That's nice, but you do realize that the vast majority of computers max out at around 3GB? The most I ever saw out of 32bit XP was 3.5GB, and even that computer ended up at the 3GB mark a couple of upgrades of other components later.
1. If you want to go up one directory, you can just hit the button to go up one and be done. With the breadcrumb interface you have to gu up to the top and find the right directory name to click.
2. If the window is not big, or the directory name is long, you don't get the breadcrumb thing at all, and instead you have to click the little drop down menu thing and then click the directory name.
3. Sometimes if I'm not careful with my clicks, it changes the top to an edit mode as if it thinks I want to type in something.
Overall, I don't mind the breadcrumb thing, just annoyed that they took the up button away. I will grant that most of my experience is with Vista, but my understanding is the Windows Explorer interface in 7 isn't changed.
There have been studies that shown that people who are overweight but physically active were no less healthy than those that aren't overweight.
Besides, from an insurance point of view, the skinny athletic types may not be cheaper to insure, if they (as a group) tend to engage in risky activities that can get them injured.
It all depends on what you buy. Cheap LEDs usually don't have a very good color spectrum, so cheap LCDs with LED backlights generally look crappier than the cheap LCDs with fluorescent backlighting, in my opinion. On the other end, high-end LCDs with LED backlighting look gorgeous, but so do high-end LCDs with florescent.
I consider the move by the marketing people to call their LCDs with LED backlighting "LED displays" as a deliberate attempt to get people to confuse them with OLEDs. I've talked to several people who didn't realize that the so-called "LED displays" are just LCDs with a different backlight.
I would guess that those are just standard LEDs. When people talk of LED screens, I think of OLEDs as that's what you use to get them small enough to be pixels on a standard display. Though common usage nowadays thanks to marketing people is that an LED screen is just an LCD with LED backlight.
I'd be a bit leery of a drive like that. I have a nice pile of ones similar to that, because I hate to throw out stuff that still works. My experience though is more often than not when I try to push one of those drives back into service it will appear to work fine for a few hours/days/weeks then crap out on me. For something that has to be around for a while, I would either get a cheap PCI SATA card and an inexpensive SATA drive, or seek out a new ATA100 drive, which are still available (though with a board that old you might have to make sure it's smaller than 128GB).
Well, the problem with Apple's standard power connectors is that they are really poorly designed. Apple does not get strain relief at all, or for that matter how to properly design the plug in the laptop. So with Apple laptops, power adapters with fraying wires, intermittent connections, and eventually a failed plug in the laptop is pretty common after a couple of years. In that sense, the Magsafe was a huge step forward for Apple, as it eliminated one of the big sources of stress that their standard power connectors were not designed to handle.
As someone who is used to Thinkpads, the Magsafe is not a big of a deal because I've never had an issue with the power adapter or the connector in the laptop even after years of use. Though the quick disconnect if the cable gets yanked might be a nice thing to have.
According to TFA, Dwayne is on his last canister of blue dye. Kodak isn't making any more of it, so when it's gone he's done. I suppose he may still have a small amount of the chemicals left after officially shutting down, but I can't imagine it'll last for long.
One possibility is that he's offering to process Kodachrome as B&W film - probably not much interest in that which may be why it's "limited".
What are you smoking? 35mm film is way better than a 3MP digital camera. Granted, you need the glass to take advantage of it - your typical 35mm P&S camera was made obsolete pretty quickly. Just like an early 3MP DSLR can still kick the crap out of the $100 12MP compacts they sell now.
Well, if they really are 70-year-old slides, there may will be interest in them. 1940 was before color photography was mainstream - it was expensive enough that most people still shot B&W, and if they used Kodachrome they generally used it pretty sparingly. If they took their camera to something like a county fair or took pictures of something newsworthy like a parade they may very well have the only existing color photographs of that event. Someone might be interested.
