I guess I wasn't clear. I also use an outside hosting service. It's $55/year including the domain. CPanel on Linux. Unlimited mailboxes, webmail, pop3, imap4, unlimited email forwarders, choice of webmail interfaces, frontpage, mysql, everything I need (except shell access, but I've managed to get by without).
With mail-only services running $20/year+ per address, this seems to be the best value for me. I've got over a dozen mailboxes setup for friends and family. And I never have to worry about changing my email again.
One feature I'd never give up is the ability to make up an email address on the fly when registering with on-line websites. The confirmation email gets routed to my default mailbox. Then, when the spam starts rolling in, I just setup a forwarding address to reject and never worry about it again.
I have an Exchange server at home. I used to use a Pop3 retriever on the server, but since I switched to the notebook its more convenient to suck the mail in through Outlook and just sync my data store to the server when I'm home. I also use Thunderbird for my personal accounts, and use XP/2003's file & folder replication to update a copy on the server for use on my desktop.
There are certainly other ways to do things. This works for me. I tried IMAP and didn't like the folder organization it forced on me. But as with everything else surrounding technology, your mileage may vary.
Different philosophy on email. Although I occasionally use my GMail (and, less often, my Yahoo! mail) accounts, I would never consider them "primary" addresses. Having been around the block several times on "free" email, I know that sooner or later someone has to charge a buck somewhere to pay for the service. Maybe GMail will be different, but empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
My point was rather that if you do want to use your GMail address but don't like the interface, GMail allows POP3 downloads to whatever client you prefer. So you can stick with Eudora, or Outlook, or Thunderbird, or even Yahoo.
Personally, I don't think I could ever be comfortable storing my email on a third-party system. I prefer to own my own domain name that I can move to any hosting service, and download my messages to my own system for organization and storage. Yes, it's true that method doesn't give me full access wherever I may go, but since I keep everything sync'ed to my laptop, and that's with me almost always, I have no problems. On the few occasions that its been necessary, webmail (either through my hosted domain or using GMail/Yahoo) fills the gaps.
Yes, POP3 sucks quite nicely. POP3 sucks down my email every 15 minutes and puts it in my Inbox on my notebook, where I can organize it into folders to my heart's content and store it forever without fear that any particular webmail provider will go out of business or start charging usary fees.
While it seems a lot of advanced users on Slashdot seem to love being derived of features by our Google overlords (more in response to Google Talk than GMail)
Eh, I don't see how GMail deprives anyone of anything. You like Eudora? Fine, use POP3. You like Outlook? Use POP3. You like Thunderbird? Use POP3. You like Yahoo Mail? Use POP3 to download your GMail to Yahoo.
What's nice is I get all that without having to pay for an upgraded account. Plus, I have the convenience of also being able to read my email using any web browser anywhere in the world, derived of features notwithstanding.
Agreed, but it's even been more recent than the early 90's. The late 90's also had its run of so-called "Intelligent" network cards.
I worked for a large HP/Intel VAR at the time and I we were selling $500 Intel Intelligent Server NICs like they were Big Macs. Then one day one of our biggest customers called in a fit. It seems that his manager asked him to do a quick comparison between a smart Intel NIC and a regular Intel NIC, so he could tell his bean-counters to get stuffed. It turns out that we were NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY SYSTEM OR TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION that would result in higher throughput, lower CPU utilization or lower memory utilization when using the smart NIC.
In other words, the standard $100 Intel NIC (PILA8465B, as I recall) beat the piss out of the much more expensive Intel intelligent NIC with on-board co-processor.
Within 3 months we stopped getting any orders for the smart NICS. In 6 months Intel retailiated by disabling server features (adapter fault tolerence, VLAN tagging, load balancing and Cisco Fast Etherchannel support) on the basic NIC, in an effort to save the smart NIC. When this didn't work they modified the driver so the server features would only work with a re-released version of the "dumb" NIC at a higher price (the only difference between the cheapest and most expensive version was an ID string burned into a PAL on the NIC).
Similiar experiences with earlier cards from Intel, IBM, and others. In every instance I tested, a plain old NIC (not junk, but the basic model from a reputable manufacturer) always outperformed the NIC's with on-board brains and/or co-processors.
Maybe this Level-5 NIC has some new voodoo engineering, but I'd have to see real-world testing to believe it. Especially from a company that apparently intentionally is playing-off Level-3 Communications' name recognition for its own benefit.
I do run a 500-pair DSL system that I designed and had installed on a small Caribbean island. We have copper wires connecting many homes and business -- no fires or equipment failures yet!
