Peter Torr makes the point that Mozilla should get a Verisign Code signing Certificate.
Well they managed to raise the cash for the NYT article then they could raise the cash needed for a cert.
So let's see if I have this straight: You're working under the impression that a favorable article in the New York Times is paid for. That's not the way the newspaper industry (my industry, by the way) works.
Ads are paid for, but bylined news stories are not. The two are kept separate. Mozilla might have suggested that the Times' writer take a look at Firefox, but Mozilla not only had no control over anything written about it, but the Times' writer and/or editors could have chosen not to run the story.
I remember a few years ago they spent millions redesigning a track, only to discover the banking, while improving traction and increasing top speed, occasionally caused the drivers to 'grey out' -- that is, the same condition that affects pilots at their G limit.
It wasn't a redesign -- more like a whole new track. That was CART's first (and last) visit to Texas Motor Speedway in April 2001. Twenty-four degrees of banking turned out to be too steep for drivers whose cars were running at 235 mph.
So you would prefer the monolithic Catholic Church of Linux?
And me with no mod points for "Funny"...
But seriously folks, we already have the Catholic Church of Computing -- it's called Microsoft.
Pretty much anybody using a variant of *nix is a Protestant.
Re:Is the SLR mechanism still really useful?
on
Digital 35mm SLRs?
·
· Score: 1
But is this mechanism really needed on a digital camera with a good LCD viewfinder?
No LCD screen can approach having a true direct view of what the camera is going to see. Too much electronic translation kills that. And speaking just for myself, holding the camera 12-18" in front of my face just doesn't allow me to properly compose the picture. By looking through the viewfinder, I see what the camera sees without all the extra distractions that may be going around the subject(s) I'm trying to get in the viewfinder.
In terms of "how the final image would be exposed," as a pro photographer I can tell you this -- the information displayed at the bottom or side of a viewfinder screen is enough to let anyone (professional or amateur) know how the image will be exposed. Focus and lighting indicators are enough for anyone who's willing to sit down and read the frelling manual that came with the camera.
And to be perfectly honest, most of the people who complain to me that their digital pictures aren't as good as the ones they took with their old film camera are the ones who are trying to use their digital camera's LCD viewfinder capability -- and failing miserably.
I can't really see any merit of an optical solution if the LCD resolution and quality gets good enough.
LCD displays eat batteries for brunch. Trust me -- the battery design Canon uses for its lower-end digital SLRs won't power a continuously-operated LCD screen for more than a few minutes; a battery with that capability would be too heavy and too expensive for most consumers to consider (1). Optical viewfinders don't use battery power.
(1) The Quantum Turbo Z external flash battery would do the job, but it weighs 23 ounces (AKA 1.5 pounds or over half a kilogram), costs over $300 and generally has to be either bracketed to the camera or worn on a belt clip.
Re:spend your money in glass and "film..".
on
Digital 35mm SLRs?
·
· Score: 1
NOw, with respect to your question.
Unless you are a serious photographer, you will "waste" your money in a D60 instead of a 300D.
For what it's worth I am a serious photographer for a newspaper. I've used every digital SLR Canon's made since ending its combined effort with Kodak (the various DCS 5XX series SLR systems). I've already tried the Digital Rebel and for the consumer, this is the camera that killed film.
The 300D (Digital Rebel) has a far superior autofocus system to the D60 -- I believe it's the same one used in the EOS 10D, which is excellent.
Canon's current crop of digital SLR systems (the 10D for advanced amateurs, EOS D1 for pros who need high frame rate and/or a wide variety of ISO emulations, the D1S for high resolution photography, and now the Digital Rebel for consumers), is far superior to the company's first two efforts -- the D30 and D60. Both of those cameras are only so-so in good light and downright unreliable once you're in a situation that requires a flash. Those thinking of buying a D30 or D60 used should compare the price to the 10D -- I believe you will find that camera new beats either of its used predecessors on both price and performance.
As a side note, I once paid $3K for an EOS D30. You can now buy the EOS 1D -- the digital version of Canon's top-end EOS-1V film camera -- for the same price. I also used some of the EOS-1 based DCS 5XX systems I mentioned; except for the slow flash-sync speed of the shutter the 10D is the equal of those older models (1/250 second for the EOS-1 based cameras; 1/200 for the 10D).
And as for the film vs. digital argument... the other week I had to use my film SLR for something and couldn't figure out why it made all that racket. It finally occurred to me -- that was the film advance.
It's not for sale yet, but considering I hadn't used it in a year, I probably should get rid of it.
Email and a calendar are not the same application. Doesn't anyone see this but me??
Let's have a lean, mean app whose function is to be a calendar, and another, equally tight app for email. They should exchange data easily. That's the unix way, and it's a good one.
In other words, you want something along the lines of the Mail and iCal apps that Apple builds into Mac OS X.