Now, 60-year old Kodachrome vacation slides would be a lot less significant as lots of people were using the film by 1950.
Kodachrome's color reproduction is somewhat cool, maybe that's what you're seeing? Most people seem to associate Kodachrome's color reproduction as an "aged" look, when in fact that's just the way the film looks. The Kodachrome slides I shot a couple of years back definitely have a "retro" feel to them, and look identical to my grandfather's Kodachrome slides from the 40's. Fuji Velvia, in my opinion, has a more natural, "warmer" color reproduction and doesn't give that retro look (I have a few prints on the wall from Fuji Velvia I shot recently most people assume came from a DSLR).
Ektrachrome, in my opinion, is crap. Ektochrome slides from the early 70's are essentially monochrome at this point (red and white, as the greens and blues have faded away).
I think we should go back to the system where the Vice President is not picked as the running mate of the presidential candidate, but instead is the runner-up in the electoral college. That would stop this whole plan dead in its tracks, as the words "Vice President Sarah Palin" should strike fear in the heart of any Democrat. At the very least, if someone was to still cross party lines in the primaries, they'd do it in an attempt to get someone picked who they would not mind being the VP, most likely a moderate and not an extremist like Palin.
I think it would also act as a good check against a president abusing their power, as the members of Congress would be a lot more likely to call "foul" if the next in the line of succession was not of the same political party as the president themselves. I'm sure one of the reasons that George W. Bush was allowed to finish his terms is that anyone who wanted Bush out of office was too scared of the prospect of seeing President Dick Cheney if they were successful.
For one, it is entirely possible that Obama cannot or does not want to run for re-election. Then what?
In that case, then the Democrats would have to choose another candidate through the primaries. Since the whole plan is based upon the assumption that the Democrat voters would not be tied up in their own primary (and thus can cross the lines and vote in the Republican primary), that would put a stop to the whole thing. Besides, at this point enough people are dissatisfied with Obama that I have a feeling that Hillary Clinton would do better in 2012 as the Democratic candidate than Obama.
Are things really better? All I see is massive, unsustainable government spending just to keep the economy where it is at, with no end to it in sight. This can't go on forever.
Considering that the Republicans already did this in the 2008 presidential primaries, it's not really that unexpected that the Democrats would try and hit back.
Yes, because you can find an exception with Bill and Melinda Gates, that makes the rule. I don't even know what you're trying to say with Virgin Galatic and Telsa, which are companies. I'll just ignore what the management of Enron did, the whole financial meltdown, the whole CEO culture, and the bonuses Wall Street decided to pay themselves out of taxpayer funds, and other nonsense.
As for taxes, it's not just the tax cuts of 2001. The top marginal rate has been going down for some time now, with the result that the middle class has been in decline at the expense of the ultra-rich. This has been going on since the 1980's. I'll admit, trickle-down economics sounds good, but it's obvious to anyone who doen't watch Fox News that it doesn't work.
But anyhow, it's pretty clear that not only that you are an arrogant ass, that you're also a complete idiot. So yes, please do leave the country.
That's still based upon the assumption that the ISPs will not throttle traffic if they cannot tell what it is. They could easily decide to throttle all encrypted traffic, except perhaps that which is going to an "approved" endpoint like a major bank. In which case you're back where you started.
Here in the real world we tried an experiment where we cut the taxes to the wealthy, (that would be the Bush tax cuts of 2001). Now that it's the end of 2010 and we're stuck with a bunch of incompetents running the show, I'm going to say that Ayn Rand is completely full of it. Give more to the rich, and they just hoard it - which isn't too surprising, as you can't spend your way to wealth. Maybe we should go back to the income tax rate structure that was in place 50 years ago? Seemed to work great back then.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice, but you do realize that the vast majority of computers max out at around 3GB? The most I ever saw out of 32bit XP was 3.5GB, and even that computer ended up at the 3GB mark a couple of upgrades of other components later.