That is carrier-grade equipment specifically designed for that type of application. Your typical residential broadband router or SOHO switch/hub is not engineered or constructed to the same standards.
I also bet the NTI's have built-in lightning protection and a DC current block.
1. optical (but fiber is a pain to run...and is expensive.
You can purchase used 10mbps hubs or switches on ebay with 10Base-FORL ports for under $200 each. Pre-terminated fibre cable is also up for sale there. I didn't look to see if pre-terminated direct-burial fibre was available, but everything else in the world seems to be for sale on ebay.
Going wireless is still cheaper and much easier to install. No digging trenches and punching holes in your house.
2. what if you ran ethernet (that is protected form lightning, etc) and you had 2 UPS switches on both ends? would the voltage regulators in the UPS save your cheap equip?
Which Ethernet? 10Base2, 10Base5, 10BaseT, 100BaseTX, et cetera.... The *BaseT[x] standards are supposed to isolate the signal from power, but the isolation is typically performed by silicon, and if sufficient current is applied (say by a close lightning strike or significant ground potential difference) this might not hold up.
UPS's are of no value because they don't provide any ground isolation -- indeed, they must have a clear path to ground to shunt spikes in the A/C line away from the protected outlets.
AFAIK, as long as its inside the same house it should not be a problem. This is because all the AC outlets in your house are, presumably, bonded to the same Earth ground return at your service panel, so all the equipment plugged into these outlets have the same ground potential.
But, if you string a wire to a neighbor, their service is grounded at a different place, and there could be a difference in ground potential between the equipment plugged-in at your neighbor's house and that plugged-in at your house. This difference in potential might only be a few millivolts, but it could result in significant current as the two grounds attempt to find equilibrium through your Cat-5 cable. Of course, the network equipment should isolate the signal jacks from the electrical supply, but I wouldn't want to risk my network, or even my home, to the engineering quality of a $100 (or less) network switch.
Ok, but that's $68/mo, which is not bad if that's all you can get, (and I've got two customers in that position, but they're paying more than $68/mo, more like $200/mo for non-metered access), but it's higher than the $40-50 the OP is paying for HSI.
There are plenty of ISDN routers that will hold-up at least one B channel, so it can be used for servers. With BACP, the 2nd B channel is added as bandwidth demands increase.
I think your going about this the wrong way. While you might not NEED the speed of high speed Internet, you admit you want the convenience of always on service.
I would urge you to look in a different direction. Instead of dropping the HSI, (high speed Internet), I'd drop my analog telephone service and switch to a VoIP provider. Depending on the optional services and amount of long distance, you could save $40 or much more each month by using an unlimited VoIP package from Vonage, VoicePulse, AT&T, etc versus traditional telco rates. Since you also have a cellphone that apparently works at your home, there's really no downside to this scenario.
If you are dead set about nixing your HSI, your best option is to find an agreeable, nearby neighbor to share their HSI account. But if you do this, definately use wireless -- not copper -- to connect to his/her service. Differences in ground potential between houses can destroy equipment, cause a shock or even be a fire hazard.
You could use something like a Multitech RouteFinder RF500, or any other router that provides a serial port to use an external modem for ISP dial-up. This would give you an always-on dial-up connection. However, since a bare POTS line for your always-on Internet is around $22/mo, plus a bare-bones, unlimited dial-up ISP is another $10/mo, when you add in taxes and fees, you're maybe going to save $5 - 15 per month: not worth it in my view.
ISDN, at least in the USA, is probably not an attractive option, since most telco's charge per minute of use per B channel, plus the ISP's usually charge a higher rate for access. Where the telco does offer unlimited data service it's at a considerably higher rate than $50/mo. So you'll pay more for slower speed via ISDN.
I know several people who have "cut the cord" to the phone company and rely solely on VoIP over the Cable Internet and cellphone for voice calls. They save an average of $30/mo and are quite satisfied with the quality and reliability.
Me myself buying a RAM stick, I can get a better price than if I've got a large business account with Dell.
Dell negotiates special pricing with enterprise customers on a case-by-case basis. The publicly-accessible pricing on their website for "big business" customers is for budgetary purposes only.
It is kind of scary how PCs ~= Dell right now. But they just pummel the competition. HP doesn't even bother with trying to match dell quotes in my experience, (well they sort of try, but they miss the must beat price by ~20%). Even if you could get a decent quote out of HP I am certain that if you politely asked Dell would find a way to come under it.
