Yahoos IM and Microsofts one are compatible so that's probably why they seem to have MSN aswell.
Here in Sweden everyone use MSN aswell, which suck.
I think ICQ was quite large in Germany still, Poland have their own IM-client and ICQ are still biggest in Russia aswell. So it all depends on where you live.
I guess people switched because of Hotmail being bought by Microsoft, included Messenger in the OS and the webcam support.
What would be cool would be if all MSN-compatible clients except Microsofts rewrote all youtubelinks to something like http://www.messengersuckuseabetternetworksuchasicqaimorjabber.com/vatch.php?id=... which then forwarded you to the correct video. Working links and you informed them. But then Microsoft would block that url to..;D
This is wrong, he was later employed by Warner, that do not mean that he was during the time of the investigation. So unless you have proofs don't put it forward like a fact.
Was this before or after OS X? During DOS times or later? I don't know how MacOS classic was but shouldn't OS X be easier to understand than Win2k and later? I can see how DOS may have offered more transparency thought.
Ah, ok. Yeah, I guess you could block the kind-of-urlish-addresses they have, for whatever reason you would want to do that. I haven't blocked child porn in my regular browser and well, it doesn't bother me. Neither does murder videos or whatever someone was talking about either. And back when I tested freenet I don't remember that I strumpled upon any child porn either.
(And in the end I don't know what are worse, if they can live it out in fantasy or if they can't, not thinking about the people in the photos and videos.)
Please tell me how it would work "Oh, dude A? Nah, we have never talked about child molesting on the phone, you don't need to survilence him." "Dude B? Yeah once he said he would go to nuke the USA, better check him out!"
You and me don't really appreciate the freedom and personal integrity we benefit form because we both probably have had it for our whole lives. If you lived in a country there you didn't already had them you would probably indeed want to have them, and that's why they should be cared for so we don't lose them again.
Yeah, many of us don't think we have that much to hide, but then we also expect everyone else to play nice, but what if they don't? What if some political forces don't share your opinions and try to hide them / freeze you out / silent yourself / lose your connection with others which say the same thing or something similair.
But then one have to balance that with how much one want the "bad" people to get caught, but I expect the really bad ones to know how to and also do cover their communication and tracks anyway so who is it really stoping?
Well, unless you need to be able to hold down say shift+a+s to backstrafe while crouching with a keyboard which can't handle all those keypresses at once.
And mice are more or less picky with surface and I would expect them to "jump around" with the pointer more or less aswell.
The third most leet thing to do is to get rid of that game blocker of yours, if you happen to have one. (Eventually the fourth place are occupied by never gotten a game blocker in the first place, but anyhow, let's go on.)
The second place of leetness are ofcourse the lucky ones who's got girlfriends which are gamers.
And finally the most leet of them all are the girls who are gamers!
Regarding gears (IANAG) I'd say you want a mouse which doesn't cramp your fingers and got good tracking on the surface you use (The MX500 isn't a crappy mouse, he should have compared with some real crap instead.)
Regarding gaming keyboards the only real "gaming"-part of them is that you can press many keys at once and they will all be recognized, but if you don't play with a game or style which requires that it won't help ofcourse. I guess the macros will help in some games, so will a straight layout if it makes it easier to hit the correct keys. I like my Microsoft Ergonomic 4000 thought, but then again IANAG.
Aslong as you get tracking on the mouse pad and it doesn't wear of your feets on the mouse I guess you're all ok.
Regarding sound it seems like a soundcard with good virtual surround and a pair of good regular stereo headphones are supposed to be better than most gaming gear (or all?). Such as the Audio-Technica ATH-A500.
Regarding all that "16 bit wide ultra 1000 Hz ultra polling"-bullcrap on Razers mouses I doubt that will make much of a different since I play RTS and my Macbook Pro TN-panel got 16 ms response time, the somewhat cheap and nice PVA-panels got around 40 ms input lag and IPS-panels are rather expensive and probably very few gamers use them (but most TN-panels are fast aswell so..)
