I've thought about getting a 15" laptop just to fit in a field bag with my camera, but honestly I prefer the 17" screens and I'd rather just use the same laptop on short- and long-distance events.
One bag is just easier to keep up with than two. I'm not going to think "well, even though it's easier for someone to steal one of my bags, at least they'll only get $2500 worth of equipment from me instead of $5000". I'm going to keep track of my stuff and make damn sure they get none of it.
I shoot Q&As and celebrity events at film conventions. Free time occurs in spurts between movies, not at the end of the day, so leaving my laptop in my car or in a hotel room just doesn't work. And there's simply not room for me to hold two larger bags in a theater seat; one I can put behind my legs as the film starts and whip it out when the credits end.
It would hold two camera bodies and a few lenses along with a 15" laptop, but it wouldn't hold a 17" MacBook Pro. I haven't found a similar one that would hold a slightly larger laptop.
That just doesn't work for me. When I'm at conventions, I don't have ready access to a car or hotel room. Free time happens in spurts during the day, between events, and that's when I need the laptop. And I might need the camera at any time.
I have to wonder if the new contract would be even half as valuable as the old one. This depends very heavily on how the change over to a new default search provider would work.
A) If Firefox does the "right thing" and honors existing users' choice of provider during an upgrade, then none of the existing install base would switch over. With Firefox's market share not growing all that much, adoption of the new default would be limited to the relatively small amount of churn.
B) If Firefox tries to switch provider during an upgrade (for everyone, or at least everyone who uses Google), I'd suspect there would be outrage. How dare they try to force (and/or trick, depending on if it's automatic or a "confusing" pop up) a change on unsuspecting users!?! That doesn't sound so different that Microsoft's attempts to switch default browsers back in the Great War. Firefox would lose a good part of the tech crowd support they have left.
So either way, I just don't see the value of their search box as being that high any longer. So I think whether they go with Google or not they're screwed.
I found the shortest method to be starting in the center of the yard, and working out in a spiral. This is best because I have a motor-assist push mower; any time spent stopping or turning or doubling over grass slows me down, while forward motion is best. Hence, spiral out.
When I reach the boundaries of my yard I switch patterns and knock out the remaining corners.
I would depress the value of testimony given by anyone who claimed some physical trait was "100%". But that said, all things are a matter of odds.
Assuming your fingerprints do exactly match those of someone else (and not just at 12 points, but everywhere), what are the odds that you live at the same time in history and at the same place as that person, and that you would also be in the area with no credible alibi at the same time the other person was committing a crime? The result need not be 100% - just "beyond reasonable doubt" - so even though I wouldn't believe the 100% argument, I could still conceivably convict someone based on such evidence.
Right. Don't consider race at all. End sarcasm. It's okay to consider someone's education, though, right? They have to have the right degree for the job. Of course, someone whose grandparents weren't allowed to flee to the suburbs and whose parents therefore had to attend the shitty urban schools might not have a good educational foundation, making it much less likely that they'll get into college at all, much less one with a solid degree program in the appropriate field for their dream job.
So... in order to not consider race on a job application, do you agree that we must consider race in college admission? Or do we need to go a step further down, and consider race in grade school funding? Where do you fix this?
Has Google fixed the policy to ban an account Google-wide if the G+ account is closed? I've had an invite but haven't joined as I don't want my other Google products (blog, photo depot) to be at risk if some jerk(s) or computer bug decides my real name isn't real enough.
This seemed to make a big buzz a week or so back, then just die off, so I'm not sure if they fixed it or if, like most other social networking stuff, everyone just decided to live with the nasty policies.
It's no different than watching House Hunters International or Top Gear some similar show and imaging what you would do with the money. Obviously your chance of having that money is barely more than 0% if you aren't either already rich or both creative and lucky - basically the chance that the Nigerian prince who just contacted you is legitimate. That kind of tempers the fun of imagination. On the other hand, if you buy just one lottery ticket, your chance of getting the money goes up tremendously. It's still awfully, tremendously low, but you have a concrete thing in your hand that could be your literal "ticket to your dreams."
He said Some New Revenue. Some revenue to fill in gaps while mid- and long-term plans are used to trim the growth of other large expenses, instead of just slashing and burning them now in ways that will certainly increase costs later. Like the revenue from closing tax loopholes for owners of private jets and certain oil and gas subsidies.
But will it play the HTC3.4 video codec? What about the the MP3.4 audio with embedded cued lyrics?
Neither of those exist yet, but the odds are good them or something similar to them will be invented in the 10+ years that you'll probably own your Samsung TV.
If you bought the best TV you could find and it happened to have this extra feature - great! You made a wise choice. But other people should be cautious about trying to mix computer functions into their television. By the best television you can find, and then you can complement it with a cheap ($99) and replaceable companion device to handle the decoding (or just use a full-featured computer). That way you can replace the decoding device more often than the television.
I assume most people don't throw away or sell their working HD television every 3-5 years to replace it with a model with better gizmo integration. And I assert that the television providers won't make it easy to upgrade the firmware with new codecs - and certainly won't sell cheap kits to add new hardware decoding.