Hmmm. That's exactly the opposite of my research. I find that when comparing identical configurations -- including warranty and shipping -- buying HP/Compaq business systems from a local reseller is only $50 more per unit than Dell SMB pricing. Since the local reseller tests each unit and installs all the missing service packs and hotfixes for me, it's well worth the extra $50. As a bonus, if the PC suffers infant mortality, the reseller deals with repair/replacement.
Once again, it sounds like an ideal application for a Windows XP Tablet PC, except that you have the O/S and storage locally, and no X-Windows or TV (unless you have a Windows MCE box somewhere saving shows to disk, and want to play them later on the Tablet).
These are small, quiet, do handwriting and voice recognition, have touch-screen and can run any application that runs under Windows. Unfortunately, they also cost from $1,600 and up, which makes them more expensive than a low-end Mac Mini with a flat-screen TV/Computer Display.
put the Mac mini under it in a air-tight cabinet under the drawer
Do that and dinner won't be the only thing cooking in that kitchen! Computers, even slow and small ones line the Mac Mini, need ventilation.
Does anyone still make IR grid 'touch' screens? I haven't seen one in over 15 years.
Frankly, this sounds like a good application for a tablet PC, but you'd have to use something like the Hauppauge WinTV USB adapter, which doesn't produce a good full-screen image, and would add wires and clutter to the system.
Tablet PC's use an inductive "pen" to move the mouse, and provide an on-screen soft keyboard useful for lightweight typing (like looking-up recipies or surfing the web). The also have wireless keyboard & mouse available, usually in a small form-factor, which can be stashed in a drawer.
I have an old Viewsonic T1000 tablet, which is pre-Windows/XP Tablet Edition (it runs Win2k Pro with pen extensions). I use it in my kitchen for just what you describe, but minus the TV. When it's not being used, it runs a photo screen saver to act as a dynamic photo frame. I don't do anything special to the keyboard, and use the touchscreen instead of a mouse. I just remember to keep my dirty paws off of it when I'm cooking, except for the stylus, which is pretty much a sealed hunk of pastic.
Another approach might be an LCD Flat-Panel TV with PC inputs hooked to either a mini-PC or a Mac Mini, and then a wireless keyboard/mouse. This would give you the best quality TV and computer video. Cost-wise, I think this is cheaper than a tablet PC, and will provide better quality and performance all-around, except for losing the touch-screen capability.
To protect the keyboard I'd simply put taller rubber feet on the bottom (to keep it above spills) and cover with plastic wrap (Saran Wrap or equivalent). I see this done in Chinese take-outs and Pizza places all the time, and it seems to be effective and is definately cheap.
None of these setups can even hope to reproduce the possible detail of 4x5 format using film. The max resolution on their highest end model of the BetterLight is about 2600dpi.
Maybe I'm misreading the specifications, but it seems to me that the BetterLight's max resolution (without interpolation) is 4M-dpi for the current top-end (Super 8K-HS), and will be almost 7M-dpi for the upcoming model (Super 10K-HS). This is a far cry from a 2.7K-4K dpi film scanner, in fact it blows away the highest-resolution drum scanner I know of: the 12K-dpi ICG 380.
While it's absolutely true that even 7-megapixel/inch at 48bit color still cannot capture the full tonal range of analog film, this is probably more than adequate for most types of images where 4x5 is used (commercial versus fine-art use).
I have a feeling that this is not the be all end all of film replacments.
Of course not. Digital sensor technology and storage systems will improve every year. I don't know enough about the techology of film to say if or when digital will surpass analog in theoretical quality, but I think we're soon approaching the point where digital becomes more practical, particularly for commercial photography, where most images wind up being digitally processed before final output in any event.
Also, CCD performance and readout speed are not quite fast enough to mimic equivalent film speed and detail.
In any event, I'll grant you that digital film backs can't match the speed of film; after all, it takes over 8 minutes to record the image. But neither one is exactly appropriate for action photography. In terms of film sensitivity, Better Light claims ISO ranges up to 3200, which is a lot more than I've ever wanted when I used to shoot large format.
Not necessarily. What happens when, for example, the motion picture industry demands that all VHS and DVD players use the same copy protection code in their products (i.e., Macrovision)? Or blackmails the government into anti-consumer, anti-fair-use legislation (i.e., D.M.C.A., HDCP, HDTV Broadcast Flag)?
Or when the recording industry decides to only release audio CD's with copy protection?
There is no law that mandates CD/DVD/VHS players respect the copy protection. It's just a license requirement put in place by the producers/distributors of the content. But the few manufacturers that attempted to market a consumer product that failed to respect this copy protection have been sued into compliance.
Re:So don't use a camera that honors this...