Anyhow, people buy the new stuff because they want better sound, or better comfort, or better trackability, not because they expect them to turn them into pros (I guess/hope.) I bought my Razer DeathAdder because my Logitech MX300 had died and this one had a regular optical sensor instead of laser one and lasers always seem to track so bad. The Microsoft Ergonomic 4000 because it seemed so nice to type on. I don't have a mouse pad and I use my Alessandro MS-1 for games, thought probably not optimal:D, but then so isn't a macbook pro.
And the bracketing or whatever it's called for exposure, like "ev +1" or whatever the camera may say, that just change aperture and shutter time on top of what the automatic settings want? It doesn't change the processing of sensor data to jpeg at all?
Regarding the ISO, does it really boost the sensetivity or does say iso 200 over iso 100 just exposure with half the light, get the pixels 0 to 0.5 saturated so to speak instead of 0 to 1 and then just stretch the catched light into 0-1 saturation? That is, would an image of (same aperture setting) say shutter speed 1/200 and iso 200 look the same as an image of say shutter speed 1/200 and iso 100 but with all the values multiplied by 2? Or is the boost of the sensor better somehow? (I guess one could make like iso 128.000 in software by just expose for way to short time and then raise the brightness of the image a lot, of course it would look as shit, but that is to be expected.)
Oh, I see, and yes, I just read the Slashdot stories without RTFA. I was like "it's their product and I can understand how Sun would want to be able to have a more premium package which cost money." so I didn't bothered. I don't like this "omg everything has to be free"-attitude from pirates and OSS-evengalists alike. I do like free software, and I am a pirate, but I won't try to force that onto someone else:)
So the sensor data doesn't cover information "outside" the dynamic range of one exposure setting? Some with color (dynamic) range, it doesn't contain more color information than what would exist in the JPEG?
I had the impression that the sensor just delivers it's data (RAW) and that your exposure and white balance settings among other things decide what parts are used of that data and how it are handled in the final image which are then encoded in JPEG.
But from your post it sounds more like it's just that you are losing some quality due to the lossy nature of JPEG if you want to do something with the image afterward.
I can see how that may be the case with exposure settings, because I guess then you may change aperture and shutter times thru the exposure setting, so maybe the RAW image don't contain data for many different exposures but just for the one you used (thought still more data which makes it a better candidate for adjusting the levels of each tone.) Does the sensor eventually use a bigger color space than what will show in the JPEG and kind of strips off some data depending on the choosen white balance? Or are the only difference here say 8 vs 14 bit / color and therefor a "smoother range" if you start to tweak/change the white balance? (Or well, if the white balance are wrong I can see how reducing that say 14 bit 0-x range into say 8 bit 20-x will result to a quality loss, because if you try to stretch out that 20-x into 0-x again you will get "gaps" in tones, which wouldn't happen if the image data was 14 bit and the environment which showed the image rendered it in 8 bit. But like, does changing the white balance in a photo taken in RAW do any different at all in the sensor settings / RAW image or don't it count as all except as some information for the renderer of the image data to have something to go from? Like, if I shoot the same image at say 5000k and then at 8000k, then open the image in an application for RAW images and set the while balance to 6500k in both, will they contain the same data? Because with JPEG they would ofcourse not.)
I don't own a DSLR so I don't know that much about it. And I kind of blown my money on other crap (Fleshlight inserts for instance, seriously!) and I would want a MIDI controller so DSLR may have to wait. The Pentax k100ds are very cheap now thought =P, but I'd prefer the k20d anyway;)
"Contrary to the previous Slashdot discussion, this shows Sun's continued commitment to Open Source."
Sad enough this shows how Sun still have a hard time deciding what they want to, or more importantly should do, and if they should just dip their toes a little or go all in.
I do understand peoples critisism for it but it's their property and they are free to do whatever they want with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Microsoft are wellknown for their filtering capatibilities. Just see how noone receives spam on hotmail ;)
Yahoos IM and Microsofts one are compatible so that's probably why they seem to have MSN aswell.
Here in Sweden everyone use MSN aswell, which suck.
I think ICQ was quite large in Germany still, Poland have their own IM-client and ICQ are still biggest in Russia aswell. So it all depends on where you live.
I guess people switched because of Hotmail being bought by Microsoft, included Messenger in the OS and the webcam support.
"You couldn't go there you wanted today!"
"Where shall we take you today?"