Well, a few things:
1. If you want to go up one directory, you can just hit the button to go up one and be done. With the breadcrumb interface you have to gu up to the top and find the right directory name to click.
2. If the window is not big, or the directory name is long, you don't get the breadcrumb thing at all, and instead you have to click the little drop down menu thing and then click the directory name.
3. Sometimes if I'm not careful with my clicks, it changes the top to an edit mode as if it thinks I want to type in something.
Overall, I don't mind the breadcrumb thing, just annoyed that they took the up button away. I will grant that most of my experience is with Vista, but my understanding is the Windows Explorer interface in 7 isn't changed.
There have been studies that shown that people who are overweight but physically active were no less healthy than those that aren't overweight.
Besides, from an insurance point of view, the skinny athletic types may not be cheaper to insure, if they (as a group) tend to engage in risky activities that can get them injured.
It all depends on what you buy. Cheap LEDs usually don't have a very good color spectrum, so cheap LCDs with LED backlights generally look crappier than the cheap LCDs with fluorescent backlighting, in my opinion. On the other end, high-end LCDs with LED backlighting look gorgeous, but so do high-end LCDs with florescent.
I consider the move by the marketing people to call their LCDs with LED backlighting "LED displays" as a deliberate attempt to get people to confuse them with OLEDs. I've talked to several people who didn't realize that the so-called "LED displays" are just LCDs with a different backlight.
I would guess that those are just standard LEDs. When people talk of LED screens, I think of OLEDs as that's what you use to get them small enough to be pixels on a standard display. Though common usage nowadays thanks to marketing people is that an LED screen is just an LCD with LED backlight.
I still have my 21MB Seagate ST225. Still works too. It's fun to fire it up every once and a while, as that drive has a very distinct sound to it.
I'd be a bit leery of a drive like that. I have a nice pile of ones similar to that, because I hate to throw out stuff that still works. My experience though is more often than not when I try to push one of those drives back into service it will appear to work fine for a few hours/days/weeks then crap out on me. For something that has to be around for a while, I would either get a cheap PCI SATA card and an inexpensive SATA drive, or seek out a new ATA100 drive, which are still available (though with a board that old you might have to make sure it's smaller than 128GB).
Well, the problem with Apple's standard power connectors is that they are really poorly designed. Apple does not get strain relief at all, or for that matter how to properly design the plug in the laptop. So with Apple laptops, power adapters with fraying wires, intermittent connections, and eventually a failed plug in the laptop is pretty common after a couple of years. In that sense, the Magsafe was a huge step forward for Apple, as it eliminated one of the big sources of stress that their standard power connectors were not designed to handle.
As someone who is used to Thinkpads, the Magsafe is not a big of a deal because I've never had an issue with the power adapter or the connector in the laptop even after years of use. Though the quick disconnect if the cable gets yanked might be a nice thing to have.
And I suppose like how most people rate themselves as a better than average driver, you think you're one of the few in middle? Think again.
Well, 10 years ago right now was the original Pentium in years. Not 2000, but more like 1999.99999997573.
Hey, I know a guy who born in the Ford Galaxy!
According to TFA, Dwayne is on his last canister of blue dye. Kodak isn't making any more of it, so when it's gone he's done. I suppose he may still have a small amount of the chemicals left after officially shutting down, but I can't imagine it'll last for long.
One possibility is that he's offering to process Kodachrome as B&W film - probably not much interest in that which may be why it's "limited".
What are you smoking? 35mm film is way better than a 3MP digital camera. Granted, you need the glass to take advantage of it - your typical 35mm P&S camera was made obsolete pretty quickly. Just like an early 3MP DSLR can still kick the crap out of the $100 12MP compacts they sell now.
Well, if they really are 70-year-old slides, there may will be interest in them. 1940 was before color photography was mainstream - it was expensive enough that most people still shot B&W, and if they used Kodachrome they generally used it pretty sparingly. If they took their camera to something like a county fair or took pictures of something newsworthy like a parade they may very well have the only existing color photographs of that event. Someone might be interested.