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 1
Until this "feature" is mandated by law (not likely), I don't see it as a concern...
Are you sure about that? After all, you did post this in defense of your own message, before anyone else replied to it. And then look at your.sig. These are clearly signs of paranoia. Now, whether you're anti-government or a lunatic is a matter of debate. But there's no doubt in regards to paranoia.
I'm not using pot either.
Maybe you should try it. If for no other reason than to provide an excuse for the paranoia. But my guess is it will take enough of the edge off for you to chill out and relax.
Why in the world would you print photos on an inkjet.
Because 8x10" dye-sub printing is WAY too expensive. Because I don't have time to stand around, waiting for the kiosk to print my photos. Because my Canon printer makes perfectly good prints for 90% of my needs, and the other 10% I print through Ofoto.
Because I often post-process my images. But most of all, because I'm impatient AND cheap, and can expense-off the printing supplies.
I got a middle-of-the-road Olympus for around $200 (this was six months ago). The image quality was great, but the darn thing took on the order of 5 seconds just to focus.... Lesson learned: consumer mid-level point-and-shoot digitals are not generally adequate for what I need.
First of all, I would disagree that $200 is a "mid-range" digital camera; $400 is more like it. Although I'm not sure which Olympus you bought, I can sympathize because I have a two-year old Olympus C-730Z (3mp/10x) and indeed, it is a slow beast in its normal focusing mode.
However, after much trial-and-error, I realized that setting the camera to sports/action mode was far more useful for typical candid shots of the kids than the standard focusing mode. In action mode I just would keep my finger halfway down on the shutter release while tracking the kids movement. When the time was right I'd fully depress the button to save the shot.
But regardless, my current camera (Panasonic Lumix) is at least two generations improved since the Canon C-730Z, and is much quicker to focus even in standard focusing mode, probably as fast as my Canon Elan 2e's with USM lenses. I would have considered a Digital Rebel but I got tired of dragging around 20 pounds of camera, lenses and flash equipment all the time, not to speak of the additional $300.
Sure, even with the Leica optics and image stabilization, the Panasonic isn't near the quality of the 2e with, say, the 70-200 IS USM zoom and a roll of Relia, but I'm not selling my images anymore and I don't demand that quality for my family photos.
Flash was the appropriate medium to deliver content to the target audience.
Hogwash. Flash is never the "appropriate medium" to deliver anything other than animation, and lazy authors who use flash to present static information and images, or worse: entire websites, should be forced to forevermore use vi on a vt100 terminal for all future site development.
But seriously, the site would have been much easier to read and more universally accessible if it had not been in Flash. Imagine how many vision-challenged people will now never know whether they should buy a dSLR or a regular digital camera. Oh, damn, I was supposed to be serious... never mind.
People can stand still for 1/15th second no problem, but chances are you can't hold the camera still that long.
You can if you have a Panasonic, Canon or Minolta digital camera with Image Stabilization (or a Canon or Nikon lens with image stablization/vibration reduction on a dSLR or film SLR).
you can pick up a Digital Rebel and some lenses for $800-$1k, which isn't too much I think given the cost of processing film (as a comparison)
Am I the only person who actually prints his digital photos?
Given the cost of the ink or dye-sub material, high-quality photo paper, wear-and-tear on the printer, and time, I'm not at all certain that digital prints are any less expensive than traditional film prints. If you use one of the dedicated plug-and-print 4x6 dye-sub or inkjet printers, you're paying $0.50 per print, or $12.00 for 24 exposures, as compared to about $10-11 for traditional 24-exposure, 35mm film, processing and prints. Of course you can always stand in front of the digital printer kiosk at your local megamart or drugsuperstore and pay $0.30 per digital print, but then you waste half an hour of your time to print those 24 4x6" photos.
The benefit of digital photography is not lower cost, nor is it even higher quality (at least not until you get into the $2k price range for a camera). The benefits of digital photography are:
Instant gratification by showing the captured image on the LCD
Convenient printing and reprinting on a home computer
Convenient distribution via email to friends and family
Convenience of reprints and enlargements without having to "go back to the lab"
Control of the output without the hassle of learning, setting-up or maintaining a darkroom.
Unless you're among the few people who regularly order reprints and enlargements of your 35mm film photographs, I think the cost of digital versus film is a wash. It's the convenience and control factors that drive people to digital, im[ns]ho.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I wasn't clear. I also use an outside hosting service. It's $55/year including the domain. CPanel on Linux. Unlimited mailboxes, webmail, pop3, imap4, unlimited email forwarders, choice of webmail interfaces, frontpage, mysql, everything I need (except shell access, but I've managed to get by without).
