I've seen people try to use this line against Christians whenever they're percieved as acting hypocritically (such as a Christian president calling forth soldiers to kill in Iraq). The defense put up in response is brilliant:
"The Bible, in the original language, doesn't say 'thou shall not kill', it says 'thou shall not murder'; there's a difference. And we're not murdering anyone."
So you think pointing out that commandment would manage to pull the argument in your favor. You're wrong - Christianity has managed to evolve a defense mechanism against it.
I believe that a planned hold is usually expected to take a certian amount of time, but the launch controllers can't be sure of that. So a hold can run for an arbitrary amount of time and thus you can't add it to the countdown.
I can't find any webpages that explain this explicitly, but looking at NASA's Countdown 101, this explanation seems to make sense.
Your comment might actually make sense if the people who take pictures of a bridge were trying to take pictures of a top-secret span that national security depended on.
But as it stands, beliving that a bridge might somehow be protected from "terrorism" because a photographer would be prevented from (or terrorized for) taking pictures of something that is completely open to the public and which hundreds, if not thousands or *millions* of people are free to observe on a daily basis is downright absurd.
Or are you one of those people who believe that an erosion of personal freedoms is ok, just as long as you're still comfortable?
"Don't teach our kids about sexual health because (GASP) they might become sexually active! OMG STFU WTF.
Hint: they're going to anyway, surely it's better for them to learn properly than from some xxx website."
Not if they get their kids interested in Slashdot! It's the world's most powerful form of birth control.
Scanning backs for large format cameras have been available for years, though a lot of the digital back manufacturers have been switching to full CCD sensors lately. See www.betterlight.com
I'll start out by saying this: I'm not a professional photographer, I don't even have two years of experience in photography under my belt. But I've used the the Gimp, and have experienced its limitations. The Gimp is definitely *not* good enough for a professional photographer.
No 16-bit channel support. No adjustment layers. No practical RAW support. No calibration/color profile support. Not to mention that most high end photo printers probably don't interface with the Gimp.
Sorry, the application may be good enough for working with digicam pictures, but it is seriously lacking in real pro-level features.
"people don't care about computers anymore. I don't know why."
Easy. Back in the 80's, a single person could churn out a game or program that was as good as any commercial offering.
These days, there's no way an amateur, working as a single person, could produce anything that we hadn't already seen back in 1983.
Until there's a real revolution in computing technology [and I mean it - what we use today is just an evolution of tech from the early 80's], you won't see many people genuinely excited about programming, in the old school sense. Everything has basically "been done already", and the only real magic happening now is in huge peojects that require teams of skilled developers to make.
How interesting that this should come along today, when I *just* had a 1 month old Seagate die on me, today.
Re:Any recording company exec went into jail - eve
on
Kazaa Owners Risk Jail
·
· Score: 1
"CDS ALWAYS should have been cheaper than tapes"
Ah, this tired old argument. Yes, a blank CD costs less than a tape, but you're not really just paying the record companies for blanks then, are you. You're paying for the content on those mediums. Why should a song on a CD cost any less than the same song on a tape?
I think you're just angry because you're being told that it actually costs money to produce music, but you want it for free.
Actually, you can have all the free music you want - just start singing. Or buy and play a $5 harmonica, and have loads of extremely cheap music. It amazes me how few people actually realize that the record companies don't own "music", they just own "their music". But, then I remember that most of the freeloaders are talentless and terminally lazy, so...
Whenever life gets you down, and things seem hard or tough When people seem stupid, obnoxious or daft - and you feel like you had quite enough...
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving, and revolving at 900 miles an hour. It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned, the sun that is the source of all our power. The Sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see, are moving at a million miles a day! In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour, of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Our Galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars,i t's 100,000 light-years side-to-side. It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick, but out by us it's just 3000 light-years wide. We're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point, we go round every 200 million years! And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions in this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding, in all of the directions it can whizz. As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know,t welve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is. So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely is your birth! And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, because there's bugger all down here on Earth.
It's really quite simple. There's not a machine blindly just posting stories to the front page, there are actual people doing this work, and they're called "editors"; as such, if it this obvious to the readers of this website that a story is a duplicate, shouldn't it be even more obvious to the editors?
