Then say the EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for about $400. Still a big difference.
Besides, the 300D default lens is a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, wider interval (yeah, 5.6 instead of 4.5, non-USM... ups and downs, depending on what other lenses you already have each might be a better deal).
Actually, it would not be surprising for Canon to officialize some of the feature (like flash compensation), since the D70 will be more competitive otherwise. Could be a marketing trick - ship with simplified firmware first and expand it as the competition tries to catch up.
It might also explain why they didn't bother to fork the firmware code and release a new version without the hidden features, as this hack is really old news.
What does not fit the picture is that nobody else can match the features-per-price index. All Nikon has is the D70, but it's about $400 more than 300D (both full kit).
Also, remember the 'feature reduced' version has the EF-S lens; for the 10D an equivalent EF would cost you about $700 more (so 10D body+equivalent lens > 2x the price of 300D with lens).
Something is really wrong with this picture, right? It actually looks like a baragain.
I believe the 10D also has a larger viewfinder (92% versus 86% for the 300D)
You're joking, right? No camera has 90% viewfinder. Both 10D and 300D have 95%.
Metering is done in the software, so it should be about the same if the codebase is the same. Mechanics are different, but the difference is not as big as the/. 'pros' would claim. Mostly it's just an attitude problem.
If you want the real thing, go for the 1Ds. Or even the new 1D Mark II. If you don't have the money, stop complaining and get what you can afford.
Anyway, the difference between 10D and 300D is mostly one of the photographer's skill. But it's always easier to blame the tool. How many of the 300D dissers would make half-decent pictures with a classic Leica?
yet I would still rather own a camera built out of a solid piece of metal and not some plastic/composite body.
That's highly dependant on what you want to use it for. Try trekking long enough distances with the camera and you'll learn to appreciate a ~0.5kg difference in weight. (or try climbing, for that matter).
Heavier is useful to stabilize the camera with telephoto lenses - but then, you can always use a tripod to compensate.
The point is, they use the same Digic processor - so the firmware is compatible. More rugged has nothing to do with it. Something that does not attempt to access inexistant hardware should be fine (and apparently this hack is not just blindly enabling everything)
The metal chassis is not such a big issue. A much bigger one is the really expensive ultra-short EF zoom lens that would make the short zoom for 10D - remember the 1.6x conversion factor for the focal length. There aren't that many choices that would get you a 2x-normal wide lens.
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ~$2.5k+
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM ~$700
That and the price difference between 10D and 300D add up to quite a lot.
Then your neighbor Ben Kenobi would smack you with a DMCA-style lawsuit for unauthorized interception and decryption of a private message. On Earth, you're better off without it ^_^
Actually, if an atom bomb has degraded to the point where it can't produce an fission blast, it would still function as a "dirty bomb" and spread a small cloud of toxic radiation.
Not really. Dirty bombs are the ones that don't exhaust their fissionable isotopes and thus produce radioactive fallout after the explosion. This implies a large enough explosion to spread the fallout - and large enough quantities of radioactive debris. Technically, the early fission bombs were "dirty bombs" due to their low fission efficiency.
This would be an attempt to a radiological bomb. The problem being whether there is enough radioactive material left and whether it can be dispersed enough for mass destruction. Given that fission bombs are not made out of gaseous isotopes, you'd need a fairly high amount of conventional explosive to get the radioactive material pulverized over a large enough area to do any significant damage - at which point, your conventional explosive would become a WMD in itself.
Well, technically dark matter IS 'just a bunch of stuff we haven't been able to see yet'. The speculation is that it might not be 'see-able' the way regular matter is.
Anyway, this still does not seem to explain the first reason for coming up with the dark matter idea anyway. That being the way the galaxies rotate: spiral galaxies have a (visible) more or less discoidal disposition of matter (in a plane), but appear to rotate as if they were more like spheres (that is, the radial dependence of the speed corresponds to the one you'd expect in a galaxy with matter distributed inside a sphere, not on a disk). Satelite galaxies don't seem to provide enough matter to compensate for that.
Using the competition's actual name in your own advertisements is a bad sign - it says that they are credible enough to warrant discrediting.