With mail-only services running $20/year+ per address, this seems to be the best value for me. I've got over a dozen mailboxes setup for friends and family. And I never have to worry about changing my email again.
One feature I'd never give up is the ability to make up an email address on the fly when registering with on-line websites. The confirmation email gets routed to my default mailbox. Then, when the spam starts rolling in, I just setup a forwarding address to reject and never worry about it again.
I have an Exchange server at home. I used to use a Pop3 retriever on the server, but since I switched to the notebook its more convenient to suck the mail in through Outlook and just sync my data store to the server when I'm home. I also use Thunderbird for my personal accounts, and use XP/2003's file & folder replication to update a copy on the server for use on my desktop.
There are certainly other ways to do things. This works for me. I tried IMAP and didn't like the folder organization it forced on me. But as with everything else surrounding technology, your mileage may vary.
Different philosophy on email. Although I occasionally use my GMail (and, less often, my Yahoo! mail) accounts, I would never consider them "primary" addresses. Having been around the block several times on "free" email, I know that sooner or later someone has to charge a buck somewhere to pay for the service. Maybe GMail will be different, but empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
My point was rather that if you do want to use your GMail address but don't like the interface, GMail allows POP3 downloads to whatever client you prefer. So you can stick with Eudora, or Outlook, or Thunderbird, or even Yahoo.
Personally, I don't think I could ever be comfortable storing my email on a third-party system. I prefer to own my own domain name that I can move to any hosting service, and download my messages to my own system for organization and storage. Yes, it's true that method doesn't give me full access wherever I may go, but since I keep everything sync'ed to my laptop, and that's with me almost always, I have no problems. On the few occasions that its been necessary, webmail (either through my hosted domain or using GMail/Yahoo) fills the gaps.
Yes, POP3 sucks quite nicely. POP3 sucks down my email every 15 minutes and puts it in my Inbox on my notebook, where I can organize it into folders to my heart's content and store it forever without fear that any particular webmail provider will go out of business or start charging usary fees.
While it seems a lot of advanced users on Slashdot seem to love being derived of features by our Google overlords (more in response to Google Talk than GMail)
Eh, I don't see how GMail deprives anyone of anything. You like Eudora? Fine, use POP3. You like Outlook? Use POP3. You like Thunderbird? Use POP3. You like Yahoo Mail? Use POP3 to download your GMail to Yahoo.
What's nice is I get all that without having to pay for an upgraded account. Plus, I have the convenience of also being able to read my email using any web browser anywhere in the world, derived of features notwithstanding.I worked for a large HP/Intel VAR at the time and I we were selling $500 Intel Intelligent Server NICs like they were Big Macs. Then one day one of our biggest customers called in a fit. It seems that his manager asked him to do a quick comparison between a smart Intel NIC and a regular Intel NIC, so he could tell his bean-counters to get stuffed. It turns out that we were NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY SYSTEM OR TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION that would result in higher throughput, lower CPU utilization or lower memory utilization when using the smart NIC.
In other words, the standard $100 Intel NIC (PILA8465B, as I recall) beat the piss out of the much more expensive Intel intelligent NIC with on-board co-processor.
Within 3 months we stopped getting any orders for the smart NICS. In 6 months Intel retailiated by disabling server features (adapter fault tolerence, VLAN tagging, load balancing and Cisco Fast Etherchannel support) on the basic NIC, in an effort to save the smart NIC. When this didn't work they modified the driver so the server features would only work with a re-released version of the "dumb" NIC at a higher price (the only difference between the cheapest and most expensive version was an ID string burned into a PAL on the NIC).
Similiar experiences with earlier cards from Intel, IBM, and others. In every instance I tested, a plain old NIC (not junk, but the basic model from a reputable manufacturer) always outperformed the NIC's with on-board brains and/or co-processors.
Maybe this Level-5 NIC has some new voodoo engineering, but I'd have to see real-world testing to believe it. Especially from a company that apparently intentionally is playing-off Level-3 Communications' name recognition for its own benefit.I do run a 500-pair DSL system that I designed and had installed on a small Caribbean island. We have copper wires connecting many homes and business -- no fires or equipment failures yet!
That is carrier-grade equipment specifically designed for that type of application. Your typical residential broadband router or SOHO switch/hub is not engineered or constructed to the same standards.
I also bet the NTI's have built-in lightning protection and a DC current block.1. optical (but fiber is a pain to run...and is expensive.
