It's called trade. They make shit for us. They have about 2 1/2 trillion US dollars in foreign reserves that they can use sometime down the road to buy shit from us.
Because, in the case of small cameras, it makes them larger. As I said, earlier, I carry a larger camera than most anybody who posts here, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense for most people. I bet you the SD card slot, mechanism, and door is multiple percent of the volume of a small point and shoot. Oh, and the 10c, because every cent does matter if it's a waste. And the gram, because it matters too. But bring on the personal attacks, because it's easier than having a rational debate.
So 32GB of flash would hold on the order of 3000 photos for you, or a week's shooting. For a DSLR class device, one could see justifying 64GB or more. I think I'd personally take the embedded version. That said, I can see the argument that a DSLR is an inherently large device, where volume doesn't matter that much. On a pocket point and shoot, it would be that much more compelling to embed.
I'm not saying you're wrong or right for using an SD card - I'm saying that you're in a very small minority. Big difference. My problem is that people assume that what's good for a small number of tech savvy individuals is good for the whole, which is most definitely not the case. I shoot large format film, but I'd be delusional for saying that users need 100 megapixel images, or judging people as somehow lacking for using a point and shoot.
I'm arguing that removable storage itself is becoming obsolete except for specialized applications. I stand by that. We'll see who's right in about 15 years.
But your camera itself must be obsolete now. If the included storage is on the correct scale compared to size of a single shot, there's no longer a point to the removable media. How many photos will you take in a single session? 100? 1000? And don't get me wrong - I don't believe in planned obsolescence, which is why I like large format film instead.
And you're the hater of the worst kind. Other people made intelligent arguments against me, like civilized people. You, instead, resort to name calling.
Maybe because nobody wants to fumble with little cards and little doors to break off, or remember which card has what on it? I wonder why camera companies waste volume with SD cards and don't just put 32GB of flash on the MLB and call it a day. The SD slot is an obsolete waste of product volume and complexity, and for some reason people (meaning people on Slashdot, not as a whole) don't seem to get it.
Prove that android phones aren't sending your location and your emails to Google. There's a reason that the onus is on the accuser to prove something is wrong.
They could do that before they logged this to a file. They could transmit it live encrypted it in a way you'd never know. While they're at it, they could transmit all your email, contacts, and plenty of other sensitive data. To use _any_ device, you have to trust the manufacturer. Or, at the very least, have no internet connection and remain in a faraday cage, kind of like top secret cleared facilities.
The company isn't collecting it (at least not per the article), the device is. It hasn't been shown to be transmitted anywhere at all. Presumably the device is in your own possession. That's why the "fault" isn't with Apple.
Let's see herea device I control that already knows my location because it's a sensor platform logs it. And it transfers it only to a computer I control. If I don't encrypt that file, and my computer is given to others, they can read it. Big deal. Is there nothing else on your computer or phone that's sensitive? Wouldn't the most basic of security practices be to keep your computer under your own control and not hand it out to others? If there was evidence a location log was actually going to someone, then there would be something to talk about. Apple haters always seem to drum up a problem or conspiracy out of thin air. They'll speculate how Apple _could_ transmit the file somewhere - missing the point that Apple could transmit all your email to their servers, or your contact info, or really anything on any device. Same goes for any device manufacturer. At some point, it's just moronic - either you trust your device, or you don't. If you don't, you don't buy it. I'd be more wary of trusting a device where the customer is an advertiser rather than the end user, but to each his own.
The Linux of razors is the straight razor. It always works, doesn't require proprietary blades, and is very powerful. And if you don't know how to use it, you can end up in a world of hurt.
How is that bad for the end user? As you just said, anyone can compile and run Samba on OS X. Having signed system binaries does make it harder for malware to infect the system. In my eyes, this is a lot better for end users than allowing complete masquerading of binaries as part of the core system. Samba is not used to access SMB shares. That comes with FreeBSD and requires kernel space code, which is why FuSE (which operates in userland) works. It's all a tradeoff, but it sure seems like a fair one for most users.
With this merger, we should finally have quality GSM coverage in the United States. I will bemoan the superior T-mobile customer service, but I had to switch from T-Mobile to AT&T when I lived on the Pacific coast for coverage. The fact is that there isn't really room in the US for two GSM carriers. For those who think AT&T could have just expanded its coverage, go look into the issues every carrier is facing in San Francisco where new towers face "OMG - the Radiation!" from the residents. Buying T-mobile was the best realistic way to expand coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
These new 27" iMacs have 2 Thunderbolt ports.
You may want to look up the word dearth for future reference...I think you meant the opposite.
It's called trade. They make shit for us. They have about 2 1/2 trillion US dollars in foreign reserves that they can use sometime down the road to buy shit from us.
The hard part is driving it while you're being shot at.
That's great - when all else fails, sue, and be sure to sue those with deep pockets rather than those who are responsible. It's the American way.