Although, it seems like for all the effort these "editors" put into their job, they could easily be replaced with a small shell script.
It's not the camera, its the lens that enables macro photography. What you really need to look for is a good macro lens. And most any digital SLR will give you great quality, since you don't seem to have a particular preference beyond "macro photos".
However, don't expect to be taking pictures of things like the peppercorn & sea salt, or the mosquitos, or any of the ones that involved polarized light as seen on the website, those were taken with the aid of a microscope. Also, look on the.co.uk website if you haven't RTFM. With each image's caption there is a small bit of text which describes the equipment used to take the shot.
Yeah, it sure is too bad that you've convinced yourself that your tastes are much too refined for Hollywood's latest. It must be that *they* are the ones who are wrong, because they can't produce a movie that you want to like. Clearly, you know better and your next movie will reawaken great taste in the masses, right?
If you think that an actor's salary contributes to the overwhelming majority of the cost of production of a movie, you're very wrong.
I'm not even remotely involved in that business, and I know that just the *equipment* alone can probably run for a good few million, and let's not forget the cost of things like materials for costumes and props, as well at the cost of designing and building a set and the associated cost to use a space to film in. Also, add in the money that you have to pay the dozens of people who work behind the scenes, creating the costumes, designing the sets, ensuring that all of the equipment works safely and as flawlessly as possible. Stuntmen too, if you're using them. Don't forget about paying the people who write the scripts and screenplays. Also, factor in insurance and legal fees for everything.
Beyond that, you've got to pay people to do editing and post production work. Special effects cost money too, you have to pay the people who work magic with render farms, as well as for the cost of using the render farms. Finally, there's the cost involved in the promotion of a movie. Like it or not, ads for a movie are basically a fact of life, and these cost money.
But yeah, no doubt you can cut a small corner by using a no name actor over a big name actor.
I fail to see how it's important what UNIVAC did period. Great it set the standard for computers to be accepted as comercially viable machines, big deal. That is about as important as as two geeks debating Windows vs Linux which will win?
Seriously indeed. The scratches a cat's claws make are very rough and uneven, not straight lines at all; the cuts are riddled with small gashy spots. And since the cuts are rough they tend to hurt a bit more than a cut of similar depth with a much cleaner cutting edge such as a knife. The front paw claws are definitely sharper than the claws on the hind legs, and they'll use their back legs to kick at you if they want to really hurt you, seeing as the hind legs are more powerful and the claws are more dull. A swipe with the front paw is more a sign of [high] annoyance than anything else. Given the right positioning though, the hind legs could possibly disembowel the cat's adversary.
However, with prey, cats don't disembowel with their claws, they disembowel with their mouths. After catching, they usually crush its neck, and it's all downhill for their dinner/new toy from there.
[As an aside, when one of my cats caught a mouse, she would eat most of it, leaving only the head and a single, specific organ each time. Sometimes it was the liver, sometimes it was the kidneys, sometimes it was the stomach. You had to watch your step in my garage at times...]
" how many of you have been burned and bought a CD/Tape/Record/etc after hearing only one track on the radio only to find out that the rest of the album is pure shit."
Hasn't happened to me, at least. But then again, I don't look to the radio to supply my tastes for me.
Being that this article came from IBM, some of thir standards flops should be mentioned. Well, at least one of them.
I give you exhibit 1: Micro Channel Architecture, a peripheral bus which was meant to replace dumb 'ol ISA with something smarter, but which ultimately lost out to PCI.
Surely you must mean Somerset County [and those immediately neighboring it]. Have you even seen the "far north" of NJ, Sussex County? Talk about the sticks - nobody there could really afford to hire childcare like you've described. Some nice scenery, though.
Don't mind me though [this isn't an attack]; I just grew up in "north Jersey" and the town I lived in had roads that barely qualified as "paved".
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting observation, as my experience is both in opposition and in accordance with yours.
The people I know who believe in homeopathy also disbelieve in global warming, but will defend their beliefs in much the same way as you described.
I suppose the saying is true: it really does take all kinds.
" Thou shalt not kill
It's in the Bible, and it means something."
