Obligatory horror story in an attempt to put this thread back on topic.
The last time I went into an apple store, I brought my camera. I _always_ bring my camera. I take pictures, that's what I do. Sometimes, I upload them to my webpage (I run gallery too).
Three steps in, they kicked me out into the street. I didn't even take off the lens cap.
Then while I waited on the street for my friends, the guard came out to the public street and tried to tell me off for loitering. Don't you dare take a picture of the storefront, he said.
I took a picture of him.
Presumably, if I had had a.mac account, I would have been able to plug in my 300D and uploaded that without any effort. yay.
So the computer is a Deterministic Finite Automata unless there are some random seeds involved. If there are random seeds involved, it would be kinda weird since the algorithms are themselves deterministic. Even with learning algorithms, this is just one game out of who knows how many thousands it's played.
So barring a deep blue type reprogramming, couldn't Kasp. go download his move list and play the same winning game again?
Or they set up a few fake auctions on ebay set up with stolen credit card numbers. The company uses "buy it now" (this launders the money) and the money is transfered electronically into a stolen or shady account.
One problem I have with the atkins diet is the way people who use it talk about eating. Read the article: everyone's talking about how many calories they can eat and not gain weight, or how eating the most meat is pushing their body into a new and better state.
They've lost track of the idea that the atkins diet is primarily a substitute to the difficulties of maintaining a tradiotional diet--it's not some kind of game where you win if you eat the most calories!
A tiny percentage, but closer to us. The water I'm most worried about is the.000000000000000000000000000001% that's in my body--don't be messing with any green filters there!
For an out of context quote. This whole article is clearly just a biased "ooo ooo they suck omg" sort of thing. The line could have been just as easily phrased: "you can't rely on perfect code for security". Note that (IRTFA) the next line is along the lines of "but while we're working toward pefect code..."
Somewhere, there's an open source developer who's just realized that his work is being used to the development of nuclear weapons. All jokes about derivative works aside, I think it's a good time to consider the implications of this.
There's a million posts I could have placed this response to. Whatever.
It's NOT a conspiacy. It's a mistake. Many pages that end in/text/ are disallowed. These are the print-versions of other pages and ought to be disallowed to allow good searching.
The robots.txt (now corrected), had basically duplicated the list and then replaced/text/ with/iraq/. These pages were not hidden from the whitehouse search engine or from humans. In fact, most of these pages didn't exist.
Look, I vote democrat and lean green. But this FUD is ridiculous.
One thing people might find interesting is that most of the advantages of the 10D over the 300D are artificial. Not to say they don't exist, but they don't have to. The firmware of the 300D has been deliberately crippled--you can't select autofocus modes manually (linked to current mode), ISO3200 disabled, etc.
A primary reason for me to move to a DSLR was so I could buy lenses instead of bodies.. thus preserving my investment. Knowing I can resell them makes them feel like.. free.
That's "true".. but.. The 17-40L is also a massively better lens than the 300D kit lens. It's faster, a hair wider (but a notch shorter), and most importantly an L lens with a much higher quality and constant apeture. Oh, and it's metal instead of plastic.
In 20 years, I look forward to having a chain of adapters to my model M two feet long. Unlike all the other old equipment people are keeping, note that no one in this thread is too cheap to replace their 20 year old keyboard--there just isn't anything better.
Not really. I absolutely hate bush, but even I can see these quotes are out of context and deceptive. Seriously, read this reply. No idea what it's doing at only +2.
Save your vitrol for replying to sincere people--that guy was obviouslly trolling; he's no more religious than you (and probably posted for the same reasons).
Please listen to the comments made on the tax cut by WIlliam Buffet, the second richest man in the world:
Published on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 by the Washington Post Dividend Voodoo by Warren Buffett
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation o
Slashdot Mirror
That's true enough. the hardware price/perform ratio doesn't appeal to me, but OSX's one sexy bitch..
Obligatory horror story in an attempt to put this thread back on topic.
.mac account, I would have been able to plug in my 300D and uploaded that without any effort. yay.
The last time I went into an apple store, I brought my camera. I _always_ bring my camera. I take pictures, that's what I do. Sometimes, I upload them to my webpage (I run gallery too).