You can purchase used 10mbps hubs or switches on ebay with 10Base-FORL ports for under $200 each. Pre-terminated fibre cable is also up for sale there. I didn't look to see if pre-terminated direct-burial fibre was available, but everything else in the world seems to be for sale on ebay.
Going wireless is still cheaper and much easier to install. No digging trenches and punching holes in your house.
2. what if you ran ethernet (that is protected form lightning, etc) and you had 2 UPS switches on both ends? would the voltage regulators in the UPS save your cheap equip?
Which Ethernet? 10Base2, 10Base5, 10BaseT, 100BaseTX, et cetera.... The *BaseT[x] standards are supposed to isolate the signal from power, but the isolation is typically performed by silicon, and if sufficient current is applied (say by a close lightning strike or significant ground potential difference) this might not hold up.
UPS's are of no value because they don't provide any ground isolation -- indeed, they must have a clear path to ground to shunt spikes in the A/C line away from the protected outlets.AFAIK, as long as its inside the same house it should not be a problem. This is because all the AC outlets in your house are, presumably, bonded to the same Earth ground return at your service panel, so all the equipment plugged into these outlets have the same ground potential.
But, if you string a wire to a neighbor, their service is grounded at a different place, and there could be a difference in ground potential between the equipment plugged-in at your neighbor's house and that plugged-in at your house. This difference in potential might only be a few millivolts, but it could result in significant current as the two grounds attempt to find equilibrium through your Cat-5 cable. Of course, the network equipment should isolate the signal jacks from the electrical supply, but I wouldn't want to risk my network, or even my home, to the engineering quality of a $100 (or less) network switch.Ok, but that's $68/mo, which is not bad if that's all you can get, (and I've got two customers in that position, but they're paying more than $68/mo, more like $200/mo for non-metered access), but it's higher than the $40-50 the OP is paying for HSI.
There are plenty of ISDN routers that will hold-up at least one B channel, so it can be used for servers. With BACP, the 2nd B channel is added as bandwidth demands increase.I think your going about this the wrong way. While you might not NEED the speed of high speed Internet, you admit you want the convenience of always on service.
I would urge you to look in a different direction. Instead of dropping the HSI, (high speed Internet), I'd drop my analog telephone service and switch to a VoIP provider. Depending on the optional services and amount of long distance, you could save $40 or much more each month by using an unlimited VoIP package from Vonage, VoicePulse, AT&T, etc versus traditional telco rates. Since you also have a cellphone that apparently works at your home, there's really no downside to this scenario.
If you are dead set about nixing your HSI, your best option is to find an agreeable, nearby neighbor to share their HSI account. But if you do this, definately use wireless -- not copper -- to connect to his/her service. Differences in ground potential between houses can destroy equipment, cause a shock or even be a fire hazard.
You could use something like a Multitech RouteFinder RF500, or any other router that provides a serial port to use an external modem for ISP dial-up. This would give you an always-on dial-up connection. However, since a bare POTS line for your always-on Internet is around $22/mo, plus a bare-bones, unlimited dial-up ISP is another $10/mo, when you add in taxes and fees, you're maybe going to save $5 - 15 per month: not worth it in my view.
ISDN, at least in the USA, is probably not an attractive option, since most telco's charge per minute of use per B channel, plus the ISP's usually charge a higher rate for access. Where the telco does offer unlimited data service it's at a considerably higher rate than $50/mo. So you'll pay more for slower speed via ISDN.
I know several people who have "cut the cord" to the phone company and rely solely on VoIP over the Cable Internet and cellphone for voice calls. They save an average of $30/mo and are quite satisfied with the quality and reliability.Me myself buying a RAM stick, I can get a better price than if I've got a large business account with Dell.
Dell negotiates special pricing with enterprise customers on a case-by-case basis. The publicly-accessible pricing on their website for "big business" customers is for budgetary purposes only.It is kind of scary how PCs ~= Dell right now. But they just pummel the competition. HP doesn't even bother with trying to match dell quotes in my experience, (well they sort of try, but they miss the must beat price by ~20%). Even if you could get a decent quote out of HP I am certain that if you politely asked Dell would find a way to come under it.
Hmmm. That's exactly the opposite of my research. I find that when comparing identical configurations -- including warranty and shipping -- buying HP/Compaq business systems from a local reseller is only $50 more per unit than Dell SMB pricing. Since the local reseller tests each unit and installs all the missing service packs and hotfixes for me, it's well worth the extra $50. As a bonus, if the PC suffers infant mortality, the reseller deals with repair/replacement.Is that how its calculated?
I thought it was
10200 x 13800 = 140M
4 x 5 = 20 sq.in.
