Sorry, the Berkeley FFS and LFS too support block suballocation. Not sure why I didn't put them down first time through; maybe because some other people mentioned that it did it was on my mind.
Sounds like a good plan, except that for reasons unkown to rational minds, governments are banning incadescent light bulbs.
Yeah, this I don't think is a good idea for a number of reasons. (And I'm not exactly a small gov't kind of person when it comes to environmental regulations.)
According to the Canadian minister for Pretending To Care About The Environement, that's gonna reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All my electricity comes from renewable energy (hydro), so his reasoning is pure, distilled bullshit, but he's gonna ban 'em!
Is your power company connected to the grid most of North America is on? If so, then reducing your power would allow your company to sell more electricity outside of your immediate area, possibly reducing the amount of power elsewhere generates.
Some have horrible colors and a relatively long (.5 to 1 second) warm up time
To be fair, some (like the one in my bathroom) have a 1/2 turn on time but then a very long (~1 minute) warm up time. It comes on bright enough (maybe like a 50W incandescent), but after being on for close to a minute it suddenly ramps over a few seconds up to probably 150% of its previous brightness, then stays there.
It's a little weird, but it's not too bad.
(These are made by GE, so they aren't Billy Bob's Light Warehouse brand. I'm sure there are better ones, but there are also a lot of worse ones.)
In contrast, the one I have in my living room lamp (Sylvania) is instant on.
The other thing I've done is in my kitchen and bedroom I have fixtures that have two bulbs. I have 1 CFL and 1 incandescent in each.
that's pretty irrelevant when you're comparing operating system. MS Office is not part of windows, it's a serveral hundred dollar add-on.
I personally think it's at least as relevant, and actually moreso, than the OP saying they like Linux because it comes with Ubuntu. Getting OO for Windows is trivial to do, so not having it by default is at worst only a minor complaint; not being able to run MS Office is a substantially larger complaint.
Windows Shadow Copy will allow you to retrieve earlier versions of a particular file without rolling back the entire partition. Will LVM give you that?
Ubuntu wins in the Office category because it comes with OO.org, but you'd have to add it to Vista after install.
I vote Windows wins because you CAN install MS Office very easily without trying to figure out how the heck to get Wine working.
OO still falls behind MS Office in a few important respects IMO, though it is catching up fast. (Though I haven't tried MS Office 2007 either, so I can't comment on the merits/dismerits of its new UI.)
It's a matter of individual preferences, but if I'd have to keep just one of my four lenses (two primes, two zooms) to use with my Canon 20D DSLR, I'd keep the 85mm f/1.2L. Sure, it has a quite slow focusing speed and I'll have to either zoom with my feet or change lenses to get the composition I want, but on the other side, the low-light performance is just insane and I generally like playing with narrow depth of field even when there is plenty of light.
Again, I meant "True, but if you're using prime lenses, are you really even going to think about using a camera phone", not "digital camera"; there are plenty of people who will get advantages out of prime lenses on a dSLR.
And they're not the people who would go "oh, hey, the camera phone quality is getting pretty decent... I'll drop my SLR!";-)
Considering that sensors have a higher effective pixel density than film scanned at 2500 dpi, why not? The signal to noise (grain) ratio from a low ISO DSLR exposure is much higher than even the best color or black and white films.
Oh crap, I meant to say "camera phone".
"True, but if you're using prime lenses, are you really even going to think about using a camera phone?"
Didn't mean to come off as a film snob.;-)
(And actually even that isn't quite what I meant... I meant "If you're the kind of person who would use prime lenses, are you really even going to think about getting a camera phone instead of the dSLR" in response to the summary asking if camera phones are going to supplant cameras.)
I've never met a dSLR that does digital zoom, do such things exist?
Oh, I have no clue. I hope not.;-)
Photoshop does though, so you can fake it after the fact.
I use primes on my dSLR all the time, should i not?
Eh, depends on what you're doing. Supposedly, they give better images than zoom lenses set to the same focal length, and they definitely give you wider apertures. They also mean that you have to change lenses to zoom, and you have to carry around more lenses to cover the same ranges. I can cover from 28mm to 300mm (35mm equivalent 45 to 480 mm) with two lenses, which is awfully convenient, and is also cheaper than getting primes over that range that give me less flexibility anyway. And if anything, I'm underimpressed by the quality of my admittedly dirt cheap Canon 50/1.8; I think the zoom lens that lives on my camera takes better pictures, and it's only if I need the lens to be really fast that I'll use the 50mm prime.
