When I was younger I had a hard time getting up every morning, so one day I got this alarm that was looked like a robot. At the specified time it would suddenly start a machine gun noise *very loudly*, and when you pressed the stop button, it would start a "fiiiiiuuuuuuu" bomb sound, followed by an even louder explosion.
It got me up every morning, alright, but after one week of this treatment, I started having involuntary shakes, usually in the legs as I was waiting for the bus in the morning.
I turned off the robot clock and went back to my old, nicer alarm. I learned that if you can get at least 7, but preferably 8h of sleep everyday, then it's much easier to wake up in the morning. If you get a routine going, you even start waking up a few minutes before the alarm goes off. I also found out that a snooze alarm works better for me, especially if it has 10 minutes between rings (which is why I love my Sony Ericsson).
Bottom line is, it's not healthy to wake up violently. I read somewhere that many heart attacks happen while waking up, though I have no references to back that up.
I think the point of the article is that the plan was to include these drivers by default, to properly support the 3D desktop effects. What changed was that the software for these effects was deemed not mature enough, and the plan was reverted to leaving everything as it was before, except there will be a mechanism to make it easy for the user to try out the new stuff.
Voice is data, like internet stuff. I don't see any reason to pay tens of times more for one byte than for the other. (and it seems to me that the transfer requirements for voice are higher than for internet data). It's not exactly like that. The human ear does impressive error correction, so if you drop a few packets here and there, or deliver some slightly altered ones, it's not a big deal. This means that voice packets need only to have low latency and a "good enough" delivery rate, whereas data transfer must account for all packets in the network. For this reason, the data packets are also stuffed with a larger header for error correction and stuff, leaving less space for the actual data.
Think of it like UDP vs TCP. The principles are the same, except the mobile networks have been originally built around that idea that only voice would be transmitted, so for example, the size of the packets is too small to send data packets efficiently.
I'm not sure, but if the women are fertile for, say, 3 days each month, and you review 30 pictures, one for each day of the month, then the chance to hit a fertile day randomly should be around 10%. If this is the case, then 60% seems to be a very good result.
No no no! You don't understand! It's like this: Brazil is like god and Portugal is like the devil, as in: if you trip and fall on money, it's god's work, but if you trip and fall on shit, it's the devil's.
Well, as someone also said above, the cheaper prices in the US might not be related at all to the system, but be a byproduct of a much larger market and/or other factors. If it's true that the receiver-pays system is responsible for the cheaper prices, then I agree that there are advantages to both systems, but otherwise, I continue seeing no advantage in the american one.
I know that in Europe, you can have a toll-free number that your clients can call and not be charged a cent for it. However hard I think about it, there is no justification for having the receiver pay for the calls, except that it allows for more calls to be placed globally as the caller is not the one paying for it, and hence, is good for the mobile company (which would explain why they want to keep it).
Oh, come on! If your prospective employer doesn't want to fork out for a measly phone call, then you probably wouldn't want to be working for them anyway.
Happened to me as well in Portugal. I figured he wouldn't shoot me in a busy station for a cellphone. He might be a junkie, but he must've known he would get caught in a few seconds.
When i think about it now, I must've been wearing my steel nuts that day, cause I don't know if I could do it again. Then again I never saw any gun, if I had, I don't know if I would've been so bold.
No, you release a new version that supports both protocols and when the time is right, kill off the old protocol and force upgrade the remaining users. You do this either by then releasing a new version that supports only the newer protocol, or with some sort of a kill switch on the 2-protocol software.
I've tried he whole lot. Fedora, Slackware, Suse, etc etc etc. I've even installed Gentoo on a whim and even got it to run considerably well, after hours of hacking and searching through online forums.
Windows isn't perfect, but if you can't see that usability-wise the desktop flavours of Linux are still years behind both Windows and MacOS x, then your eyes are closed.
Well, I'm not the OP, but I think I can answer this one. I consider myself a "power user". I'll have completed a 5 year degree in computer engineering by this time next year, and I've programmed a lot of code running on linux, as well a ran a linux server for more than 3 years straight. Yet even today I have trouble using the desktop and sometimes even running suposedly simple services like printer sharing on a samba network. Things seem to work great, buy only after extensive configuration and sometimes hacking. So as for being a "power user", yeah, I do consider myself to be one, just not in the linux sense. When it comes to linux I always feel like a newbie, because nothing ever "just works" for me.
Linux has come a long way, but all these posts on slashdot saying its become as easy and user-friendly as widows are written by people who are either lying outright or have really become delusioned.
I have an FM10. It was my first SLR. The all-manual is fun for a while, but for some shots you're just yearning for at least that auto-focus. Whenever I shot portraits, people would complain that I was taking too long, and either frown of break formation. And forget those candid shots as well. Granted, my technique sucks and I'm slow setting up the shot, getting the right time value and aperture for the DoF I want to get, but oh if the camera would at least autofocus...
What? Depth of Focus has NOTHING to do with the camera being digital or film. The DoF is in the light coming from the lens and the way you record that light will not influence it (the DoF) in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was younger I had a hard time getting up every morning, so one day I got this alarm that was looked like a robot. At the specified time it would suddenly start a machine gun noise *very loudly*, and when you pressed the stop button, it would start a "fiiiiiuuuuuuu" bomb sound, followed by an even louder explosion.
It got me up every morning, alright, but after one week of this treatment, I started having involuntary shakes, usually in the legs as I was waiting for the bus in the morning.