140M/20sq.in = 7M/sq.in.
I guess my ex-wife was right, I *AM* a fucking idiot! 8-O
Once again, it sounds like an ideal application for a Windows XP Tablet PC, except that you have the O/S and storage locally, and no X-Windows or TV (unless you have a Windows MCE box somewhere saving shows to disk, and want to play them later on the Tablet).
These are small, quiet, do handwriting and voice recognition, have touch-screen and can run any application that runs under Windows. Unfortunately, they also cost from $1,600 and up, which makes them more expensive than a low-end Mac Mini with a flat-screen TV/Computer Display.put the Mac mini under it in a air-tight cabinet under the drawer
Do that and dinner won't be the only thing cooking in that kitchen! Computers, even slow and small ones line the Mac Mini, need ventilation.
Does anyone still make IR grid 'touch' screens? I haven't seen one in over 15 years.
Frankly, this sounds like a good application for a tablet PC, but you'd have to use something like the Hauppauge WinTV USB adapter, which doesn't produce a good full-screen image, and would add wires and clutter to the system.
Tablet PC's use an inductive "pen" to move the mouse, and provide an on-screen soft keyboard useful for lightweight typing (like looking-up recipies or surfing the web). The also have wireless keyboard & mouse available, usually in a small form-factor, which can be stashed in a drawer.
I have an old Viewsonic T1000 tablet, which is pre-Windows/XP Tablet Edition (it runs Win2k Pro with pen extensions). I use it in my kitchen for just what you describe, but minus the TV. When it's not being used, it runs a photo screen saver to act as a dynamic photo frame. I don't do anything special to the keyboard, and use the touchscreen instead of a mouse. I just remember to keep my dirty paws off of it when I'm cooking, except for the stylus, which is pretty much a sealed hunk of pastic.
Another approach might be an LCD Flat-Panel TV with PC inputs hooked to either a mini-PC or a Mac Mini, and then a wireless keyboard/mouse. This would give you the best quality TV and computer video. Cost-wise, I think this is cheaper than a tablet PC, and will provide better quality and performance all-around, except for losing the touch-screen capability.
To protect the keyboard I'd simply put taller rubber feet on the bottom (to keep it above spills) and cover with plastic wrap (Saran Wrap or equivalent). I see this done in Chinese take-outs and Pizza places all the time, and it seems to be effective and is definately cheap.None of these setups can even hope to reproduce the possible detail of 4x5 format using film. The max resolution on their highest end model of the BetterLight is about 2600dpi.
Maybe I'm misreading the specifications, but it seems to me that the BetterLight's max resolution (without interpolation) is 4M-dpi for the current top-end (Super 8K-HS), and will be almost 7M-dpi for the upcoming model (Super 10K-HS). This is a far cry from a 2.7K-4K dpi film scanner, in fact it blows away the highest-resolution drum scanner I know of: the 12K-dpi ICG 380.
While it's absolutely true that even 7-megapixel/inch at 48bit color still cannot capture the full tonal range of analog film, this is probably more than adequate for most types of images where 4x5 is used (commercial versus fine-art use).
I have a feeling that this is not the be all end all of film replacments.
Of course not. Digital sensor technology and storage systems will improve every year. I don't know enough about the techology of film to say if or when digital will surpass analog in theoretical quality, but I think we're soon approaching the point where digital becomes more practical, particularly for commercial photography, where most images wind up being digitally processed before final output in any event.
Also, CCD performance and readout speed are not quite fast enough to mimic equivalent film speed and detail.
In any event, I'll grant you that digital film backs can't match the speed of film; after all, it takes over 8 minutes to record the image. But neither one is exactly appropriate for action photography. In terms of film sensitivity, Better Light claims ISO ranges up to 3200, which is a lot more than I've ever wanted when I used to shoot large format.
You're a fucking idiot.
Apparently you've been talking to my ex-wife. 8-)Not necessarily. What happens when, for example, the motion picture industry demands that all VHS and DVD players use the same copy protection code in their products (i.e., Macrovision)? Or blackmails the government into anti-consumer, anti-fair-use legislation (i.e., D.M.C.A., HDCP, HDTV Broadcast Flag)?
Or when the recording industry decides to only release audio CD's with copy protection?
There is no law that mandates CD/DVD/VHS players respect the copy protection. It's just a license requirement put in place by the producers/distributors of the content. But the few manufacturers that attempted to market a consumer product that failed to respect this copy protection have been sued into compliance.
Until this "feature" is mandated by law (not likely), I don't see it as a concern...
