"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."
Every phone I've bought has been dull. They tend to have rounded corners, because otherwise you'd be cutting your face on the sharp edges. That's why I never bought a Razr.
... HTC (now a subsidiary of Dell) starts releasing rubbish devices. I don't think there is anything good on this planet that Dell couldn't turn into a turd.
Being named "USS New Orleans," I would have assumed the vessel was some type of catfish. But I guess if it walks like an amphibious transport dock, and quacks like an amphibious transport dock, it probably is an amphibious transport dock.
Gozer the Gozerian? Good evening. As a duly-designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the next convenient parallel dimension.
There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
The difference is that those aren't science degrees.
No, the GP was not making that argument. He was arguing that people have freedom of choice in who they do business with, and business owners are free (within the limits of the law) to choose how they run their business.
A "might makes right" argument would be saying that Blizzard is so big and powerful, they can force you to do whatever they like without consequence. But that argument was never made.
Were it not for the restraint of the legal system, I'm sure many companies wouldn't hesitate to rob you blind, literally.
How does this comment have anything to do with the one you were replying to? Where did the GP say that the legal system should be abolished?
"Dosen't an expert need to set up Linux?" "No, it's quick and easy!" (show a YAST or GRUB GUI installation)
"Can I change the way it looks?" "Sure, much more than Vista or OSX!" (quickly show a wide variety of theme shots)
"How do I install software?" "Look, it's easy. Everything is at your fingertips." (show the GUI apt-get)
"Does Linux work with different hardware?" "Of course." (show rapid-fire shots of CUPS recognition, multiple monitors, etc.)
"Can I run my Windows programs on Linux?" "Yes you can." (show WINE in action)
Your ad has me wanting to gouge my eyes and ears out within the first 10 seconds. That's not a good thing.
I was going to say *woooosh* but then I decided to ask - did you even bother to read the whole post you were replying to before responding? But then I just decided to say woooosh.
I don't see how carbon sequestering can be more economically viable than wind or solar, unless there are laws passed or subsidies levied that make it economically viable. That's a technology that doesn't actually produce anything. It's more of a garbage collection service than an energy technology.
Dell tries to pull this shit all the time. Problem is, it's middle-aged marketing people who couldn't get a job at a decent agency, trying to read youth culture. That's why it results in things like this, and the "Dud you're getting a Dell!" guy, which are just so out of touch with the zeitgeist. They're only a few brainstorming sessions away from coming up with Poochy the rapping cartoon dog with "attitude."
I don't really like the Apple notebooks except for the MacBook Pro. All the others look like eeePC cheap plastic toy laptops. But, MacBook pros are $2000+.
You must have missed the fact that current Macbook models are machined from a solid block of aluminum, just like the Macbook Pros.
The other reason I don't like MacBooks is that it seems that people who use them seem have fallen in love with their laptop. They always want to have it on and in front of them at all times - always claketing around this or that.
What a strange thing to say. You don't like a certain model of laptop, because its users seem to enjoy using them? Would you rather buy a model which the users are frustrated with, and don't use very much because they are a hassle?
"Speeding" is driving faster than a number written at the side of the road by people sitting in offices 300 miles away.
No, it's not. In most places, you can also be charged with speeding for driving too fast for the conditions, even if you are going under the posted limit.
What I'd probably do is start with an ISO of 400 then go to 200 and 800 to evaluate how it comes out. I'll want to make large prints, maybe poster sized.
I recall using films as slow as 25 ISO for all-night exposures when I did some star shooting. In a way it can be advantageous - not just because of film grain and contrast - but because it can better average out the presence of occluding objects like clouds and aircraft because of the longer exposure. But I'd check a specialist journal or book first, to see what the current thinking on film stock is.
Yes, I frequently shoot under low-light. I haven't done any astrophotography for over a decade. The issues are not so big with that - because you can make long exposures - you don't have to capture action (provided you have a tracking system, or want the stars to become lines). Usually you would use a slow film for astrophotography, to capture the detail.