What's the open-source equivalent of InDesign (or Pagemaker or QuarkXpress, for that matter)? What's Microsoft's high-end page layout software? Publisher? That's laughable.
And assuming something open-source exists, will it be able to export documents into something that a professional print shop can use?
I don't know what the answer to the question about the Linux equivalent is, but I would be surprised if the answer to the export question was something other than, "No, it can't. But home users won't need anything else!"
The second problem is data transfer. Now, the main merit of a USB key is portability. But if your data is already on a laptop, you already have portability. If you want to transfer data between your laptop and another system, why spend a lot of money on a USB key, which requires multiple steps to accomplish the transfer? It's faster and cheaper just to connect the two USB ports directly [devdepot.com].
That depends on how you define portability -- my USB key fits in my pants pocket. My laptop does not. My floppy and Zip disks do not. CDs do not.
Forty bucks for a USB flashkey that's the size of my thumb is all the portability I need.
AppleWorks... well, it just works. It's not pretty, it doesn't have all the same bells, whistles and doodads as MS Office, it's not as exciting as iTunes, iPhoto or iMovie... it just sort of does what it's supposed to do without flash or nonsense. So even though it's not worth talking about, it's probably the most-used software on all those iMacs and eMacs Apple sells.
Given that I've found 1.1 to be far more stable than Oo.O 1.0.1, I have to wonder what version you're using and what else might be wrong with your system(s).
I can't speak to the Linux version but the new version on Window$ seems to be rock-solid. The biggest problem I had with 1.0.1 was that the help system would merrily crash the program. That's been eliminated.
But then, check back after I've used it for more than three days.
Does this mean that the new series (mini-series, microseries, attempt to make money, whatever) won't be a steaming truckload of Mormon propaganda like Glen Larson's was?
Yes, I know that was insensitive. But it needed to be asked.
To be perfectly honest, Hollywood had its chance with this story and botched it -- mainly because it had to be edited so much that too much of the story had to be cut out.
And that's kind of the point, isn't it? Frank Herbert wrote an epic story, not something to hang pretty scenery on -- if that's your preference, may I recommend 2001 or something from the ever-expanding selection of Star Wars mediocrities?
The story really is the selling point, and the small screen is perfect for it. You don't get lost in the pretty pictures and can focus on what's happening to the characters.
- New moderation options: +1 Sweet, +1 Thoughtful, +1 Caring, and -1 You Don't Smile Like That To Me Anymore.
On the plus side, we also finally get the -1 Wrong option so many of us have wanted. Unfortunately, it can only be applied by female readers to male posters, and cannot be overridden, even when the male is in fact right.
And it also means we'll never see them used. I mean, female/. readers?!? I didn't know there were any.
I don't see why this kind of thing should cause revulsion. Ants are extremely useful and interesting and they are usually harmless. If there is anything disturbing about this it's that such useful critters needed to be destroyed.
Ever meet fire ants? If you had, you'd understand -- but in fire ants' case, it's more like "Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!"
Re:When will they learn?
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 1
stubear utopianly suggested:
Perhaps RMS should add a line to the GPL which requires any work created with GPL based tools must be given to the community under the same terms as source code.
If that ever happened, you can kiss the Hollywood-open source link good-bye and watch all the studios go running to either Windoze or Mac OS X.
Anything that grinds up the cash cow will be abandoned and this change to the GPL would do that in one sentence or less. Remember, in Hollywood they're in the business of making money, not movies.
Don't blame chrisd for this. Point your blame guns at Taco. In my opinion, he should've held it back until midnight EST, at least. There really was no good reason not to. Could've put spoiler warnings on the front page, too -- warning of information about major characters in the show's mythology getting killed off and "if you want it spoiled, click the link."
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
(And then there's the old punishment from rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, but that's too harsh.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well they managed to raise the cash for the NYT article then they could raise the cash needed for a cert.
So let's see if I have this straight: You're working under the impression that a favorable article in the New York Times is paid for. That's not the way the newspaper industry (my industry, by the way) works.
Ads are paid for, but bylined news stories are not. The two are kept separate. Mozilla might have suggested that the Times' writer take a look at Firefox, but Mozilla not only had no control over anything written about it, but the Times' writer and/or editors could have chosen not to run the story.
Which bring to mind one question: How'd these idiots find their first member?
And me with no mod points for "Funny" ...
But seriously folks, we already have the Catholic Church of Computing -- it's called Microsoft.
Pretty much anybody using a variant of *nix is a Protestant.
No LCD screen can approach having a true direct view of what the camera is going to see. Too much electronic translation kills that. And speaking just for myself, holding the camera 12-18" in front of my face just doesn't allow me to properly compose the picture. By looking through the viewfinder, I see what the camera sees without all the extra distractions that may be going around the subject(s) I'm trying to get in the viewfinder.