Or maybe the best one: "Where do we want you to go today?"
What would be cool would be if all MSN-compatible clients except Microsofts rewrote all youtubelinks to something like http://www.messengersuckuseabetternetworksuchasicqaimorjabber.com/vatch.php?id=... which then forwarded you to the correct video. Working links and you informed them. But then Microsoft would block that url to .. ;D
One could always hope that would be enough to move people back to ICQ/AIM, not likely thought, sad enough.
But nowadays TPB aren't only here in Sweden, does that affect anything?
This is wrong, he was later employed by Warner, that do not mean that he was during the time of the investigation. So unless you have proofs don't put it forward like a fact.
Uhm, isn't their problem that we are already supposed to do that? I already do most of it ;)
Part of the work have already been done here if you are intrested:
http://www.secdev.org/conf/skype_BHEU06.handout.pdf
Was this before or after OS X? During DOS times or later? I don't know how MacOS classic was but shouldn't OS X be easier to understand than Win2k and later? I can see how DOS may have offered more transparency thought.
Ah, ok. Yeah, I guess you could block the kind-of-urlish-addresses they have, for whatever reason you would want to do that. I haven't blocked child porn in my regular browser and well, it doesn't bother me. Neither does murder videos or whatever someone was talking about either. And back when I tested freenet I don't remember that I strumpled upon any child porn either.
(And in the end I don't know what are worse, if they can live it out in fantasy or if they can't, not thinking about the people in the photos and videos.)
And yet most people think it's all ok to slaughter animals after treating them badly for a lifetime.
Yeah, I know I will be modded down, but I don't care, it always says excellent anyway and I don't know what the karma are good for anyway =P
Please tell me how it would work "Oh, dude A? Nah, we have never talked about child molesting on the phone, you don't need to survilence him." "Dude B? Yeah once he said he would go to nuke the USA, better check him out!"
You and me don't really appreciate the freedom and personal integrity we benefit form because we both probably have had it for our whole lives. If you lived in a country there you didn't already had them you would probably indeed want to have them, and that's why they should be cared for so we don't lose them again.
Yeah, many of us don't think we have that much to hide, but then we also expect everyone else to play nice, but what if they don't? What if some political forces don't share your opinions and try to hide them / freeze you out / silent yourself / lose your connection with others which say the same thing or something similair.
But then one have to balance that with how much one want the "bad" people to get caught, but I expect the really bad ones to know how to and also do cover their communication and tracks anyway so who is it really stoping?
I like "wax ones dolphin" better:
http://www.dannychoo.com/adp/eng/1412/Flip+Hole.html
I would actually pay quite much for a good quality keyboard, since I use it so much. Not so much on a mouse thought.
Same goes for a nice monitor.
Well, unless you need to be able to hold down say shift+a+s to backstrafe while crouching with a keyboard which can't handle all those keypresses at once.
And mice are more or less picky with surface and I would expect them to "jump around" with the pointer more or less aswell.
Those come at fourth place, at best.
..)
:D, but then so isn't a macbook pro.
The third most leet thing to do is to get rid of that game blocker of yours, if you happen to have one. (Eventually the fourth place are occupied by never gotten a game blocker in the first place, but anyhow, let's go on.)
The second place of leetness are ofcourse the lucky ones who's got girlfriends which are gamers.
And finally the most leet of them all are the girls who are gamers!
Regarding gears (IANAG) I'd say you want a mouse which doesn't cramp your fingers and got good tracking on the surface you use (The MX500 isn't a crappy mouse, he should have compared with some real crap instead.)
Regarding gaming keyboards the only real "gaming"-part of them is that you can press many keys at once and they will all be recognized, but if you don't play with a game or style which requires that it won't help ofcourse. I guess the macros will help in some games, so will a straight layout if it makes it easier to hit the correct keys. I like my Microsoft Ergonomic 4000 thought, but then again IANAG.
Aslong as you get tracking on the mouse pad and it doesn't wear of your feets on the mouse I guess you're all ok.
Regarding sound it seems like a soundcard with good virtual surround and a pair of good regular stereo headphones are supposed to be better than most gaming gear (or all?). Such as the Audio-Technica ATH-A500.