Nope, there is no reference of "well written" in the definition provided by Merriam Webster. I call shenanigans. Even if you were to use such a definition, it would immediately disqualify the bulk of what we now refer to as Sci-Fi.
Well, you're talking about a point-and-shoot camera. They have always sucked under low-light conditions. Proper digital cameras (i.e decent SLRs) have beaten film hands-down under low-light conditions for years now. Check out a Nikon D90 or recent Canon DSLR, amazing performance in almost no light. The ability to shoot in conditions that were basically impossible for film.
I'm not sure why somebody would choose a point-and-shoot if they wanted to shoot under low light anyway. They are inherently poor, with their slow zoom lenses, and flash mounted right next to the lens. Still, if you actually compare the results, I think that the digital point-and-shoots would still compare favorably to most of the film-based ones, which you'd have to load with 800 to 3200 ISO film to work in low light.
When was the last time you looked at digital cameras? Current digital cameras absolutely trounce film for low-light performance. An added benefit is that you don't have to buy special film or use filters for shooting under incandescent or other non-daylight sources.
Bottom line - if you shoot a lot in low light, you want digital. Film is a nightmare to work with in such situations.
I think Slashdot mostly falls into that "techno-savvy crowd," but somehow,
I doubt it. Slashdotters have widely varying musical tastes, and many who hate techno. I would be very surprised if a majority of readers were techno aficionados.
Slashdot Mirror
Palm CEO Ed Colligan in November 2006:
"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."
and the fact that the iPhone has to bypass the carriers all together
Pardon?
Every phone I've bought has been dull. They tend to have rounded corners, because otherwise you'd be cutting your face on the sharp edges. That's why I never bought a Razr.
Dell buys HTC.
... HTC (now a subsidiary of Dell) starts releasing rubbish devices. I don't think there is anything good on this planet that Dell couldn't turn into a turd.
Being named "USS New Orleans," I would have assumed the vessel was some type of catfish. But I guess if it walks like an amphibious transport dock, and quacks like an amphibious transport dock, it probably is an amphibious transport dock.
Gozer the Gozerian? Good evening. As a duly-designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the next convenient parallel dimension.
There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
The difference is that those aren't science degrees.
What you are advocating is "might makes right"
No, the GP was not making that argument. He was arguing that people have freedom of choice in who they do business with, and business owners are free (within the limits of the law) to choose how they run their business.
A "might makes right" argument would be saying that Blizzard is so big and powerful, they can force you to do whatever they like without consequence. But that argument was never made.
Were it not for the restraint of the legal system, I'm sure many companies wouldn't hesitate to rob you blind, literally.
How does this comment have anything to do with the one you were replying to? Where did the GP say that the legal system should be abolished?
Well, but both certificates were for capitalone.com subdomains
His bank is called Cap it Alone? Sounds more like a site for lonely thugs or solitary hunters.
Existing constituencies include 'Commercial and Business,' 'gTLD,' 'Registrars,' 'Non-commercial,' etc.
I'm not sure what Gay Transgendered Lesbian Dykes have to do with this issue.
... followed by him breaking into a folk-rock rendition of the Free Software Song.
"Dosen't an expert need to set up Linux?" "No, it's quick and easy!" (show a YAST or GRUB GUI installation) "Can I change the way it looks?" "Sure, much more than Vista or OSX!" (quickly show a wide variety of theme shots) "How do I install software?" "Look, it's easy. Everything is at your fingertips." (show the GUI apt-get) "Does Linux work with different hardware?" "Of course." (show rapid-fire shots of CUPS recognition, multiple monitors, etc.) "Can I run my Windows programs on Linux?" "Yes you can." (show WINE in action)
Your ad has me wanting to gouge my eyes and ears out within the first 10 seconds. That's not a good thing.