In terms of "how the final image would be exposed," as a pro photographer I can tell you this -- the information displayed at the bottom or side of a viewfinder screen is enough to let anyone (professional or amateur) know how the image will be exposed. Focus and lighting indicators are enough for anyone who's willing to sit down and read the frelling manual that came with the camera.
And to be perfectly honest, most of the people who complain to me that their digital pictures aren't as good as the ones they took with their old film camera are the ones who are trying to use their digital camera's LCD viewfinder capability -- and failing miserably.
LCD displays eat batteries for brunch. Trust me -- the battery design Canon uses for its lower-end digital SLRs won't power a continuously-operated LCD screen for more than a few minutes; a battery with that capability would be too heavy and too expensive for most consumers to consider (1). Optical viewfinders don't use battery power.
(1) The Quantum Turbo Z external flash battery would do the job, but it weighs 23 ounces (AKA 1.5 pounds or over half a kilogram), costs over $300 and generally has to be either bracketed to the camera or worn on a belt clip.
For what it's worth I am a serious photographer for a newspaper. I've used every digital SLR Canon's made since ending its combined effort with Kodak (the various DCS 5XX series SLR systems). I've already tried the Digital Rebel and for the consumer, this is the camera that killed film.
The 300D (Digital Rebel) has a far superior autofocus system to the D60 -- I believe it's the same one used in the EOS 10D, which is excellent.
Canon's current crop of digital SLR systems (the 10D for advanced amateurs, EOS D1 for pros who need high frame rate and/or a wide variety of ISO emulations, the D1S for high resolution photography, and now the Digital Rebel for consumers), is far superior to the company's first two efforts -- the D30 and D60. Both of those cameras are only so-so in good light and downright unreliable once you're in a situation that requires a flash. Those thinking of buying a D30 or D60 used should compare the price to the 10D -- I believe you will find that camera new beats either of its used predecessors on both price and performance.
As a side note, I once paid $3K for an EOS D30. You can now buy the EOS 1D -- the digital version of Canon's top-end EOS-1V film camera -- for the same price. I also used some of the EOS-1 based DCS 5XX systems I mentioned; except for the slow flash-sync speed of the shutter the 10D is the equal of those older models (1/250 second for the EOS-1 based cameras; 1/200 for the 10D).
And as for the film vs. digital argument ... the other week I had to use my film SLR for something and couldn't figure out why it made all that racket. It finally occurred to me -- that was the film advance.
It's not for sale yet, but considering I hadn't used it in a year, I probably should get rid of it.
... like I nearly did, how ticked off are you?
But it's not mouse-only -- you can also use a trackball.
What's the open-source equivalent of InDesign (or Pagemaker or QuarkXpress, for that matter)? What's Microsoft's high-end page layout software? Publisher? That's laughable.
And assuming something open-source exists, will it be able to export documents into something that a professional print shop can use?
I don't know what the answer to the question about the Linux equivalent is, but I would be surprised if the answer to the export question was something other than, "No, it can't. But home users won't need anything else!"
That depends on how you define portability -- my USB key fits in my pants pocket. My laptop does not. My floppy and Zip disks do not. CDs do not.
Forty bucks for a USB flashkey that's the size of my thumb is all the portability I need.
Basically, it's the Ford Taurus SE of software.
I can't speak to the Linux version but the new version on Window$ seems to be rock-solid. The biggest problem I had with 1.0.1 was that the help system would merrily crash the program. That's been eliminated.
But then, check back after I've used it for more than three days.
Yes, I know that was insensitive. But it needed to be asked.
This may go over well in the UK, but I'm afraid that here in the States it won't be supported by people going to work on Friday.
That depends. Will we get to see pics of her reaching down the back of her pants to dig out a wedgie in the supermarket tabloids?
OK, maybe not.
To be perfectly honest, Hollywood had its chance with this story and botched it -- mainly because it had to be edited so much that too much of the story had to be cut out.
And that's kind of the point, isn't it? Frank Herbert wrote an epic story, not something to hang pretty scenery on -- if that's your preference, may I recommend 2001 or something from the ever-expanding selection of Star Wars mediocrities?
The story really is the selling point, and the small screen is perfect for it. You don't get lost in the pretty pictures and can focus on what's happening to the characters.
And it also means we'll never see them used. I mean, female /. readers?!? I didn't know there were any.
It's the same code base but on a modern processor (with real Java added in), OpenOffice flies where StarOffice sputters along.
And my resume, drawn up with extensive formatting and inserted graphic (my picture) in Word XP, translates perfectly into OpenOffice.
I may not go back.
Ever meet fire ants? If you had, you'd understand -- but in fire ants' case, it's more like "Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!"
"Games DON'T affect kids. If PacMan did, we'd all be eating pills and listening to repeditive music..."
Let's see: Viagra, Aleve, Prozac, Paxil, Ritalin, multi-vitamins ... and have you listened to top 40 radio lately???
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
(And then there's the old punishment from rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, but that's too harsh.)
(Uh, then again, maybe not.)