if you can have each OS copy on a separate monitor (most cards today handle 2 monitors at least by standard), it's a really really good thing to have.
Putting several terminals on a computer is a fine idea which has been done since long before the invention of the PC. But this is different; they are actually splitting a single screen in two. What a horrendous setup that is. And since the price of a display is superlinear in relation to its size, it wouldn't even be cheaper!
Personally I'm quite surprised that Aero noticeably drains the battery. I haven't used it, but it's just animations for things like window resizing, isn't it? A half-second of animation now and then.
This also makes me wonder, does OSX have a "no-animation" option to maximize battery life? How about Gnome and KDE?
True, Nintendo has been very successful focusing on gameplay instead of raw power. But I still think Sony's approach (FLOPS=fun) may have been successful, if only they had delivered! Instead, they put a revolutionary CPU and storage medium stuck behind a weak video card. On a games machine, that is a colossal mistake. PS3 games don't look any better than XBox 360 games. If you want to charge more, you have to deliver the goods.
But seriously, what guards? This is just about IT security, right? So there is nothing particularly at stake, no more so than any other e-commerce site on the web, or bricks-and-mortar store with a merchant CC account. Or do I misunderstand?
But the inability to change perspective has nothing to do with 3d in particular. Current 2d movies don't let you roam around freely, either. It's the director who composes the shots.
I've seen studies claiming that cellphone users are as bad as drunk drivers. How could that be? There should have been a massive increase (or any increase) in traffic fatalities, yet there was not. Sure, there are counter trends such as airbags, but the claim that a huge percentage of people are effectively drunk driving, gives the strong impression there should be mayhem out there. Drivers do love to complain about each other, but again, look at the data I linked. I just don't see it.
It would be nice if this could be used with bluetooth as a wireless gyroscopic mouse for presentations. Maybe throw in a laser pointer as well. Given that these cellphones already have all the hardware to do that, and Windows already has the software to handle bluetooth mice (doesn't it?), it would beat having to walk over to the laptop for every slide, or say 'slide' to cue an assistant, or use a different unfamiliar remote at each site.
Come to think of it, it would be nice even without the gyroscopes, just to be able to use the up/down buttons to advance slides, and maybe the rocker switch to move the mouse.
I don't think the (rather limited) fair use exemptions are the right answer in this case. Instead, the entire contents of the debate should be public domain. There are any number of universities that would be happy to hold a presidential debate without these restrictions, and I'm sure the press would still cover these debates.
It's no more free than having police, roads, or congress.
You're right, but paying for something doesn't necessarily make you poorer. If it's a good investment, you get back more than you put in. India isn't doing this because they think websurfing is more important than clean water, they're doing it because computers are a big and growing part of their economy. This is a bold, competitive investment.
Look at it this way, if Clinton's impeachment was justified, then Bush certainly should have been impeached the first time he got somebody getting killed or wasted a billion dollars - and both of those things have now happened thousands of times over.
Bush has one strong defense though; all his cards were out on the table in 04, yet he still won the election. The American people have to take responsibility for that.
I don't think that level of reliability is required. People are happy enough to think of the POTS system as "reliable," even though there is only one little wire running up to your house, with no failover.
There will always be tension beetween efficiency and reserve capacity. We don't want to subsidize agriculture, but we don't want to go hungry every time crop yeilds dip below 98% of expectations, either.
it becomes almost the same as any other encyclopedia available minus the cost and the fact that it doesn't carry the same reputation.
I think reputation is specifically addressed by this project - the reason it's a relatively small collection of articles is because the standard for quality will be higher.
What? You wanted the full breadth (millions of articles) up-to-the-minute and all hand-verified by subject matter experts? Good luck, nobody has ever managed such a thing. I think Wikipedia, as it is, comes closer than anything else.
The white balance is all over the map. The N95 shot looks good, but only because of the subject matter. The particular objects happen to look better with a blue cast. The N95 white balance is actually way, way off. If you look at the image with a color meter, you can see that the white areas are actually very purple.