I've seen people try to use this line against Christians whenever they're percieved as acting hypocritically (such as a Christian president calling forth soldiers to kill in Iraq). The defense put up in response is brilliant:
"The Bible, in the original language, doesn't say 'thou shall not kill', it says 'thou shall not murder'; there's a difference. And we're not murdering anyone."
So you think pointing out that commandment would manage to pull the argument in your favor. You're wrong - Christianity has managed to evolve a defense mechanism against it.
I believe that a planned hold is usually expected to take a certian amount of time, but the launch controllers can't be sure of that. So a hold can run for an arbitrary amount of time and thus you can't add it to the countdown.
I can't find any webpages that explain this explicitly, but looking at NASA's Countdown 101, this explanation seems to make sense.
"To immigrate to canada you must speak french, eat poutine and KD, and watch HNIC."
I thought that being a Rush fan was a requirement as well?
Your comment might actually make sense if the people who take pictures of a bridge were trying to take pictures of a top-secret span that national security depended on.
But as it stands, beliving that a bridge might somehow be protected from "terrorism" because a photographer would be prevented from (or terrorized for) taking pictures of something that is completely open to the public and which hundreds, if not thousands or *millions* of people are free to observe on a daily basis is downright absurd.
Or are you one of those people who believe that an erosion of personal freedoms is ok, just as long as you're still comfortable?
"Don't teach our kids about sexual health because (GASP) they might become sexually active! OMG STFU WTF. Hint: they're going to anyway, surely it's better for them to learn properly than from some xxx website." Not if they get their kids interested in Slashdot! It's the world's most powerful form of birth control.
Scanning backs for large format cameras have been available for years, though a lot of the digital back manufacturers have been switching to full CCD sensors lately. See www.betterlight.com
I'll start out by saying this: I'm not a professional photographer, I don't even have two years of experience in photography under my belt. But I've used the the Gimp, and have experienced its limitations. The Gimp is definitely *not* good enough for a professional photographer.
No 16-bit channel support. No adjustment layers. No practical RAW support. No calibration/color profile support. Not to mention that most high end photo printers probably don't interface with the Gimp.
Sorry, the application may be good enough for working with digicam pictures, but it is seriously lacking in real pro-level features.
Could have been worse than all that, even...
It could have been Rush.
"640K of memory ought to be enough for anybody"
"people don't care about computers anymore. I don't know why."
Easy. Back in the 80's, a single person could churn out a game or program that was as good as any commercial offering.
These days, there's no way an amateur, working as a single person, could produce anything that we hadn't already seen back in 1983.
Until there's a real revolution in computing technology [and I mean it - what we use today is just an evolution of tech from the early 80's], you won't see many people genuinely excited about programming, in the old school sense. Everything has basically "been done already", and the only real magic happening now is in huge peojects that require teams of skilled developers to make.
How interesting that this should come along today, when I *just* had a 1 month old Seagate die on me, today.
"CDS ALWAYS should have been cheaper than tapes"
Ah, this tired old argument. Yes, a blank CD costs less than a tape, but you're not really just paying the record companies for blanks then, are you. You're paying for the content on those mediums. Why should a song on a CD cost any less than the same song on a tape?
I think you're just angry because you're being told that it actually costs money to produce music, but you want it for free.
Actually, you can have all the free music you want - just start singing. Or buy and play a $5 harmonica, and have loads of extremely cheap music. It amazes me how few people actually realize that the record companies don't own "music", they just own "their music". But, then I remember that most of the freeloaders are talentless and terminally lazy, so...
Whenever life gets you down, and things seem hard or tough
When people seem stupid, obnoxious or daft - and you feel like you had quite enough...
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving, and revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned, the sun that is the source of all our power.
The Sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see, are moving at a million miles a day!
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour, of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Our Galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars,i t's 100,000 light-years side-to-side.
It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick, but out by us it's just 3000 light-years wide.
We're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point, we go round every 200 million years!
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions in this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding, in all of the directions it can whizz.
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know,t welve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely is your birth!
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, because there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Or,
4) You had that crap shoved down your throat as a child even though you hated it, and now have a personal vendetta against religion.