Like Macrovision? (http://www.macrovision.com/solutions/video/indexI'm not a paranoid...
Are you sure about that? After all, you did post this in defense of your own message, before anyone else replied to it. And then look at your .sig. These are clearly signs of paranoia. Now, whether you're anti-government or a lunatic is a matter of debate. But there's no doubt in regards to paranoia.
I'm not using pot either.
Maybe you should try it. If for no other reason than to provide an excuse for the paranoia. But my guess is it will take enough of the edge off for you to chill out and relax.Exactly, I am still waiting until digital can allow me do to what a 4x5 view camera does.
Why wait? There's several choices in digital backs for large-format cameras, and Sinar even sells a complete, turn-key setup.
Why in the world would you print photos on an inkjet.
Because 8x10" dye-sub printing is WAY too expensive. Because I don't have time to stand around, waiting for the kiosk to print my photos. Because my Canon printer makes perfectly good prints for 90% of my needs, and the other 10% I print through Ofoto.
Because I often post-process my images. But most of all, because I'm impatient AND cheap, and can expense-off the printing supplies.
I got a middle-of-the-road Olympus for around $200 (this was six months ago). The image quality was great, but the darn thing took on the order of 5 seconds just to focus.... Lesson learned: consumer mid-level point-and-shoot digitals are not generally adequate for what I need.
First of all, I would disagree that $200 is a "mid-range" digital camera; $400 is more like it. Although I'm not sure which Olympus you bought, I can sympathize because I have a two-year old Olympus C-730Z (3mp/10x) and indeed, it is a slow beast in its normal focusing mode.
However, after much trial-and-error, I realized that setting the camera to sports/action mode was far more useful for typical candid shots of the kids than the standard focusing mode. In action mode I just would keep my finger halfway down on the shutter release while tracking the kids movement. When the time was right I'd fully depress the button to save the shot.
But regardless, my current camera (Panasonic Lumix) is at least two generations improved since the Canon C-730Z, and is much quicker to focus even in standard focusing mode, probably as fast as my Canon Elan 2e's with USM lenses. I would have considered a Digital Rebel but I got tired of dragging around 20 pounds of camera, lenses and flash equipment all the time, not to speak of the additional $300.
Sure, even with the Leica optics and image stabilization, the Panasonic isn't near the quality of the 2e with, say, the 70-200 IS USM zoom and a roll of Relia, but I'm not selling my images anymore and I don't demand that quality for my family photos.Flash was the appropriate medium to deliver content to the target audience.
Hogwash. Flash is never the "appropriate medium" to deliver anything other than animation, and lazy authors who use flash to present static information and images, or worse: entire websites, should be forced to forevermore use vi on a vt100 terminal for all future site development.
But seriously, the site would have been much easier to read and more universally accessible if it had not been in Flash. Imagine how many vision-challenged people will now never know whether they should buy a dSLR or a regular digital camera. Oh, damn, I was supposed to be serious... never mind.
People can stand still for 1/15th second no problem, but chances are you can't hold the camera still that long.
You can if you have a Panasonic, Canon or Minolta digital camera with Image Stabilization (or a Canon or Nikon lens with image stablization/vibration reduction on a dSLR or film SLR).you can pick up a Digital Rebel and some lenses for $800-$1k, which isn't too much I think given the cost of processing film (as a comparison)
Am I the only person who actually prints his digital photos?
Given the cost of the ink or dye-sub material, high-quality photo paper, wear-and-tear on the printer, and time, I'm not at all certain that digital prints are any less expensive than traditional film prints. If you use one of the dedicated plug-and-print 4x6 dye-sub or inkjet printers, you're paying $0.50 per print, or $12.00 for 24 exposures, as compared to about $10-11 for traditional 24-exposure, 35mm film, processing and prints. Of course you can always stand in front of the digital printer kiosk at your local megamart or drugsuperstore and pay $0.30 per digital print, but then you waste half an hour of your time to print those 24 4x6" photos.
The benefit of digital photography is not lower cost, nor is it even higher quality (at least not until you get into the $2k price range for a camera). The benefits of digital photography are:
- Instant gratification by showing the captured image on the LCD
- Convenient printing and reprinting on a home computer
- Convenient distribution via email to friends and family
- Convenience of reprints and enlargements without having to "go back to the lab"
- Control of the output without the hassle of learning, setting-up or maintaining a darkroom.
Unless you're among the few people who regularly order reprints and enlargements of your 35mm film photographs, I think the cost of digital versus film is a wash. It's the convenience and control factors that drive people to digital, im[ns]ho.