Did you actually try this? I just did, with the color picker in gimp and a sample radius of 5. Here are the results for samples from: 1) over the monster's head, 2) on the ping-pong ball, 3) the M&M's foot. After each, I put the distance in color space from the mean of the color components (gray) to the specific color:
Can you look at those numbers and still argue both cameras are equally wrong? It isn't even close! The D400's error is many times that of the n95 in this particular image.
There's no question an SLR can capture motion better and reduce depth of field much more than a cellphone cam. But I don't think there's any question that most people want white things to look white when they shoot under tungsten lighting, and in this particular image, those other subtleties are hard to notice compared to the strong brown cast on Canon image.
Sure, it would be a mistake to draw general conclusions like "dSLR's have bad auto white balance" from one image from one model.
I'm just surprised anybody can look down that page of photos with their own eyes and not admit that, in this particular case, the best looking image is from a cell phone.
Just look at the "medium light" images, which looks best? Which would you rather hang on your wall? The one from the N95. Vibrancy has nothing to do with it. Compared to the real camera images, the n95 image has better white balance, so it's the better image. And yes, you can tell without seeing the original scene. That ping-pong ball should be white.
A person should not be buying a dSLR if they aren't going to take the time to learn how to use it. They should just be buying a point and shoot camera.
Then again, there's no reason a dSLR should not be a very good point-and-shoot camera in auto mode.
The only thing that this thing compares is the quality of scaled-down pictures.
In this case the white balance on the dDSLR is wrong, and scaling down has nothing to do with that. It would be one thing if you simply couldn't tell the difference in scaled-down images; what makes it funny is that the cell cam image looks better, hands down.
My own experience is that "enough light" is absent more than it's present.
Granted. Whether due to dim lighting, fast action, camera shake, or long focal length, or (for you hockey fans) all of the above, extra light-gathering capability is very often important.
Still, the medium light photos were taken in indoor lighting, and that n95 shot looks good. Its only advantage over the real camera images is better white balance, but then again proper white balance is pretty darn important. (And, yes, you could manually adjust the dSLR's white balance either before or after the shot (if it were taken in RAW), and, no, that doesn't make bad auto white balance OK).
What tools did you try? TextMaker is excellent, it really makes the included "Pocket Word" look laughably bad. It's a wonder MS hasn't simply bought TextMaker yet.
That said, I still don't use it to edit documents much because there isn't enough screen real estate. So I agree with that half of your argument. But if by "tool" you mean software, I'd say there is a good one available.
I doubt Microsoft will EOL XP so long as enough paying customers are using it. What would Microsoft gain by forcing XP users onto Vista? Less than it would cost them in customer good will. People still pay their site licence on XP, Microsoft continues to profit... so who cares?
Speaking of which, did you know in the 1970s the US was actively assisting Iran in developing nuclear power, including bringing their nuclear scientists over to train at MIT? Those scientists now form the backbone of Iran's program. Given the stagnation of nuclear power science and technology since then (especially in the US), that knowledge is still very pertinent.
None of which is to say I'd like Iran to go nuclear, nor do I believe their claim of only being interested in power generation (after watching what happened to their neighbor, there's simply no way Iran could not want that protection).
I agree with you on the importance of this article but... bzip2 ? C'mon.
Well, now I know.
Here's a scatterplot of resulting file sizes and compression times from the text compression data (lower is better), and as my luck would have it, bzip2 is really the only one that's out of line - i.e. the furthest from the pareto frontier. But then, looking at the same data with file sizes plotted in the range of [0.0, 1.0], it seems like there's a major case of diminishing returns for the expensive algorithms anyways. If you care at all about compression time, good ol' gzip is still a pretty decent choice!
Slashdot Mirror
This also makes me wonder, does OSX have a "no-animation" option to maximize battery life? How about Gnome and KDE?
True, Nintendo has been very successful focusing on gameplay instead of raw power. But I still think Sony's approach (FLOPS=fun) may have been successful, if only they had delivered! Instead, they put a revolutionary CPU and storage medium stuck behind a weak video card. On a games machine, that is a colossal mistake. PS3 games don't look any better than XBox 360 games. If you want to charge more, you have to deliver the goods.