So in short, zoom lenses are the right think for the way I use my camera, but I have little idea what you should be using.
Of course if you're using primes that zoom range disappears
True, but if you're using prime lenses, are you really even going to think about using a digital camera?
Not to mention that I would argue that you could count some digital zooming after the fact. With a 10 MP sensor vs. a 5 MP sensor, you could crop away half the area of your image and still have the quality provided by the 5 MP sensor, giving you a 1.4x zoom without even changing your focal length. If you're looking at a 600 px wide shot... I think this is a reasonable argument, as you won't be able to tell the resolution was lost.
The example I like to use, though apparently they revisited this one (I "can't" afford cable unfortunately), is they were trying to figure out whether the aerodynamic drag of running your car with your windows down was greater than the engine drag of running the A/C.
But to test this, they used SUVs (if you are concerned about fuel efficiency, are you driving one?) going at about 40 mph (air drag I think increases by the square of the speed at those speeds, so highway speeds could significantly change the results), and, most stupidly, running the A/C cold enough that Jamie was commenting that he was glad that he was wearing a fairly heavy jacket and (IIRC) a scarf!
The main reason why it is much harder to produce a good looking font on a screen is due to the low dpi factor of screens. In print, you can get a much higher dpi and as such some fonts like Times look great. But on the screen they look like crap because the screen only has so much resolution. You can play a few tricks with current lcd technology and anti-aliasing but compare it to anything in print and there's no comparison.
I also put the fact that the monitor is a pretty bright light source, instead of the reflected light of paper, as a big reason. (Actually, I think this is the bigger reason personally. I would say (1) light, (2) resolution, (3) text quality at a distant third. Though I do notice things like letter spacing and such very acutely when looking at the printed page, which is why I think LaTeX produces much better output than any word processor, so maybe if you improve (1) and (2) then I would start to notice (3).)
Okay, we want to quote the Constitution, let's go to Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of Congress:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Now, which of those allow it to pass the real ID act?
Of course, not that article 8 has stopped them from outlawing partial birth abortions, simple possession of drugs, coercing states into raising the drinking age, etc...
PKI is a pretty simple concept at the high level, and most folks would just need to mentally replace their SSN/PIN/Whatever with their private key.
Really? No they wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to remember, without WAY more effort than people would be willing to put into it, your new public key. (I estimate you would need close 150 to 200 base-36 characters (letters+numbers) to encode a reasonably strong key.) You also wouldn't be able to DO anything with it without a computer.
This works okay if you're at home and doing something over the Internet or something like that, but what if you're not? Now you have to carry around a little device that will digitally sign messages for you. Alternatively, you could write down your key and then enter it into other computers, but now you're not secure.
Just yesterday I got a dept. store credit card (15% off; saved me about $25, so it was worth it). It asked me for my SSN. This would have been totally impractical if we change to a PKI architecture.
So, your education problem not only consists of how to make the change, but WHY making the change brings about a benefit that is greater than the hassle that it entails.
Wow, that's bad. Both at my undergrad and my graduate institution, you had the option of putting your debit card on the same card, and MAYBE a credit card, but it was always opt-in.
That's not the appropriate source to site; in fact, it seems to at least somewhat confirm what I was saying:
Philips and many other companies have warned them that including the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on such non-conforming discs may constitute trademark infringement; either in anticipation or in response, the long-familiar logo is no longer to be seen on recent copy-protected CDs, as well as stickers and warnings that the CD is not standard and may not play in all CD players. [Emphasis mine]
There are far more CD standards than just the red book; to argue what I'm saying you would have to argue that copy-protected CDs go against ALL of these standards, including ones like the Yellow Book CD-ROMs.
I guess this could be the case if, e.g., the Yellow Book stipulates a format of data that these don't follow, but you certainly haven't done anything to show that.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, the Berkeley FFS and LFS too support block suballocation. Not sure why I didn't put them down first time through; maybe because some other people mentioned that it did it was on my mind.
Ask Wikipedia
It's in the table "Allocation and layout policies". Look at both tail packing and block suballocation.
There are a few others that do, but not many. (JFS, QFS, NWFS, and VMFS are marked yes; NTFS and ZFS are marked partial.)
Sounds like a good plan, except that for reasons unkown to rational minds, governments are banning incadescent light bulbs.