Of the places I visit now, CNN's comments are the biggest home of that putrid stench. I'm frankly surprised - and I guess in a little way impressed at how they stick to "free speech" - that someone at the company doesn't notice this and take steps to curtail comments.
No, but maybe they can fix the system so it doesn't happen again. And putting some of the people involved in jail might deter them and others from trying.
So inherent flaws in voting systems still in use today in some parts of the country don't bother you, just because this one time you think the election results were accurate?
My points are certainly not moot since if the company had not been able to bring that Indian in, they would have outsourced to Bangalore
If they could have outsourced to Bangalore, they would have done so instead of bringing the employee here. Thus, they wanted the employee here. I think it's more likely that they would have hired someone eligible to work here had they not been able to hire an H1-B.
It all seemed so superficial. Nothing ever presented much of a challenge to the heroes; Captain America is never nicked by a bullet, none of his team is ever hit by the blue rays, etc. The one meaningful death was a godawful slip and fall into a huge ravine, ala Snow White. With lasers that disintegrate an entire human upon any impact, you'd think at least some of them would have picked up a glancing shot. But no, the only thing any of the bad guys can manage to hit is the shield, and that metal is somehow immune both to bullets and disintegration rays.
(Bullets they explain away when the shield is introduced, but the disintegration rays are just assumed. The movie would have been much shorter, though better, if the first one of those that hit the shield had disintegrated it and its bearer, and Steve Rogers' friend would have taken on the role as Captain America with more humility and better equipment. Or swap it around so the friend is the first Captain America and Steve has to follow in his footsteps.)
As it is, it seemed very much to be a superhero product of the 1940s: unfortunately simple and out of its time.
Slashdot Mirror
I've thought about getting a 15" laptop just to fit in a field bag with my camera, but honestly I prefer the 17" screens and I'd rather just use the same laptop on short- and long-distance events.
One bag is just easier to keep up with than two. I'm not going to think "well, even though it's easier for someone to steal one of my bags, at least they'll only get $2500 worth of equipment from me instead of $5000". I'm going to keep track of my stuff and make damn sure they get none of it.
I shoot Q&As and celebrity events at film conventions. Free time occurs in spurts between movies, not at the end of the day, so leaving my laptop in my car or in a hotel room just doesn't work. And there's simply not room for me to hold two larger bags in a theater seat; one I can put behind my legs as the film starts and whip it out when the credits end.
I really liked this bag when I saw it at the SXSW trade show this year:
http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-NG-2475-Explorer/dp/B000FJ2OTG
It would hold two camera bodies and a few lenses along with a 15" laptop, but it wouldn't hold a 17" MacBook Pro. I haven't found a similar one that would hold a slightly larger laptop.
That just doesn't work for me. When I'm at conventions, I don't have ready access to a car or hotel room. Free time happens in spurts during the day, between events, and that's when I need the laptop. And I might need the camera at any time.
I really liked this bag when I saw it at the SXSW trade show this year:
http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-NG-2475-Explorer/dp/B000FJ2OTG
It would hold two camera bodies and a few lenses along with a 15" laptop, but it wouldn't hold a 17" MacBook Pro.
Does anyone know of a similar-looking bag that could hold a slightly larger laptop?
I really liked this bag when I saw it at the SXSW trade show this year:
http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-NG-2475-Explorer/dp/B000FJ2OTG
It would hold two camera bodies and a few lenses along with a 15" laptop, but it wouldn't hold a 17" MacBook Pro.
Does anyone know of a similar-looking bag that could hold a slightly larger laptop?
I have to wonder if the new contract would be even half as valuable as the old one. This depends very heavily on how the change over to a new default search provider would work.
A) If Firefox does the "right thing" and honors existing users' choice of provider during an upgrade, then none of the existing install base would switch over. With Firefox's market share not growing all that much, adoption of the new default would be limited to the relatively small amount of churn.
B) If Firefox tries to switch provider during an upgrade (for everyone, or at least everyone who uses Google), I'd suspect there would be outrage. How dare they try to force (and/or trick, depending on if it's automatic or a "confusing" pop up) a change on unsuspecting users!?! That doesn't sound so different that Microsoft's attempts to switch default browsers back in the Great War. Firefox would lose a good part of the tech crowd support they have left.
So either way, I just don't see the value of their search box as being that high any longer. So I think whether they go with Google or not they're screwed.
Clearly the rioters forgot to wear their Guy Fawkes masks.
It was in the Time article I read 15 minutes ago.
I figured that he made a deal with John Deere to get some sort of discount in exchange for having their product mentions at the top of Slashdot.
I found the shortest method to be starting in the center of the yard, and working out in a spiral. This is best because I have a motor-assist push mower; any time spent stopping or turning or doubling over grass slows me down, while forward motion is best. Hence, spiral out.
When I reach the boundaries of my yard I switch patterns and knock out the remaining corners.
Thanks to everyone who replied!