It's really quite simple. There's not a machine blindly just posting stories to the front page, there are actual people doing this work, and they're called "editors"; as such, if it this obvious to the readers of this website that a story is a duplicate, shouldn't it be even more obvious to the editors?
Although, it seems like for all the effort these "editors" put into their job, they could easily be replaced with a small shell script.
"By combining several services on a single box, you can eliminate the need to host extra/redundant servers"
You also eliminate any insurance you had against a Single Point Of Failure...
It's not the camera, its the lens that enables macro photography. What you really need to look for is a good macro lens. And most any digital SLR will give you great quality, since you don't seem to have a particular preference beyond "macro photos".
.co.uk website if you haven't RTFM. With each image's caption there is a small bit of text which describes the equipment used to take the shot.
However, don't expect to be taking pictures of things like the peppercorn & sea salt, or the mosquitos, or any of the ones that involved polarized light as seen on the website, those were taken with the aid of a microscope. Also, look on the
Yeah, it sure is too bad that you've convinced yourself that your tastes are much too refined for Hollywood's latest. It must be that *they* are the ones who are wrong, because they can't produce a movie that you want to like. Clearly, you know better and your next movie will reawaken great taste in the masses, right?
If you think that an actor's salary contributes to the overwhelming majority of the cost of production of a movie, you're very wrong.
I'm not even remotely involved in that business, and I know that just the *equipment* alone can probably run for a good few million, and let's not forget the cost of things like materials for costumes and props, as well at the cost of designing and building a set and the associated cost to use a space to film in. Also, add in the money that you have to pay the dozens of people who work behind the scenes, creating the costumes, designing the sets, ensuring that all of the equipment works safely and as flawlessly as possible. Stuntmen too, if you're using them. Don't forget about paying the people who write the scripts and screenplays. Also, factor in insurance and legal fees for everything.
Beyond that, you've got to pay people to do editing and post production work. Special effects cost money too, you have to pay the people who work magic with render farms, as well as for the cost of using the render farms. Finally, there's the cost involved in the promotion of a movie. Like it or not, ads for a movie are basically a fact of life, and these cost money.
But yeah, no doubt you can cut a small corner by using a no name actor over a big name actor.
I fail to see how it's important what UNIVAC did period. Great it set the standard for computers to be accepted as comercially viable machines, big deal. That is about as important as as two geeks debating Windows vs Linux which will win?
Seriously indeed. The scratches a cat's claws make are very rough and uneven, not straight lines at all; the cuts are riddled with small gashy spots. And since the cuts are rough they tend to hurt a bit more than a cut of similar depth with a much cleaner cutting edge such as a knife. The front paw claws are definitely sharper than the claws on the hind legs, and they'll use their back legs to kick at you if they want to really hurt you, seeing as the hind legs are more powerful and the claws are more dull. A swipe with the front paw is more a sign of [high] annoyance than anything else. Given the right positioning though, the hind legs could possibly disembowel the cat's adversary.
However, with prey, cats don't disembowel with their claws, they disembowel with their mouths. After catching, they usually crush its neck, and it's all downhill for their dinner/new toy from there.
[As an aside, when one of my cats caught a mouse, she would eat most of it, leaving only the head and a single, specific organ each time. Sometimes it was the liver, sometimes it was the kidneys, sometimes it was the stomach. You had to watch your step in my garage at times...]
" how many of you have been burned and bought a CD/Tape/Record/etc after hearing only one track on the radio only to find out that the rest of the album is pure shit."
Hasn't happened to me, at least. But then again, I don't look to the radio to supply my tastes for me.
Being that this article came from IBM, some of thir standards flops should be mentioned. Well, at least one of them.
I give you exhibit 1: Micro Channel Architecture, a peripheral bus which was meant to replace dumb 'ol ISA with something smarter, but which ultimately lost out to PCI.
"...north Jersey"
Surely you must mean Somerset County [and those immediately neighboring it]. Have you even seen the "far north" of NJ, Sussex County? Talk about the sticks - nobody there could really afford to hire childcare like you've described. Some nice scenery, though.
Don't mind me though [this isn't an attack]; I just grew up in "north Jersey" and the town I lived in had roads that barely qualified as "paved".