40,000rpm. The expensive brushless motors will go even higher (these RPMs are only based on a standard 6 cell battery, more cell will give you more RPM).
As for gas, they aren't that great as they're made out to be IHMO, electric can go much faster (1:10th scale cars at average speeds of 180km/h when loaded with many cells). The only major advantage of gas are longer runtimes, and the ease of just fillin'er up. They're also cheaper if you want speed.
Of cource, even if you could fit a 9 turn single (lower winds = less resistance = faster motor) into one of these wee things, you run into another problem: Getting traction;) It would be like having a top-fuel dragster engine in a Mini Cooper.
If this were true then why does M$ insist on messing about with the UI every time there is an OS upgrade.
It's MS. Since when has MS been the hallmark of anything good?
On the other had, look at Mac OS, The only dramatic change came about in OS X, which is an entirly new OS.
And if you've ever used OS X, you see that there is a big focus on consistancy in GUI between apps.
Because consistancy is important in asthetics. I'd really hate to see what you're house looks like...
Not just that, but consistantly is very important in design and usability.
When grandma just gets the hang of all the widgets on OS-Whatever, then fires up Mozilla, only to be greated by a set of widgets she has never seen before, how do you think she's going to react? She probably won't understand it, and close it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were an anarchist, then maybe you would have a good point.
You live in a democratic, capitalist society. And unless you are will to to change it, you have no point, You have accepted it, and you have to take the good with the bad.
Your making it sound like a big task, that's going to mean 2x the ammount of work need to create a site, and creating new standards and new protocols. It's just not nessesary. The tools are already there. And you don't have to do much to make a big difference.
Nobody is asking us to make the experience perfect for dissabled people, just usable. It's not an unfair or hard request.
And where is the blind person going to get the number from? And that's not supposed to be a smart-ass comment. I want to know. Are there places you can ring up etc?
Your missing the point. Making the web-accessable to blind people is much easier than a voice to text phone service.
Do they produce brail phone books?
Of course, you could always get the number from their web-site...
BTW. It's piss easy to make a site accessable for blind. A few Alt tags here and there. And a bit more consideration in the layout flow, and it should be fine (Proper flow is something that lacks on most sites, and should be done anyway).
Anyone who says it's too hard is probably just too fsking lazy.
Does anyone know how to do freaken back-ups any more? Has everyone forgotten how to copy CDs?
Does the word CD suddenly put most people's brain into a mode where they forget the fundamental concepts of digital media?
Seriously....Whenever "CD" and "back-up" are mentioned in the same aritcal, there's always about 20 posts along the lines of "CDs only last XX years", "But who would still have a CD-ROM in XX years time?", "By that time...".
Your cat in the sink is a classic. ;)
A perfect place for a cat I spose, except for the fact it has a tap hovering right over it's head....Ignorance is bliss
That's a very ambiguous/generalised statment.
It's something that need to be taken into account, yes. Because it affects the end result. But saying that it alone, matters, isn't right.
It's like saying a low CG (center of gravity) matters for road cars. But auto makers still stick to a certain height, when they could easly be making them as low as Lamborghinis etc.
Maybe there is a bit of confusion going on here. I know that unsprung weight needs to be considered/matters. But you were making it sound as if this car would be a horrible ride or a bad performer just because it dosn't have the optimal unsprung weight for it's design.
Well, you'll be fucked along with the rest of the data on your HD if you don't replace it like everyone else does?
The possibility of the great photographs of our day being erased with an accidental click of a button or the failure of a hard drive read head worries me.
What worries me are people who have valuble data and never do back-ups.
If the data is important to you, you will back it up and move it to new mediums when they come along.
If you can't do that, then digital media is not for you. It's as simple as than.
Anyone?
Sorry. But it just pisses me off when several people post the exact same question that is disscused right on the first page.
*sigh*
Quote from stright form the artical:
Plese stop spreading FUD.Of course, with exposure times that run into the minuets for sunny days, they're a bit lacking in the high-speed photography area.
If you looked at the car, you'll know that it's obviouly not built for performace at all, just speed. Cars that are tuned for performace will have a horrible ride anyway. The only thing this car is going to be lacking is cornering performace. But since it's not a racing car, who cares?
Anyway. The point in putting it all in the wheel means there is more space in the chassis, the also, the biggie, hardly any moving parts at all. No gears, no diffs, not even a driveshaft anywhere.
My bad...."blink -- Text blinks (alternates between visible and invisible). Conforming user agents are not required to support this value"
I knew it was in the CSS specs, but I thought it said encoraged instead of required.
I'm a bit suppired at Mozilla to. But then again. It's not really a bad spec....Just another abused tool.
I think it's an electrical charge over a certain amount of area. If I touch mine with a metal object that's sharp. It doesn't do much. But if I use something more blunt, it can get it to work.
How do you come to that conclution? Typing your password on a keyboard is a gesture. An obvious one at that.
If you can type fast, they you can gesture fast to. With a keyboard there is also a limited number of 'gestures' that one could perform.
Since the output of most computers are visual, the is makes more sence for the input to be visualy based to.
Plus there has been an artical on /. saying that bascily, when you're speaking, you don't think as well....We all know about cellphone drivers (yes, there are people who claim not to be affected. But they are still are, just less than most).
Anyway. Do you really want to be talking out loud all the time? I know I wouldn't. Especialy since I do a lot of photoshop work (another point to, voice will still be much slower at a lot of things).
What's even funnier is that the only browsers that support "blink", don't support CSS properly.
Kinda funny when the best place to disscuss Apple stuff is not on an Apple realted site, but in the small section of a non-Apple realated site.
It goes to show how bad Mac zealots really are. Even the Linux zealots aren't as bad ;)
I think that certain group of Mac users just take life too seriously. Steve is not god, and their iMacs are not really temples of worship. Apple's just a company that's a bit better than some of the others around at the moment.
I'm pretty sure your average (standard 27(?) turn \) 540 is about 18,000rpm. The amount of power they produce won't have changed much since they're a regulatored stock motor, they will be pretty similar to 15 years ago.
Todays modified 540s can range from anywhere between 20,000 and 40,000rpm. The expensive brushless motors will go even higher (these RPMs are only based on a standard 6 cell battery, more cell will give you more RPM).
As for gas, they aren't that great as they're made out to be IHMO, electric can go much faster (1:10th scale cars at average speeds of 180km/h when loaded with many cells). The only major advantage of gas are longer runtimes, and the ease of just fillin'er up. They're also cheaper if you want speed.
Of cource, even if you could fit a 9 turn single (lower winds = less resistance = faster motor) into one of these wee things, you run into another problem: Getting traction ;) It would be like having a top-fuel dragster engine in a Mini Cooper.
Folks, that's how CSS layouts are done....Clean code and clean design. And not a table in site!
It's MS. Since when has MS been the hallmark of anything good?
On the other had, look at Mac OS, The only dramatic change came about in OS X, which is an entirly new OS.
And if you've ever used OS X, you see that there is a big focus on consistancy in GUI between apps.
Not just that, but consistantly is very important in design and usability.
When grandma just gets the hang of all the widgets on OS-Whatever, then fires up Mozilla, only to be greated by a set of widgets she has never seen before, how do you think she's going to react? She probably won't understand it, and close it.
*sigh* when will programers ever learn...