I would depress the value of testimony given by anyone who claimed some physical trait was "100%". But that said, all things are a matter of odds.
Assuming your fingerprints do exactly match those of someone else (and not just at 12 points, but everywhere), what are the odds that you live at the same time in history and at the same place as that person, and that you would also be in the area with no credible alibi at the same time the other person was committing a crime? The result need not be 100% - just "beyond reasonable doubt" - so even though I wouldn't believe the 100% argument, I could still conceivably convict someone based on such evidence.
Right. Don't consider race at all. End sarcasm. It's okay to consider someone's education, though, right? They have to have the right degree for the job. Of course, someone whose grandparents weren't allowed to flee to the suburbs and whose parents therefore had to attend the shitty urban schools might not have a good educational foundation, making it much less likely that they'll get into college at all, much less one with a solid degree program in the appropriate field for their dream job.
So... in order to not consider race on a job application, do you agree that we must consider race in college admission? Or do we need to go a step further down, and consider race in grade school funding? Where do you fix this?
Has Google fixed the policy to ban an account Google-wide if the G+ account is closed? I've had an invite but haven't joined as I don't want my other Google products (blog, photo depot) to be at risk if some jerk(s) or computer bug decides my real name isn't real enough.
This seemed to make a big buzz a week or so back, then just die off, so I'm not sure if they fixed it or if, like most other social networking stuff, everyone just decided to live with the nasty policies.
For a car analogy, see http://books.google.com/patents/about?id=p5BXAAAAEBAJ and the half dozen or so patents that reference it.
McDonalds doesn't serve you complimentary alcoholic beverages while paying you $8/hour.
It's no different than watching House Hunters International or Top Gear some similar show and imaging what you would do with the money. Obviously your chance of having that money is barely more than 0% if you aren't either already rich or both creative and lucky - basically the chance that the Nigerian prince who just contacted you is legitimate. That kind of tempers the fun of imagination. On the other hand, if you buy just one lottery ticket, your chance of getting the money goes up tremendously. It's still awfully, tremendously low, but you have a concrete thing in your hand that could be your literal "ticket to your dreams."
Once every few years it's kind of fun.
I think if you put this coin in a Pepsi machine, a Harrier jet would pop out.
He said Some New Revenue. Some revenue to fill in gaps while mid- and long-term plans are used to trim the growth of other large expenses, instead of just slashing and burning them now in ways that will certainly increase costs later. Like the revenue from closing tax loopholes for owners of private jets and certain oil and gas subsidies.
Period and end of debate.
But will it play the HTC3.4 video codec? What about the the MP3.4 audio with embedded cued lyrics?
Neither of those exist yet, but the odds are good them or something similar to them will be invented in the 10+ years that you'll probably own your Samsung TV.
If you bought the best TV you could find and it happened to have this extra feature - great! You made a wise choice. But other people should be cautious about trying to mix computer functions into their television. By the best television you can find, and then you can complement it with a cheap ($99) and replaceable companion device to handle the decoding (or just use a full-featured computer). That way you can replace the decoding device more often than the television.
I assume most people don't throw away or sell their working HD television every 3-5 years to replace it with a model with better gizmo integration. And I assert that the television providers won't make it easy to upgrade the firmware with new codecs - and certainly won't sell cheap kits to add new hardware decoding.
Of the places I visit now, CNN's comments are the biggest home of that putrid stench. I'm frankly surprised - and I guess in a little way impressed at how they stick to "free speech" - that someone at the company doesn't notice this and take steps to curtail comments.
No, but maybe they can fix the system so it doesn't happen again. And putting some of the people involved in jail might deter them and others from trying.
So inherent flaws in voting systems still in use today in some parts of the country don't bother you, just because this one time you think the election results were accurate?
My points are certainly not moot since if the company had not been able to bring that Indian in, they would have outsourced to Bangalore
If they could have outsourced to Bangalore, they would have done so instead of bringing the employee here. Thus, they wanted the employee here. I think it's more likely that they would have hired someone eligible to work here had they not been able to hire an H1-B.
For some reason this reminds me of an XKCD. Substitute "plans for NASA" for "competing standards":
http://xkcd.com/927/
It all seemed so superficial. Nothing ever presented much of a challenge to the heroes; Captain America is never nicked by a bullet, none of his team is ever hit by the blue rays, etc. The one meaningful death was a godawful slip and fall into a huge ravine, ala Snow White. With lasers that disintegrate an entire human upon any impact, you'd think at least some of them would have picked up a glancing shot. But no, the only thing any of the bad guys can manage to hit is the shield, and that metal is somehow immune both to bullets and disintegration rays.
(Bullets they explain away when the shield is introduced, but the disintegration rays are just assumed. The movie would have been much shorter, though better, if the first one of those that hit the shield had disintegrated it and its bearer, and Steve Rogers' friend would have taken on the role as Captain America with more humility and better equipment. Or swap it around so the friend is the first Captain America and Steve has to follow in his footsteps.)
As it is, it seemed very much to be a superhero product of the 1940s: unfortunately simple and out of its time.