Building out the network is easier said than done due to NIMBY syndrome:
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_17878746?nclick_check=1
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/03/exposing_brugmanns_cell_phone.php
Because, in the case of small cameras, it makes them larger. As I said, earlier, I carry a larger camera than most anybody who posts here, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense for most people. I bet you the SD card slot, mechanism, and door is multiple percent of the volume of a small point and shoot. Oh, and the 10c, because every cent does matter if it's a waste. And the gram, because it matters too.
But bring on the personal attacks, because it's easier than having a rational debate.
So 32GB of flash would hold on the order of 3000 photos for you, or a week's shooting. For a DSLR class device, one could see justifying 64GB or more. I think I'd personally take the embedded version. That said, I can see the argument that a DSLR is an inherently large device, where volume doesn't matter that much. On a pocket point and shoot, it would be that much more compelling to embed.
I'm not saying you're wrong or right for using an SD card - I'm saying that you're in a very small minority. Big difference. My problem is that people assume that what's good for a small number of tech savvy individuals is good for the whole, which is most definitely not the case.
I shoot large format film, but I'd be delusional for saying that users need 100 megapixel images, or judging people as somehow lacking for using a point and shoot.
I'm arguing that removable storage itself is becoming obsolete except for specialized applications. I stand by that. We'll see who's right in about 15 years.
But your camera itself must be obsolete now. If the included storage is on the correct scale compared to size of a single shot, there's no longer a point to the removable media. How many photos will you take in a single session? 100? 1000?
And don't get me wrong - I don't believe in planned obsolescence, which is why I like large format film instead.
And you're the hater of the worst kind. Other people made intelligent arguments against me, like civilized people. You, instead, resort to name calling.
Maybe because nobody wants to fumble with little cards and little doors to break off, or remember which card has what on it? I wonder why camera companies waste volume with SD cards and don't just put 32GB of flash on the MLB and call it a day. The SD slot is an obsolete waste of product volume and complexity, and for some reason people (meaning people on Slashdot, not as a whole) don't seem to get it.
My dad has a 3G iPad and pays his $25/mo for 2GB. He has no other internet access. It's a pretty good deal for him given his usage patterns.
Prove that android phones aren't sending your location and your emails to Google.
There's a reason that the onus is on the accuser to prove something is wrong.
They could do that before they logged this to a file. They could transmit it live encrypted it in a way you'd never know. While they're at it, they could transmit all your email, contacts, and plenty of other sensitive data.
To use _any_ device, you have to trust the manufacturer. Or, at the very least, have no internet connection and remain in a faraday cage, kind of like top secret cleared facilities.
The company isn't collecting it (at least not per the article), the device is. It hasn't been shown to be transmitted anywhere at all. Presumably the device is in your own possession. That's why the "fault" isn't with Apple.
Let's see herea device I control that already knows my location because it's a sensor platform logs it. And it transfers it only to a computer I control. If I don't encrypt that file, and my computer is given to others, they can read it. Big deal. Is there nothing else on your computer or phone that's sensitive? Wouldn't the most basic of security practices be to keep your computer under your own control and not hand it out to others?
If there was evidence a location log was actually going to someone, then there would be something to talk about. Apple haters always seem to drum up a problem or conspiracy out of thin air. They'll speculate how Apple _could_ transmit the file somewhere - missing the point that Apple could transmit all your email to their servers, or your contact info, or really anything on any device. Same goes for any device manufacturer. At some point, it's just moronic - either you trust your device, or you don't. If you don't, you don't buy it.
I'd be more wary of trusting a device where the customer is an advertiser rather than the end user, but to each his own.
The whole point of the article is that it's not like Apple vs IBM all over again. You forgot to take your blinders off some 10 years ago.
The Linux of razors is the straight razor. It always works, doesn't require proprietary blades, and is very powerful. And if you don't know how to use it, you can end up in a world of hurt.
Math should not be taught with calculators, since calculators are simply tools to do math more quickly - once you already understand what's going on.
I wonder how many people will post today just for the Accomplishment
How is that bad for the end user? As you just said, anyone can compile and run Samba on OS X. Having signed system binaries does make it harder for malware to infect the system. In my eyes, this is a lot better for end users than allowing complete masquerading of binaries as part of the core system.
Samba is not used to access SMB shares. That comes with FreeBSD and requires kernel space code, which is why FuSE (which operates in userland) works.
It's all a tradeoff, but it sure seems like a fair one for most users.
Just go build the hardware to run the unsigned binary. Same concept as building the binary from source.
With this merger, we should finally have quality GSM coverage in the United States. I will bemoan the superior T-mobile customer service, but I had to switch from T-Mobile to AT&T when I lived on the Pacific coast for coverage. The fact is that there isn't really room in the US for two GSM carriers.
For those who think AT&T could have just expanded its coverage, go look into the issues every carrier is facing in San Francisco where new towers face "OMG - the Radiation!" from the residents. Buying T-mobile was the best realistic way to expand coverage.