I turned off the robot clock and went back to my old, nicer alarm. I learned that if you can get at least 7, but preferably 8h of sleep everyday, then it's much easier to wake up in the morning. If you get a routine going, you even start waking up a few minutes before the alarm goes off.
I also found out that a snooze alarm works better for me, especially if it has 10 minutes between rings (which is why I love my Sony Ericsson).
Bottom line is, it's not healthy to wake up violently. I read somewhere that many heart attacks happen while waking up, though I have no references to back that up.
Yes!
Disable the nation's powerful OLPC network, and your invasion will be sweet as pie!
I think the point of the article is that the plan was to include these drivers by default, to properly support the 3D desktop effects.
What changed was that the software for these effects was deemed not mature enough, and the plan was reverted to leaving everything as it was before, except there will be a mechanism to make it easy for the user to try out the new stuff.
For this reason, the data packets are also stuffed with a larger header for error correction and stuff, leaving less space for the actual data.
Think of it like UDP vs TCP. The principles are the same, except the mobile networks have been originally built around that idea that only voice would be transmitted, so for example, the size of the packets is too small to send data packets efficiently.
I'm not sure, but if the women are fertile for, say, 3 days each month, and you review 30 pictures, one for each day of the month, then the chance to hit a fertile day randomly should be around 10%.
If this is the case, then 60% seems to be a very good result.
No no no! You don't understand!
It's like this: Brazil is like god and Portugal is like the devil, as in:
if you trip and fall on money, it's god's work, but if you trip and fall on shit, it's the devil's.
I believe it's the other way around.
Women started coming into the workforce more as the salaries of just the man became insufficient.
Well, as someone also said above, the cheaper prices in the US might not be related at all to the system, but be a byproduct of a much larger market and/or other factors.
If it's true that the receiver-pays system is responsible for the cheaper prices, then I agree that there are advantages to both systems, but otherwise, I continue seeing no advantage in the american one.
I know that in Europe, you can have a toll-free number that your clients can call and not be charged a cent for it.
However hard I think about it, there is no justification for having the receiver pay for the calls, except that it allows for more calls to be placed globally as the caller is not the one paying for it, and hence, is good for the mobile company (which would explain why they want to keep it).
Oh, come on!
If your prospective employer doesn't want to fork out for a measly phone call, then you probably wouldn't want to be working for them anyway.
Then think about this: Just because you can't explain or comprehend it, doesn't mean it's god's work.
Happened to me as well in Portugal. I figured he wouldn't shoot me in a busy station for a cellphone. He might be a junkie, but he must've known he would get caught in a few seconds.
When i think about it now, I must've been wearing my steel nuts that day, cause I don't know if I could do it again. Then again I never saw any gun, if I had, I don't know if I would've been so bold.
No, you release a new version that supports both protocols and when the time is right, kill off the old protocol and force upgrade the remaining users.
You do this either by then releasing a new version that supports only the newer protocol, or with some sort of a kill switch on the 2-protocol software.
I'm not the grandparent poster, but I can answer this one.
According to a demonstration I saw a few month ago, yes, it's a plug-in architecture.
I've tried he whole lot. Fedora, Slackware, Suse, etc etc etc.
I've even installed Gentoo on a whim and even got it to run considerably well, after hours of hacking and searching through online forums.
Windows isn't perfect, but if you can't see that usability-wise the desktop flavours of Linux are still years behind both Windows and MacOS x, then your eyes are closed.
Well, I'm not the OP, but I think I can answer this one.
I consider myself a "power user". I'll have completed a 5 year degree in computer engineering by this time next year, and I've programmed a lot of code running on linux, as well a ran a linux server for more than 3 years straight.
Yet even today I have trouble using the desktop and sometimes even running suposedly simple services like printer sharing on a samba network. Things seem to work great, buy only after extensive configuration and sometimes hacking.
So as for being a "power user", yeah, I do consider myself to be one, just not in the linux sense. When it comes to linux I always feel like a newbie, because nothing ever "just works" for me.
Linux has come a long way, but all these posts on slashdot saying its become as easy and user-friendly as widows are written by people who are either lying outright or have really become delusioned.
I have an FM10. It was my first SLR.
The all-manual is fun for a while, but for some shots you're just yearning for at least that auto-focus.
Whenever I shot portraits, people would complain that I was taking too long, and either frown of break formation. And forget those candid shots as well.
Granted, my technique sucks and I'm slow setting up the shot, getting the right time value and aperture for the DoF I want to get, but oh if the camera would at least autofocus...
Oh well.
What? Depth of Focus has NOTHING to do with the camera being digital or film.
The DoF is in the light coming from the lens and the way you record that light will not influence it (the DoF) in any way.
Agreed.
Very nice work, and impressive use of the resources that you had available.
Congratulations!
Your analogy is flawed. Your kid would have to know how to hit one of the hard-to-find places that he knew would bring the mountain down.
His worm didn't infect millions of pcs worldwide out of dumb luck.
I guess apple wood isn't hard enough
Really? I was thinking of getting an Apple computer, but now I'm not sure anymore...
or the even more standard $deity
Where is this magical european country you're talking about?
In Portugal we pay over 50% taxes over the price of gasoline.
Now they call it "Parque das Nações" -- Park of the Nations.
There are still signs all over the place with "Expo '98" written on them, though.
Why would you want your wall full of digital clocks?