I was going to say *woooosh* but then I decided to ask - did you even bother to read the whole post you were replying to before responding? But then I just decided to say woooosh.
I don't see how carbon sequestering can be more economically viable than wind or solar, unless there are laws passed or subsidies levied that make it economically viable. That's a technology that doesn't actually produce anything. It's more of a garbage collection service than an energy technology.
Dell tries to pull this shit all the time. Problem is, it's middle-aged marketing people who couldn't get a job at a decent agency, trying to read youth culture. That's why it results in things like this, and the "Dud you're getting a Dell!" guy, which are just so out of touch with the zeitgeist. They're only a few brainstorming sessions away from coming up with Poochy the rapping cartoon dog with "attitude."
Isn't that oxymoronic?
It's definitely some kind of moronic.
I don't really like the Apple notebooks except for the MacBook Pro. All the others look like eeePC cheap plastic toy laptops. But, MacBook pros are $2000+.
You must have missed the fact that current Macbook models are machined from a solid block of aluminum, just like the Macbook Pros.
The other reason I don't like MacBooks is that it seems that people who use them seem have fallen in love with their laptop. They always want to have it on and in front of them at all times - always claketing around this or that.
What a strange thing to say. You don't like a certain model of laptop, because its users seem to enjoy using them? Would you rather buy a model which the users are frustrated with, and don't use very much because they are a hassle?
"Speeding" is driving faster than a number written at the side of the road by people sitting in offices 300 miles away.
No, it's not. In most places, you can also be charged with speeding for driving too fast for the conditions, even if you are going under the posted limit.
What I'd probably do is start with an ISO of 400 then go to 200 and 800 to evaluate how it comes out. I'll want to make large prints, maybe poster sized.
I recall using films as slow as 25 ISO for all-night exposures when I did some star shooting. In a way it can be advantageous - not just because of film grain and contrast - but because it can better average out the presence of occluding objects like clouds and aircraft because of the longer exposure. But I'd check a specialist journal or book first, to see what the current thinking on film stock is.
Yes, I frequently shoot under low-light. I haven't done any astrophotography for over a decade. The issues are not so big with that - because you can make long exposures - you don't have to capture action (provided you have a tracking system, or want the stars to become lines). Usually you would use a slow film for astrophotography, to capture the detail.
Nope, there is no reference of "well written" in the definition provided by Merriam Webster. I call shenanigans. Even if you were to use such a definition, it would immediately disqualify the bulk of what we now refer to as Sci-Fi.
Well, you're talking about a point-and-shoot camera. They have always sucked under low-light conditions. Proper digital cameras (i.e decent SLRs) have beaten film hands-down under low-light conditions for years now. Check out a Nikon D90 or recent Canon DSLR, amazing performance in almost no light. The ability to shoot in conditions that were basically impossible for film.
I'm not sure why somebody would choose a point-and-shoot if they wanted to shoot under low light anyway. They are inherently poor, with their slow zoom lenses, and flash mounted right next to the lens. Still, if you actually compare the results, I think that the digital point-and-shoots would still compare favorably to most of the film-based ones, which you'd have to load with 800 to 3200 ISO film to work in low light.
What about the Red Epic 617 [red.com] that will deliver 261.4 megapixels at 30fps, that's supposed to be available for $53k next spring?
But it's not an SLR, and it's cumbersome to work with. Not something you'd want to use for many typical still photography scenarios.
When was the last time you looked at digital cameras? Current digital cameras absolutely trounce film for low-light performance. An added benefit is that you don't have to buy special film or use filters for shooting under incandescent or other non-daylight sources.
Bottom line - if you shoot a lot in low light, you want digital. Film is a nightmare to work with in such situations.
I think Slashdot mostly falls into that "techno-savvy crowd," but somehow,
I doubt it. Slashdotters have widely varying musical tastes, and many who hate techno. I would be very surprised if a majority of readers were techno aficionados.