Now, 60-year old Kodachrome vacation slides would be a lot less significant as lots of people were using the film by 1950.
Kodachrome's color reproduction is somewhat cool, maybe that's what you're seeing? Most people seem to associate Kodachrome's color reproduction as an "aged" look, when in fact that's just the way the film looks. The Kodachrome slides I shot a couple of years back definitely have a "retro" feel to them, and look identical to my grandfather's Kodachrome slides from the 40's. Fuji Velvia, in my opinion, has a more natural, "warmer" color reproduction and doesn't give that retro look (I have a few prints on the wall from Fuji Velvia I shot recently most people assume came from a DSLR).
Ektrachrome, in my opinion, is crap. Ektochrome slides from the early 70's are essentially monochrome at this point (red and white, as the greens and blues have faded away).
I think we should go back to the system where the Vice President is not picked as the running mate of the presidential candidate, but instead is the runner-up in the electoral college. That would stop this whole plan dead in its tracks, as the words "Vice President Sarah Palin" should strike fear in the heart of any Democrat. At the very least, if someone was to still cross party lines in the primaries, they'd do it in an attempt to get someone picked who they would not mind being the VP, most likely a moderate and not an extremist like Palin.
I think it would also act as a good check against a president abusing their power, as the members of Congress would be a lot more likely to call "foul" if the next in the line of succession was not of the same political party as the president themselves. I'm sure one of the reasons that George W. Bush was allowed to finish his terms is that anyone who wanted Bush out of office was too scared of the prospect of seeing President Dick Cheney if they were successful.
To where, Alaska?
In that case, then the Democrats would have to choose another candidate through the primaries. Since the whole plan is based upon the assumption that the Democrat voters would not be tied up in their own primary (and thus can cross the lines and vote in the Republican primary), that would put a stop to the whole thing. Besides, at this point enough people are dissatisfied with Obama that I have a feeling that Hillary Clinton would do better in 2012 as the Democratic candidate than Obama.
Are things really better? All I see is massive, unsustainable government spending just to keep the economy where it is at, with no end to it in sight. This can't go on forever.
Considering that the Republicans already did this in the 2008 presidential primaries, it's not really that unexpected that the Democrats would try and hit back.
Yes, because you can find an exception with Bill and Melinda Gates, that makes the rule. I don't even know what you're trying to say with Virgin Galatic and Telsa, which are companies. I'll just ignore what the management of Enron did, the whole financial meltdown, the whole CEO culture, and the bonuses Wall Street decided to pay themselves out of taxpayer funds, and other nonsense.
As for taxes, it's not just the tax cuts of 2001. The top marginal rate has been going down for some time now, with the result that the middle class has been in decline at the expense of the ultra-rich. This has been going on since the 1980's. I'll admit, trickle-down economics sounds good, but it's obvious to anyone who doen't watch Fox News that it doesn't work.
But anyhow, it's pretty clear that not only that you are an arrogant ass, that you're also a complete idiot. So yes, please do leave the country.
That's still based upon the assumption that the ISPs will not throttle traffic if they cannot tell what it is. They could easily decide to throttle all encrypted traffic, except perhaps that which is going to an "approved" endpoint like a major bank. In which case you're back where you started.
Here in the real world we tried an experiment where we cut the taxes to the wealthy, (that would be the Bush tax cuts of 2001). Now that it's the end of 2010 and we're stuck with a bunch of incompetents running the show, I'm going to say that Ayn Rand is completely full of it. Give more to the rich, and they just hoard it - which isn't too surprising, as you can't spend your way to wealth. Maybe we should go back to the income tax rate structure that was in place 50 years ago? Seemed to work great back then.
Well, if that's your attitude then don't act all surprised when the rest of us decide to raise your taxes.