Umm... this being/. and all, it's a good thing (for the Linux crowd, that is). But yes - imagine all those CIOs that will start wondering what's with this Linux that MS started to compare itself with all of the sudden? Yes, the ads are biased (and only people that don't know better would trust them), but they raise the profile of Linux anyway. And given that MS is the dominant player in the server market (if only judging from the sales statistics), their mention of the direct competition looks like a sign of desperation.
Then again, their next (OS and SQL) server iteration is a bit far away, the new licensing scheme doesn't have too many fans and seems to be vulnerable to critique in exactly this point and Linux is leaping in the server marketshare in spite of the SCO lawsuit and all the FUD they're launching. Doesn't sound so good.
No matter how much you rant about GNU's invisibility keep in mind that the basic building blocks of the GNU/Linux OS are GNU.
While that is certainly true, I think RMS way overplays that card. GNU would be nowhere near where it is now without Linux. The *BSDs don't care much about it (the exception, gcc) and Hurd... oh well, let's just say that the OS components without a kernel aren't exactly very useful.
I think a fairer statement about this would be that Linux and GNU owe each other. Gcc is essential, but Linux is the key piece that enabled the HUGE participation in the development of GNU software. Heck, even gcc wouldn't be where it is now if Linux didn't make it so pervasive.
So at this point, RMS is more zealot than not. He mostly sees only his side of the cake. But what's new here?
As an aside, wasn't the whole AdT rant about the Linux kernel though? All the SCO claims, the Minix connection, the Linux/Minix code comparison, were about the kernel. Where's GNU in this?
They are the sme now. Development of XFree stagnated to the point that frustrated devs gave up on it (most visible, Keith Packard). Now they get to work on X.org. The 2 projects won't stay similar for long - and guess which one will change for the better.
Bad companies must be allowed to fail. Else you wind up with Soviet Union-style state supported industries where the industry pretends to pay the workers who pretend to work.
Only it's not just the communists that do something like this. The western countries call that 'subventions' and 'protectionist trade policies'. Sometimes it actually makes sense (strategic products/industries and so on), sometimes it's just to keep the jobs within the country.
As with your favorite beer and the Colorado river, transparency can be both elusive and illusory.
Why, I like my Guinness quite opaque, thank you very much:-)
I hear you about the illusion of transparency though. Oh well, I guess you can at least get the advertised price to match better with what you'll actually be paying, if not getting a clearer answer about why are you paying all those extra fees.
I don't think they claim they 'invented the wheel' with PPC64. The article reads:
We are the first linux distribution to offer a 64-bit top-to-bottom solution which is not a toy environment.
So no, SLES and RHEL are not referred to as toys, as far as I read it, since they are not full 64bit. This looks more like something on the line of "so far the PPC64 distros were a 32b/64b mix of code for various good reasons. Now, for those who want/need a full 64b distro that is not some research project, here it is. Enjoy.' There's nothing that I can see downplaying the previous work or design choices done by SuSe, RH and the rest of PPC64 devs.
Also, in your own words, they probably did 'a little more' than just recompiling the apps that were normally shipped as 32bit binaries for PPC64. The non-obvious good thing about this is probably more 64bit-clean code in the base distro, that can benefit the other 64bit platforms. If only for this thing alone, I think this new PPC64 port should be welcome.
You know, the first sentence was ok. Yes, 'the average user' will probably never worry about a smb mount. But with this one you just threw everything off the window.
First, you can double click to open files in smb, sftp, etc. with the kde file selector just as easily as you do for local files. By contrast, the 'open file' dialog in Gnome only works with the file:// protocol, while in the 'open location' one (to pick the gedit example) you can only write, no visual selection at all. Dumb.
Second, about the 'attitude' thing. I'm sorry to say, but dumbing down the image of the prospective user to some idiotic simpleton that can only have the Pavlovian reactions the developer trains him to is the real attitude problem. You're practically saying to the user "that's way too complicated for stupid people such as yourself" and it's insulting. Knowing how to write a filename in an edit box (with autocomplete, even!) does not require an IQ of 150, so making the input field reachable only by an undocumented keyboard shortcut is... oh well, maybe you get the picture after all.