But seriously, what guards? This is just about IT security, right? So there is nothing particularly at stake, no more so than any other e-commerce site on the web, or bricks-and-mortar store with a merchant CC account. Or do I misunderstand?
But the inability to change perspective has nothing to do with 3d in particular. Current 2d movies don't let you roam around freely, either. It's the director who composes the shots.
I've seen studies claiming that cellphone users are as bad as drunk drivers. How could that be? There should have been a massive increase (or any increase) in traffic fatalities, yet there was not. Sure, there are counter trends such as airbags, but the claim that a huge percentage of people are effectively drunk driving, gives the strong impression there should be mayhem out there. Drivers do love to complain about each other, but again, look at the data I linked. I just don't see it.
Come to think of it, it would be nice even without the gyroscopes, just to be able to use the up/down buttons to advance slides, and maybe the rocker switch to move the mouse.
For comparison, I see no draconian restrictions on the Congressional Record.
Bush has one strong defense though; all his cards were out on the table in 04, yet he still won the election. The American people have to take responsibility for that.
There will always be tension beetween efficiency and reserve capacity. We don't want to subsidize agriculture, but we don't want to go hungry every time crop yeilds dip below 98% of expectations, either.
What? You wanted the full breadth (millions of articles) up-to-the-minute and all hand-verified by subject matter experts? Good luck, nobody has ever managed such a thing. I think Wikipedia, as it is, comes closer than anything else.
n95 : 160,158,165 (5.1); 225,212,227 (11.5); 208,210,210 (1.6)
400d: 174,145,106 (48.3); 232,199,168 (45.3); 219,187,146 (51.7)
Can you look at those numbers and still argue both cameras are equally wrong? It isn't even close! The D400's error is many times that of the n95 in this particular image.
There's no question an SLR can capture motion better and reduce depth of field much more than a cellphone cam. But I don't think there's any question that most people want white things to look white when they shoot under tungsten lighting, and in this particular image, those other subtleties are hard to notice compared to the strong brown cast on Canon image.
Sure, it would be a mistake to draw general conclusions like "dSLR's have bad auto white balance" from one image from one model. I'm just surprised anybody can look down that page of photos with their own eyes and not admit that, in this particular case, the best looking image is from a cell phone.
Just look at the "medium light" images, which looks best? Which would you rather hang on your wall? The one from the N95. Vibrancy has nothing to do with it. Compared to the real camera images, the n95 image has better white balance, so it's the better image. And yes, you can tell without seeing the original scene. That ping-pong ball should be white.
Still, the medium light photos were taken in indoor lighting, and that n95 shot looks good. Its only advantage over the real camera images is better white balance, but then again proper white balance is pretty darn important. (And, yes, you could manually adjust the dSLR's white balance either before or after the shot (if it were taken in RAW), and, no, that doesn't make bad auto white balance OK).
I think there are going to be a lot of defensive replies from dSLR owners. But with enough light, a small lens and sensor can take a good picture.
That said, I still don't use it to edit documents much because there isn't enough screen real estate. So I agree with that half of your argument. But if by "tool" you mean software, I'd say there is a good one available.
I doubt Microsoft will EOL XP so long as enough paying customers are using it. What would Microsoft gain by forcing XP users onto Vista? Less than it would cost them in customer good will. People still pay their site licence on XP, Microsoft continues to profit... so who cares?
My question is, why use POWER processors at all? Why not just run a bunch of VMs on an x86 blade server?
None of which is to say I'd like Iran to go nuclear, nor do I believe their claim of only being interested in power generation (after watching what happened to their neighbor, there's simply no way Iran could not want that protection).
Here's a scatterplot of resulting file sizes and compression times from the text compression data (lower is better), and as my luck would have it, bzip2 is really the only one that's out of line - i.e. the furthest from the pareto frontier. But then, looking at the same data with file sizes plotted in the range of [0.0, 1.0], it seems like there's a major case of diminishing returns for the expensive algorithms anyways. If you care at all about compression time, good ol' gzip is still a pretty decent choice!
So you alreay knew WinRK gave the best compression? I didn't; never even heard of it. My money would have been on bzip2.