Regarding all that "16 bit wide ultra 1000 Hz ultra polling"-bullcrap on Razers mouses I doubt that will make much of a different since I play RTS and my Macbook Pro TN-panel got 16 ms response time, the somewhat cheap and nice PVA-panels got around 40 ms input lag and IPS-panels are rather expensive and probably very few gamers use them (but most TN-panels are fast aswell so
Anyhow, people buy the new stuff because they want better sound, or better comfort, or better trackability, not because they expect them to turn them into pros (I guess/hope.)
I bought my Razer DeathAdder because my Logitech MX300 had died and this one had a regular optical sensor instead of laser one and lasers always seem to track so bad. The Microsoft Ergonomic 4000 because it seemed so nice to type on. I don't have a mouse pad and I use my Alessandro MS-1 for games, thought probably not optimal
But they must do a very bad work of it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Atorrent+windows+vista
And the bracketing or whatever it's called for exposure, like "ev +1" or whatever the camera may say, that just change aperture and shutter time on top of what the automatic settings want? It doesn't change the processing of sensor data to jpeg at all?
:)
Regarding the ISO, does it really boost the sensetivity or does say iso 200 over iso 100 just exposure with half the light, get the pixels 0 to 0.5 saturated so to speak instead of 0 to 1 and then just stretch the catched light into 0-1 saturation?
That is, would an image of (same aperture setting) say shutter speed 1/200 and iso 200 look the same as an image of say shutter speed 1/200 and iso 100 but with all the values multiplied by 2?
Or is the boost of the sensor better somehow? (I guess one could make like iso 128.000 in software by just expose for way to short time and then raise the brightness of the image a lot, of course it would look as shit, but that is to be expected.)
Oh, and thanks for your answer
It's all a blur anyway ;)
Oh, I see, and yes, I just read the Slashdot stories without RTFA. I was like "it's their product and I can understand how Sun would want to be able to have a more premium package which cost money." so I didn't bothered. I don't like this "omg everything has to be free"-attitude from pirates and OSS-evengalists alike. I do like free software, and I am a pirate, but I won't try to force that onto someone else :)
So the sensor data doesn't cover information "outside" the dynamic range of one exposure setting?
;)
Some with color (dynamic) range, it doesn't contain more color information than what would exist in the JPEG?
I had the impression that the sensor just delivers it's data (RAW) and that your exposure and white balance settings among other things decide what parts are used of that data and how it are handled in the final image which are then encoded in JPEG.
But from your post it sounds more like it's just that you are losing some quality due to the lossy nature of JPEG if you want to do something with the image afterward.
I can see how that may be the case with exposure settings, because I guess then you may change aperture and shutter times thru the exposure setting, so maybe the RAW image don't contain data for many different exposures but just for the one you used (thought still more data which makes it a better candidate for adjusting the levels of each tone.)
Does the sensor eventually use a bigger color space than what will show in the JPEG and kind of strips off some data depending on the choosen white balance? Or are the only difference here say 8 vs 14 bit / color and therefor a "smoother range" if you start to tweak/change the white balance? (Or well, if the white balance are wrong I can see how reducing that say 14 bit 0-x range into say 8 bit 20-x will result to a quality loss, because if you try to stretch out that 20-x into 0-x again you will get "gaps" in tones, which wouldn't happen if the image data was 14 bit and the environment which showed the image rendered it in 8 bit. But like, does changing the white balance in a photo taken in RAW do any different at all in the sensor settings / RAW image or don't it count as all except as some information for the renderer of the image data to have something to go from? Like, if I shoot the same image at say 5000k and then at 8000k, then open the image in an application for RAW images and set the while balance to 6500k in both, will they contain the same data? Because with JPEG they would ofcourse not.)
I don't own a DSLR so I don't know that much about it. And I kind of blown my money on other crap (Fleshlight inserts for instance, seriously!) and I would want a MIDI controller so DSLR may have to wait. The Pentax k100ds are very cheap now thought =P, but I'd prefer the k20d anyway
Sad enough this shows how Sun still have a hard time deciding what they want to, or more importantly should do, and if they should just dip their toes a little or go all in.
I do understand peoples critisism for it but it's their property and they are free to do whatever they want with it.