Finally, The Usability Issue: having a common interface for opening files from various locations Is A Good Thing. Giving users the minimal expected level of choice (double-click or type in, that is mouse or keyboard) is again A Good Thing. Oversimplifying to the point where a small step outside the "Chosen Way For Open Files" (ex.: opening a hidden file[*])becomes dauntingly complex is A Bad Thing, as this type of Procustian classification of the real world is bound to fail.
[*] concerning the argument posted all over the place that one should not use an X editor to manipulate config files: people seem to forget that local config files in $HOME are also hidden. But maybe you want to argue that average users SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER LEARN about local config files. In that case, you should step away from the computer and look into a mirror - you'll see one of the real attitude problems that keep users away from Linux.
Sure, but give them a break, they're probably just extremely happy with the way their work turned out. I know I would be under the circumstances. First-release overstatements are understandable. ^_^
What could Linux possibly offer that OS X doesn't already do 10 times better?
umm... say, a server? ok, it's not a common option (I mean, 99.999% of the G5 buyers mean to use it as a nice workstation), but it's possible, nonetheless.
Second, this needs not be limited (and indeed is not) to G5. I guess for an Apple fan Power970==G5, but there are such things like Power970 workstations/blades that have nothing to do with Apple. After all, the chip is IBM's, not Apple's. Can you run OSX on an IBM PPC64 blade? I didn't think so.
Mods, how can this post be informative when the article clearly counted G5 as just one example in the list of supproted archs?
The hardware supported by gentoo-ppc64 is PowerMacintosh G5, IBM pSeries, older IBM 64 bit RS/6000s (such as the model 260, 270, F80, H80, see linuxppc64.org for a complete list) and soon IBM iSeries hardware.
This is just another Apple fan confusing G5 with PPC64, nothing more.
Umm... read the GP post again - in KDE you get that from the same open file dialog. Not only that, but any kioslave ((s)ftp://, smb://, fish:// and so on).
Your point is that in gedit you open a different dialog (open location).
No, it lies in the fact that the userland tools that the installer employs did not adapt to the changes in the kernel. Each deferred handling the translation to the other.
Slashdot Mirror
The 10D is a 'backup camera' for a pro - it's a main camera for a prosumer.
A pro using Canon would go for the 1D series, no contest. Especially with the last Mark II being on the 'affordable pro' side.
Then say the EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for about $400. Still a big difference.
... ups and downs, depending on what other lenses you already have each might be a better deal).
Besides, the 300D default lens is a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, wider interval (yeah, 5.6 instead of 4.5, non-USM
Actually, it would not be surprising for Canon to officialize some of the feature (like flash compensation), since the D70 will be more competitive otherwise. Could be a marketing trick - ship with simplified firmware first and expand it as the competition tries to catch up.
It might also explain why they didn't bother to fork the firmware code and release a new version without the hidden features, as this hack is really old news.
What does not fit the picture is that nobody else can match the features-per-price index. All Nikon has is the D70, but it's about $400 more than 300D (both full kit).
Also, remember the 'feature reduced' version has the EF-S lens; for the 10D an equivalent EF would cost you about $700 more (so 10D body+equivalent lens > 2x the price of 300D with lens).
Something is really wrong with this picture, right? It actually looks like a baragain.
I believe the 10D also has a larger viewfinder (92% versus 86% for the 300D)
/. 'pros' would claim. Mostly it's just an attitude problem.
You're joking, right? No camera has 90% viewfinder. Both 10D and 300D have 95%.
Metering is done in the software, so it should be about the same if the codebase is the same. Mechanics are different, but the difference is not as big as the
If you want the real thing, go for the 1Ds. Or even the new 1D Mark II. If you don't have the money, stop complaining and get what you can afford.
Anyway, the difference between 10D and 300D is mostly one of the photographer's skill. But it's always easier to blame the tool. How many of the 300D dissers would make half-decent pictures with a classic Leica?
yet I would still rather own a camera built out of a solid piece of metal and not some plastic/composite body.
That's highly dependant on what you want to use it for. Try trekking long enough distances with the camera and you'll learn to appreciate a ~0.5kg difference in weight. (or try climbing, for that matter).
Heavier is useful to stabilize the camera with telephoto lenses - but then, you can always use a tripod to compensate.
The point is, they use the same Digic processor - so the firmware is compatible. More rugged has nothing to do with it. Something that does not attempt to access inexistant hardware should be fine (and apparently this hack is not just blindly enabling everything)
That and the price difference between 10D and 300D add up to quite a lot.
Then your neighbor Ben Kenobi would smack you with a DMCA-style lawsuit for unauthorized interception and decryption of a private message. On Earth, you're better off without it ^_^
Actually, if an atom bomb has degraded to the point where it can't produce an fission blast, it would still function as a "dirty bomb" and spread a small cloud of toxic radiation.
Not really. Dirty bombs are the ones that don't exhaust their fissionable isotopes and thus produce radioactive fallout after the explosion. This implies a large enough explosion to spread the fallout - and large enough quantities of radioactive debris. Technically, the early fission bombs were "dirty bombs" due to their low fission efficiency.
This would be an attempt to a radiological bomb. The problem being whether there is enough radioactive material left and whether it can be dispersed enough for mass destruction. Given that fission bombs are not made out of gaseous isotopes, you'd need a fairly high amount of conventional explosive to get the radioactive material pulverized over a large enough area to do any significant damage - at which point, your conventional explosive would become a WMD in itself.
Well, technically dark matter IS 'just a bunch of stuff we haven't been able to see yet'. The speculation is that it might not be 'see-able' the way regular matter is.
Anyway, this still does not seem to explain the first reason for coming up with the dark matter idea anyway. That being the way the galaxies rotate: spiral galaxies have a (visible) more or less discoidal disposition of matter (in a plane), but appear to rotate as if they were more like spheres (that is, the radial dependence of the speed corresponds to the one you'd expect in a galaxy with matter distributed inside a sphere, not on a disk). Satelite galaxies don't seem to provide enough matter to compensate for that.
Erm ... you forgot to order the portable power plant with that. Do not worry, the latest model, "the bomb", will fit right under your chair ;-)
You're right on the money here :-)
... this being /. and all, it's a good thing (for the Linux crowd, that is). But yes - imagine all those CIOs that will start wondering what's with this Linux that MS started to compare itself with all of the sudden? Yes, the ads are biased (and only people that don't know better would trust them), but they raise the profile of Linux anyway. And given that MS is the dominant player in the server market (if only judging from the sales statistics), their mention of the direct competition looks like a sign of desperation.
Using the competition's actual name in your own advertisements is a bad sign - it says that they are credible enough to warrant discrediting.
Umm
Then again, their next (OS and SQL) server iteration is a bit far away, the new licensing scheme doesn't have too many fans and seems to be vulnerable to critique in exactly this point and Linux is leaping in the server marketshare in spite of the SCO lawsuit and all the FUD they're launching. Doesn't sound so good.
No matter how much you rant about GNU's invisibility keep in mind that the basic building blocks of the GNU/Linux OS are GNU.
... oh well, let's just say that the OS components without a kernel aren't exactly very useful.
While that is certainly true, I think RMS way overplays that card. GNU would be nowhere near where it is now without Linux. The *BSDs don't care much about it (the exception, gcc) and Hurd
I think a fairer statement about this would be that Linux and GNU owe each other. Gcc is essential, but Linux is the key piece that enabled the HUGE participation in the development of GNU software. Heck, even gcc wouldn't be where it is now if Linux didn't make it so pervasive.
So at this point, RMS is more zealot than not. He mostly sees only his side of the cake. But what's new here?
As an aside, wasn't the whole AdT rant about the Linux kernel though? All the SCO claims, the Minix connection, the Linux/Minix code comparison, were about the kernel. Where's GNU in this?
They are the sme now. Development of XFree stagnated to the point that frustrated devs gave up on it (most visible, Keith Packard). Now they get to work on X.org. The 2 projects won't stay similar for long - and guess which one will change for the better.
Bad companies must be allowed to fail. Else you wind up with Soviet Union-style state supported industries where the industry pretends to pay the workers who pretend to work.
Only it's not just the communists that do something like this. The western countries call that 'subventions' and 'protectionist trade policies'. Sometimes it actually makes sense (strategic products/industries and so on), sometimes it's just to keep the jobs within the country.
As with your favorite beer and the Colorado river, transparency can be both elusive and illusory.
:-)
Why, I like my Guinness quite opaque, thank you very much
I hear you about the illusion of transparency though. Oh well, I guess you can at least get the advertised price to match better with what you'll actually be paying, if not getting a clearer answer about why are you paying all those extra fees.
So no, SLES and RHEL are not referred to as toys, as far as I read it, since they are not full 64bit. This looks more like something on the line of "so far the PPC64 distros were a 32b/64b mix of code for various good reasons. Now, for those who want/need a full 64b distro that is not some research project, here it is. Enjoy.' There's nothing that I can see downplaying the previous work or design choices done by SuSe, RH and the rest of PPC64 devs.
Also, in your own words, they probably did 'a little more' than just recompiling the apps that were normally shipped as 32bit binaries for PPC64. The non-obvious good thing about this is probably more 64bit-clean code in the base distro, that can benefit the other 64bit platforms. If only for this thing alone, I think this new PPC64 port should be welcome.
Average users DON'T WANT TO TYPE IN URLS!
... oh well, maybe you get the picture after all.
You know, the first sentence was ok. Yes, 'the average user' will probably never worry about a smb mount. But with this one you just threw everything off the window.
First, you can double click to open files in smb, sftp, etc. with the kde file selector just as easily as you do for local files. By contrast, the 'open file' dialog in Gnome only works with the file:// protocol, while in the 'open location' one (to pick the gedit example) you can only write, no visual selection at all. Dumb.
Second, about the 'attitude' thing. I'm sorry to say, but dumbing down the image of the prospective user to some idiotic simpleton that can only have the Pavlovian reactions the developer trains him to is the real attitude problem. You're practically saying to the user "that's way too complicated for stupid people such as yourself" and it's insulting. Knowing how to write a filename in an edit box (with autocomplete, even!) does not require an IQ of 150, so making the input field reachable only by an undocumented keyboard shortcut is
Finally, The Usability Issue: having a common interface for opening files from various locations Is A Good Thing. Giving users the minimal expected level of choice (double-click or type in, that is mouse or keyboard) is again A Good Thing. Oversimplifying to the point where a small step outside the "Chosen Way For Open Files" (ex.: opening a hidden file[*])becomes dauntingly complex is A Bad Thing, as this type of Procustian classification of the real world is bound to fail.
[*] concerning the argument posted all over the place that one should not use an X editor to manipulate config files: people seem to forget that local config files in $HOME are also hidden. But maybe you want to argue that average users SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER LEARN about local config files. In that case, you should step away from the computer and look into a mirror - you'll see one of the real attitude problems that keep users away from Linux.
Sure, but give them a break, they're probably just extremely happy with the way their work turned out. I know I would be under the circumstances. First-release overstatements are understandable. ^_^
umm
Second, this needs not be limited (and indeed is not) to G5. I guess for an Apple fan Power970==G5, but there are such things like Power970 workstations/blades that have nothing to do with Apple. After all, the chip is IBM's, not Apple's. Can you run OSX on an IBM PPC64 blade? I didn't think so.
Mods, how can this post be informative when the article clearly counted G5 as just one example in the list of supproted archs?
This is just another Apple fan confusing G5 with PPC64, nothing more.
too bad it won't be available for long.
Umm ... read the GP post again - in KDE you get that from the same open file dialog. Not only that, but any kioslave ((s)ftp://, smb://, fish:// and so on).
Your point is that in gedit you open a different dialog (open location).
you might also see it as a waste of valuable time. Others would call the phenomenon "gaming" ^_^
No, it lies in the fact that the userland tools that the installer employs did not adapt to the changes in the kernel. Each deferred handling the translation to the other.