Yeah, this I don't think is a good idea for a number of reasons. (And I'm not exactly a small gov't kind of person when it comes to environmental regulations.)
According to the Canadian minister for Pretending To Care About The Environement, that's gonna reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
All my electricity comes from renewable energy (hydro), so his reasoning is pure, distilled bullshit, but he's gonna ban 'em!
Is your power company connected to the grid most of North America is on? If so, then reducing your power would allow your company to sell more electricity outside of your immediate area, possibly reducing the amount of power elsewhere generates.
Some have horrible colors and a relatively long (.5 to 1 second) warm up time
To be fair, some (like the one in my bathroom) have a 1/2 turn on time but then a very long (~1 minute) warm up time. It comes on bright enough (maybe like a 50W incandescent), but after being on for close to a minute it suddenly ramps over a few seconds up to probably 150% of its previous brightness, then stays there.
It's a little weird, but it's not too bad.
(These are made by GE, so they aren't Billy Bob's Light Warehouse brand. I'm sure there are better ones, but there are also a lot of worse ones.)
In contrast, the one I have in my living room lamp (Sylvania) is instant on.
The other thing I've done is in my kitchen and bedroom I have fixtures that have two bulbs. I have 1 CFL and 1 incandescent in each.
that's pretty irrelevant when you're comparing operating system. MS Office is not part of windows, it's a serveral hundred dollar add-on.
I personally think it's at least as relevant, and actually moreso, than the OP saying they like Linux because it comes with Ubuntu. Getting OO for Windows is trivial to do, so not having it by default is at worst only a minor complaint; not being able to run MS Office is a substantially larger complaint.
Windows Shadow Copy will allow you to retrieve earlier versions of a particular file without rolling back the entire partition. Will LVM give you that?
Wait, why is Cygwin Bash not an "OS-Based solution" while Linux Bash is an "OS-Based solution"?
And why is PowerShell not?
Ubuntu wins in the Office category because it comes with OO.org, but you'd have to add it to Vista after install.
I vote Windows wins because you CAN install MS Office very easily without trying to figure out how the heck to get Wine working.
OO still falls behind MS Office in a few important respects IMO, though it is catching up fast. (Though I haven't tried MS Office 2007 either, so I can't comment on the merits/dismerits of its new UI.)
It's a matter of individual preferences, but if I'd have to keep just one of my four lenses (two primes, two zooms) to use with my Canon 20D DSLR, I'd keep the 85mm f/1.2L. Sure, it has a quite slow focusing speed and I'll have to either zoom with my feet or change lenses to get the composition I want, but on the other side, the low-light performance is just insane and I generally like playing with narrow depth of field even when there is plenty of light.
;-)
Again, I meant "True, but if you're using prime lenses, are you really even going to think about using a camera phone", not "digital camera"; there are plenty of people who will get advantages out of prime lenses on a dSLR.
And they're not the people who would go "oh, hey, the camera phone quality is getting pretty decent... I'll drop my SLR!"
Didn't mean to come off as a know-it-all. I just enjoy talking about photography and how to accomplish it
Oh no, that's fine.
I'll have to check out the Places of Power you suggest in the other post. Didn't realize that digital sensors were on par with B&W film yet.
Actually, my other reply notwithstanding, doesn't film (at least B&W) still win out in dynamic range?
Considering that sensors have a higher effective pixel density than film scanned at 2500 dpi, why not? The signal to noise (grain) ratio from a low ISO DSLR exposure is much higher than even the best color or black and white films.
;-)
Oh crap, I meant to say "camera phone".
"True, but if you're using prime lenses, are you really even going to think about using a camera phone?"
Didn't mean to come off as a film snob.
(And actually even that isn't quite what I meant... I meant "If you're the kind of person who would use prime lenses, are you really even going to think about getting a camera phone instead of the dSLR" in response to the summary asking if camera phones are going to supplant cameras.)
I've never met a dSLR that does digital zoom, do such things exist?
;-)
Oh, I have no clue. I hope not.
Photoshop does though, so you can fake it after the fact.
I use primes on my dSLR all the time, should i not?
Eh, depends on what you're doing. Supposedly, they give better images than zoom lenses set to the same focal length, and they definitely give you wider apertures. They also mean that you have to change lenses to zoom, and you have to carry around more lenses to cover the same ranges. I can cover from 28mm to 300mm (35mm equivalent 45 to 480 mm) with two lenses, which is awfully convenient, and is also cheaper than getting primes over that range that give me less flexibility anyway. And if anything, I'm underimpressed by the quality of my admittedly dirt cheap Canon 50/1.8; I think the zoom lens that lives on my camera takes better pictures, and it's only if I need the lens to be really fast that I'll use the 50mm prime.