Three steps in, they kicked me out into the street. I didn't even take off the lens cap.
Then while I waited on the street for my friends, the guard came out to the public street and tried to tell me off for loitering. Don't you dare take a picture of the storefront, he said.
I took a picture of him.
Presumably, if I had had a
So the computer is a Deterministic Finite Automata unless there are some random seeds involved. If there are random seeds involved, it would be kinda weird since the algorithms are themselves deterministic. Even with learning algorithms, this is just one game out of who knows how many thousands it's played.
So barring a deep blue type reprogramming, couldn't Kasp. go download his move list and play the same winning game again?
Is sequenced and is on its way to being sequenced. This will probably be placed in the public domain too... Crap.
Or they set up a few fake auctions on ebay set up with stolen credit card numbers. The company uses "buy it now" (this launders the money) and the money is transfered electronically into a stolen or shady account.
I have Karma. This article is ASS. He just told me that if I can't read HTML like Neo in the Matrix, I will die. Also, "The Windows controls j00."
One problem I have with the atkins diet is the way people who use it talk about eating. Read the article: everyone's talking about how many calories they can eat and not gain weight, or how eating the most meat is pushing their body into a new and better state. They've lost track of the idea that the atkins diet is primarily a substitute to the difficulties of maintaining a tradiotional diet--it's not some kind of game where you win if you eat the most calories!
A tiny percentage, but closer to us. The water I'm most worried about is the .000000000000000000000000000001% that's in my body--don't be messing with any green filters there!
seriously.
You string together many lines of defense and hope for the best. Really, what gates said makes a lot of sense to me.
Somewhere, there's an open source developer who's just realized that his work is being used to the development of nuclear weapons. All jokes about derivative works aside, I think it's a good time to consider the implications of this.
There's a million posts I could have placed this response to. Whatever.
/text/ are disallowed. These are the print-versions of other pages and ought to be disallowed to allow good searching.
/text/ with /iraq/. These pages were not hidden from the whitehouse search engine or from humans. In fact, most of these pages didn't exist.
It's NOT a conspiacy. It's a mistake. Many pages that end in
The robots.txt (now corrected), had basically duplicated the list and then replaced
Look, I vote democrat and lean green. But this FUD is ridiculous.
Clearly, it's microsoft's fault.
And slashdot has always been known for it's anti-linux bias.
They have the same chipset and sensor after all..
In my experience, digital cameras currently have a depreciation similar to computers. I've gone though 4 cameras in 5 years:
2.1 megapixel no zoom CP700 - $650
2.1 mpxl 10x optical stabilized TTL EVF Oly2100 - $650
5.0 mpxl 8x mechanical zoom dimage 7i - $670
6.3 mpxl DSLR - $1000
A primary reason for me to move to a DSLR was so I could buy lenses instead of bodies.. thus preserving my investment. Knowing I can resell them makes them feel like.. free.
-jon
That's "true".. but.. The 17-40L is also a massively better lens than the 300D kit lens. It's faster, a hair wider (but a notch shorter), and most importantly an L lens with a much higher quality and constant apeture. Oh, and it's metal instead of plastic.
Screw that, where's my flying car?
In 20 years, I look forward to having a chain of adapters to my model M two feet long. Unlike all the other old equipment people are keeping, note that no one in this thread is too cheap to replace their 20 year old keyboard--there just isn't anything better.
I have one of those too. And I bought it last year. Actually.. it's a quadro2--I get a kick out of paying $30 for what was $600 of hardware.
Not really. I absolutely hate bush, but even I can see these quotes are out of context and deceptive. Seriously, read this reply. No idea what it's doing at only +2.
or are a single mother.
I have the same camera as ansel adams.
Only true if it can do 2 32bit ops in parallel. Which IIRC, it can't.
Save your vitrol for replying to sincere people--that guy was obviouslly trolling; he's no more religious than you (and probably posted for the same reasons).
Please listen to the comments made on the tax cut by WIlliam Buffet, the second richest man in the world:
Published on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 by the Washington Post
Dividend Voodoo
by Warren Buffett
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation o