I was in astronomy for quite some time....That's you who does not know what he is talking about.
Great! Then you must be aware of the advantages of digital over film for astronomical observation. Did you ever use 40 speed film? I thought not. Telescopic imaging has far different requirements than outdoor photography. I would never even consider using the same equipment for astronomical observations as I would for outdoor photography. That said, the available outdoor photographic systems simply don't have the resolution to match film.
You are comparing apples to oranges and being a dick about it besides. (but I guess this is/.)
Ansel Adams was an expert at manipulating images in a way that made them look more natural, and never artificial. That said, outdoor photographers are only recently getting into digital film and the progress has been very slow.
Ansel Adams would not have adopted digital film, yet. Look at a full print of one of his photos. They were amazingly sharp. The man loved detail like no other. Digital photography does not yet provide the level of detail that Adams would have required.
Similarly todays outdoor photographers still commonly use large and medium format cameras using (in the case of color) films like Fuji Velvia (RVP 50), etc. These films deliver, IMO, a level of saturation that digital has yet to produce. It is close, but not there. Professional digital systems are beautiful, but in my opinion do not deliver the beauty of a professional analog print.
That said, some professionals are very good at what they do and their pictures rival the film pictures of the other 98% of us.
Yes, but their traffic is miniscule compared to a dot com like amazon. Also, I don't know the details of the BLAST backend, but I'm not sure it even counts in this competition. It is a conglomeration of tools and several datasets, not incorporated as a single database.
It simple really, what will become of cars from today when they become classics. They simply won't.
I agree with the cars you mentioned specifically, but you are wrong about the statement above. Not only are there going to be post 1985 classics, there will be more post 1985 classics than cars from the 30's-80's. Some of those cars are even going to be american. The viper, prowler and that new ford come to mind. Not my favorite cars, but there is definately a market for them. Imports also will have classics, much of BMW's M line (in particular the M5 from the late 80's early 90's), anything by ferrari, the porsche turbo's, the lamborghinis, most bentley's and rolls royce autos. Some high end mercedes. The BMW alpina and Z8 will be around for many years to come.
I think there are classic cars today, maybe the difference is that most people can't afford them.
Find a better mechanic. I/my wife owns an 89 BMW 325i Conv. It is way cool, pretty fast, a lot of fun and cost less than $5k in very good condition (less than 100k california miles). We found that headaches are minimized if you find someone who is *truely* an expert in your car. At first we went to a mechanic to do some really minor work and everytime we took it back, something new was broken! Bad. (Mechanics will never admit fault for something like this, even if they fix it they act like they are doing you a favor) Anyway, find a good (very good) german mechanic. I'm willing to be a good vw mechanic may suffice, given the similarity of the makes, but not sure.
14 years is not that old. These cars should still be very fixable. You don't need a new car, you need a new mechanic. Ask around.
But the Martha case was totally different. She was (allegedely) told specifics about a report before it came out and sold stock. I realize lots and lots of/.'ers are really upset about this, but there is no evidence SCO is any worse than any other corporate FUD campaign from the past.
Stop stealing! Don't zap wands at them, and don't use their stuff if you can't pay for it.
You are correct on all of your comments, particularly the slow down part. I have a bad habit of accidently breaking down doors that lead to closed shops, (and certain death) not dying for any of the reasons you list.
Last year, after the/. nethack post, I tried nethack. That game is the most ridiculously addictive frustration fest this side of thumb cuffs. I don't understand how some (rare) people can ascend so often. I'm always falling through the floor, pissing off of shopkeepers, getting poisoned by snakes, running out of food, pissing off my god, or getting turned into a were-something. (Those were-somethings deaths are particularly annoying, especially when praying doesn't work) I generally play a dwarf Valkarie, because the mines are really much easier when everything isn't trying to kill you.
Is there any place for watching logs of successful games, to get an idea of how to play certain aspects of the game? For example, I still have trouble with spells and scrolls. They usually do something bad to me, and I never find out what they do (until I die).
I'm surprised this guy is from Australia. I'm sure there are *a lot* of other scammers out there. There are lots of flavors of nigerian scam emails out there and they all (in my observation) have had horrible typographic errors and poor grammer. (I know, mine is bad, too, but at least I'm not the brother of the king of whatchamaplace) I assume this guy was an early scammer who successfully hit a few people.
Your post should not have been modded as flamebait. A quick glance at the online version, however, suggests that E.C. is not particularly convincing. For example, the protein and dna section (something I know quite a bit about) suggests that evolutionary history is impossible, because the events to create proteins and dna are too unlikely to be possible.
This is a common argument, but one that doesn't hold much weight. Many things in biology are exceedingly unlikely. For example, proteins have 2^(300) or so (depending on the protein) different conformations, yet they find the correct one very quickly (often in less than a few microseconds). How can a protein explore 2^300 or even 2^10000 different conformations nearly instantly? (this is the levinthal paradox, btw) Because it is not sampling randomly. There are loads of experiments to suggest that neither is evolution. So in order to make the improbability argument on evolution you must first be able to suggest that evolution samples different states randomly, which it clearly doesn't.
Instead of saying "NO!", perhaps you should ask why as many scientists who are both religious and scientific do.
These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!. The point is, you can't prove it
Of course you can. There are two sides to evolution. One is the fundamentals, like traits are inherited and can change over time through the process of "evolution". This is quite proven. We know the molecular details to the point that we can observe it in an electron microscope (DNA reproducing), and we can engineer it at will.
The second part of evolution is that path by which our species (and others) came to be. That is an entirely different debate. There are loads of evidence, but it may be, an improveable model.
One problem with recycling is an economic one. Recycling only works if recycling affects supply and not price. If supply is constant, recyclers will cause prices to fall, and therefore, sales should rise, particularly if recyclers are in the minority. Saving paper may just allow another company to buy more paper at a lower price, therefore negating the gain of recycling. Does that mean we shouldn't recycle? No! It means that other political efforts may be required to prevent recyclers for just allowing someone else to profit.
A quick comment on old growth forests. Preserving old growth forests has nothing to do with recycling or need. Compared to 150 years ago, old growth forests are nearly gone. I want old growth forests preserved because they are rare and valuable from a beauty and moral standpoint. Many who have been in a pacific northwest old growth forest know this. There is plenty (like most forest land) of other managed non-old growth forest land that logging companies manage. By cutting the last of the old growth forests, companies profit and loggers will lose their jobs. To imply that the ones who recycle (misguided, I agree) are ignorant need to look at the loggers who let their bosses profit while they lose their livelihood. These days, old growth forests are exceedingly valuable and rare and truely irreplaceable.
I got in a bit of a debate with a friend of mine. The question at hand is why, and if, anyone would build a sentient being, given the technology. My friend argued that, of course, sentient beings would be big business, or at least produced commercially. I argued that there is not commercial market for a computer that doesn't want to be unplugged, or might sue to be able to own property.
Sure, I can see a computer that might reason, we see lots of them now. I can also see a computer that acts like it has emotions. That will be a huge benefit (telemarketing anyone?). But I just can't see an expensive computer that does these things that, at the end of the day, is simply a computer running a well described program that does not allow for thought (and emotions!) outside of the boundaries of which it was created.
Maybe I'm incorrect. But I would love a computer that could do science for me. But, I don't want that computer to cry when it finds (or can't find) the answer.
Can a publicly funded institution really enforce trademarks and their name against public use and possibly defamation?
I buy your argument, but what about intellectual property, should that be public as well? Public universities make millions (100's of millions in UC's case) on IP. Is that moral? Or what about sports such as football, can they protect those names, too?
Hmm, a part of me agrees with your argument, but the rest of me sees a very different reality.
Slashdot Mirror
... and all of the cyberdead rolling over in their graves! ... and all of the cyber pastor's wives who are horrified, just horrified! ... and so on.
Heh,
-Sean
BTW - My dell laptop (latitude c400) is pretty quiet and the touch pad or buttons don't make noise!
-Sean
I was in astronomy for quite some time....That's you who does not know what he is talking about.
/.)
Great! Then you must be aware of the advantages of digital over film for astronomical observation. Did you ever use 40 speed film? I thought not. Telescopic imaging has far different requirements than outdoor photography. I would never even consider using the same equipment for astronomical observations as I would for outdoor photography. That said, the available outdoor photographic systems simply don't have the resolution to match film.
You are comparing apples to oranges and being a dick about it besides. (but I guess this is
-Sean
Bullshit. Digital back at 20+ Mp capture more information that your lense can transmit.
Hmm. Nice. My guess is that you've never seen a blow up of either a 20+ MP digital pixel *or* an original Ansel Adams blown up.
-Sean
Ansel Adams was an expert at manipulating images in a way that made them look more natural, and never artificial. That said, outdoor photographers are only recently getting into digital film and the progress has been very slow.
Ansel Adams would not have adopted digital film, yet. Look at a full print of one of his photos. They were amazingly sharp. The man loved detail like no other. Digital photography does not yet provide the level of detail that Adams would have required.
Similarly todays outdoor photographers still commonly use large and medium format cameras using (in the case of color) films like Fuji Velvia (RVP 50), etc. These films deliver, IMO, a level of saturation that digital has yet to produce. It is close, but not there. Professional digital systems are beautiful, but in my opinion do not deliver the beauty of a professional analog print.
That said, some professionals are very good at what they do and their pictures rival the film pictures of the other 98% of us.
-Sean
Yes, but their traffic is miniscule compared to a dot com like amazon. Also, I don't know the details of the BLAST backend, but I'm not sure it even counts in this competition. It is a conglomeration of tools and several datasets, not incorporated as a single database.
-Sean
The Space Elevator can't be far away now...
Unfortunately, it needs to be on average 35,000 Km away to work.
-Sean
Yup and Puerto Rico. Both great games.
-Sean
2,772 divided by .50 is 5544. That means each system will have to be played 5544 times to just *break even*. Quick, boring fad gone in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...
Heh, I'll just just go back to playing my 2600 Space Invaders I got, for, um, $10 bucks (including console).
-Sean
What no PCjr? Brilliant marketing move all around...
-Sean
One word: eBay. You will find gamecube games at a reasonable price there.
-Sean
It simple really, what will become of cars from today when they become classics. They simply won't.
I agree with the cars you mentioned specifically, but you are wrong about the statement above. Not only are there going to be post 1985 classics, there will be more post 1985 classics than cars from the 30's-80's. Some of those cars are even going to be american. The viper, prowler and that new ford come to mind. Not my favorite cars, but there is definately a market for them. Imports also will have classics, much of BMW's M line (in particular the M5 from the late 80's early 90's), anything by ferrari, the porsche turbo's, the lamborghinis, most bentley's and rolls royce autos. Some high end mercedes. The BMW alpina and Z8 will be around for many years to come.
I think there are classic cars today, maybe the difference is that most people can't afford them.
-Sean
Make that "I'm willing to bet a good .."
As to the rest of your comments, whatever...
Find a better mechanic. I/my wife owns an 89 BMW 325i Conv. It is way cool, pretty fast, a lot of fun and cost less than $5k in very good condition (less than 100k california miles). We found that headaches are minimized if you find someone who is *truely* an expert in your car. At first we went to a mechanic to do some really minor work and everytime we took it back, something new was broken! Bad. (Mechanics will never admit fault for something like this, even if they fix it they act like they are doing you a favor) Anyway, find a good (very good) german mechanic. I'm willing to be a good vw mechanic may suffice, given the similarity of the makes, but not sure.
14 years is not that old. These cars should still be very fixable. You don't need a new car, you need a new mechanic. Ask around.
-Sean
But the Martha case was totally different. She was (allegedely) told specifics about a report before it came out and sold stock. I realize lots and lots of /.'ers are really upset about this, but there is no evidence SCO is any worse than any other corporate FUD campaign from the past.
-Sean
>>pissing off of shopkeepers
Stop stealing! Don't zap wands at them, and don't use their stuff if you can't pay for it.
You are correct on all of your comments, particularly the slow down part. I have a bad habit of accidently breaking down doors that lead to closed shops, (and certain death) not dying for any of the reasons you list.
-Sean
Last year, after the /. nethack post, I tried nethack. That game is the most ridiculously addictive frustration fest this side of thumb cuffs. I don't understand how some (rare) people can ascend so often. I'm always falling through the floor, pissing off of shopkeepers, getting poisoned by snakes, running out of food, pissing off my god, or getting turned into a were-something. (Those were-somethings deaths are particularly annoying, especially when praying doesn't work) I generally play a dwarf Valkarie, because the mines are really much easier when everything isn't trying to kill you.
Is there any place for watching logs of successful games, to get an idea of how to play certain aspects of the game? For example, I still have trouble with spells and scrolls. They usually do something bad to me, and I never find out what they do (until I die).
Heh,
-Sean
I'm surprised this guy is from Australia. I'm sure there are *a lot* of other scammers out there. There are lots of flavors of nigerian scam emails out there and they all (in my observation) have had horrible typographic errors and poor grammer. (I know, mine is bad, too, but at least I'm not the brother of the king of whatchamaplace) I assume this guy was an early scammer who successfully hit a few people.
-Sean
EVOLUTION CRUNCHER
Your post should not have been modded as flamebait. A quick glance at the online version, however, suggests that E.C. is not particularly convincing. For example, the protein and dna section (something I know quite a bit about) suggests that evolutionary history is impossible, because the events to create proteins and dna are too unlikely to be possible.
This is a common argument, but one that doesn't hold much weight. Many things in biology are exceedingly unlikely. For example, proteins have 2^(300) or so (depending on the protein) different conformations, yet they find the correct one very quickly (often in less than a few microseconds). How can a protein explore 2^300 or even 2^10000 different conformations nearly instantly? (this is the levinthal paradox, btw) Because it is not sampling randomly. There are loads of experiments to suggest that neither is evolution. So in order to make the improbability argument on evolution you must first be able to suggest that evolution samples different states randomly, which it clearly doesn't.
Instead of saying "NO!", perhaps you should ask why as many scientists who are both religious and scientific do.
-Sean
These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!. The point is, you can't prove it
Of course you can. There are two sides to evolution. One is the fundamentals, like traits are inherited and can change over time through the process of "evolution". This is quite proven. We know the molecular details to the point that we can observe it in an electron microscope (DNA reproducing), and we can engineer it at will.
The second part of evolution is that path by which our species (and others) came to be. That is an entirely different debate. There are loads of evidence, but it may be, an improveable model.
-Sean
I would consider the zelda games (wind waker) to be a must play game. I counting on mario kart to deliver as well....
-Sean
One problem with recycling is an economic one. Recycling only works if recycling affects supply and not price. If supply is constant, recyclers will cause prices to fall, and therefore, sales should rise, particularly if recyclers are in the minority. Saving paper may just allow another company to buy more paper at a lower price, therefore negating the gain of recycling. Does that mean we shouldn't recycle? No! It means that other political efforts may be required to prevent recyclers for just allowing someone else to profit.
-Sean
A quick comment on old growth forests. Preserving old growth forests has nothing to do with recycling or need. Compared to 150 years ago, old growth forests are nearly gone. I want old growth forests preserved because they are rare and valuable from a beauty and moral standpoint. Many who have been in a pacific northwest old growth forest know this. There is plenty (like most forest land) of other managed non-old growth forest land that logging companies manage. By cutting the last of the old growth forests, companies profit and loggers will lose their jobs. To imply that the ones who recycle (misguided, I agree) are ignorant need to look at the loggers who let their bosses profit while they lose their livelihood. These days, old growth forests are exceedingly valuable and rare and truely irreplaceable.
-Sean
I got in a bit of a debate with a friend of mine. The question at hand is why, and if, anyone would build a sentient being, given the technology. My friend argued that, of course, sentient beings would be big business, or at least produced commercially. I argued that there is not commercial market for a computer that doesn't want to be unplugged, or might sue to be able to own property.
Sure, I can see a computer that might reason, we see lots of them now. I can also see a computer that acts like it has emotions. That will be a huge benefit (telemarketing anyone?). But I just can't see an expensive computer that does these things that, at the end of the day, is simply a computer running a well described program that does not allow for thought (and emotions!) outside of the boundaries of which it was created.
Maybe I'm incorrect. But I would love a computer that could do science for me. But, I don't want that computer to cry when it finds (or can't find) the answer.
-Sean
Can a publicly funded institution really enforce trademarks and their name against public use and possibly defamation?
I buy your argument, but what about intellectual property, should that be public as well? Public universities make millions (100's of millions in UC's case) on IP. Is that moral? Or what about sports such as football, can they protect those names, too?
Hmm, a part of me agrees with your argument, but the rest of me sees a very different reality.
-Sean