So in short, zoom lenses are the right think for the way I use my camera, but I have little idea what you should be using.
Of course if you're using primes that zoom range disappears
True, but if you're using prime lenses, are you really even going to think about using a digital camera?
Not to mention that I would argue that you could count some digital zooming after the fact. With a 10 MP sensor vs. a 5 MP sensor, you could crop away half the area of your image and still have the quality provided by the 5 MP sensor, giving you a 1.4x zoom without even changing your focal length. If you're looking at a 600 px wide shot... I think this is a reasonable argument, as you won't be able to tell the resolution was lost.
Do camera phones even give you zoom at all?
I had that in my list of benefits, but decided to file that under "manual control" ;-)
But yeah, that is perhaps the biggest benefit of manual control.
My own experience is that "enough light" is absent more than it's present.
Even if it is, the SLR gives you manual control and a far wider zoom range.
Only on /. would "Chuck Norris can create a thicker oxide layer with a well-placed roundhouse kick" get modded "insightful".
Actually I'm sure that's not true.
The example I like to use, though apparently they revisited this one (I "can't" afford cable unfortunately), is they were trying to figure out whether the aerodynamic drag of running your car with your windows down was greater than the engine drag of running the A/C.
But to test this, they used SUVs (if you are concerned about fuel efficiency, are you driving one?) going at about 40 mph (air drag I think increases by the square of the speed at those speeds, so highway speeds could significantly change the results), and, most stupidly, running the A/C cold enough that Jamie was commenting that he was glad that he was wearing a fairly heavy jacket and (IIRC) a scarf!
Yeah, real useful result that test was.
Who would know better about sco^hum and villainy?
Han Solo would.
'course, he's probably off on Corellia or something.
The main reason why it is much harder to produce a good looking font on a screen is due to the low dpi factor of screens. In print, you can get a much higher dpi and as such some fonts like Times look great. But on the screen they look like crap because the screen only has so much resolution. You can play a few tricks with current lcd technology and anti-aliasing but compare it to anything in print and there's no comparison.
I also put the fact that the monitor is a pretty bright light source, instead of the reflected light of paper, as a big reason. (Actually, I think this is the bigger reason personally. I would say (1) light, (2) resolution, (3) text quality at a distant third. Though I do notice things like letter spacing and such very acutely when looking at the printed page, which is why I think LaTeX produces much better output than any word processor, so maybe if you improve (1) and (2) then I would start to notice (3).)
Which foregoing power or other power vested by the Constitution is that law necessary and proper for?
Now, which of those allow it to pass the real ID act?
Of course, not that article 8 has stopped them from outlawing partial birth abortions, simple possession of drugs, coercing states into raising the drinking age, etc...
PKI is a pretty simple concept at the high level, and most folks would just need to mentally replace their SSN/PIN/Whatever with their private key.
Really? No they wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to remember, without WAY more effort than people would be willing to put into it, your new public key. (I estimate you would need close 150 to 200 base-36 characters (letters+numbers) to encode a reasonably strong key.) You also wouldn't be able to DO anything with it without a computer.
This works okay if you're at home and doing something over the Internet or something like that, but what if you're not? Now you have to carry around a little device that will digitally sign messages for you. Alternatively, you could write down your key and then enter it into other computers, but now you're not secure.
Just yesterday I got a dept. store credit card (15% off; saved me about $25, so it was worth it). It asked me for my SSN. This would have been totally impractical if we change to a PKI architecture.
So, your education problem not only consists of how to make the change, but WHY making the change brings about a benefit that is greater than the hassle that it entails.
Wow, that's bad. Both at my undergrad and my graduate institution, you had the option of putting your debit card on the same card, and MAYBE a credit card, but it was always opt-in.
That's not the appropriate source to site; in fact, it seems to at least somewhat confirm what I was saying:
There are far more CD standards than just the red book; to argue what I'm saying you would have to argue that copy-protected CDs go against ALL of these standards, including ones like the Yellow Book CD-ROMs.
I guess this could be the case if, e.g., the Yellow Book stipulates a format of data that these don't follow, but you certainly haven't done anything to show that.