OK, I'll bite. To restate my question, why does a digital camera, which can (and usually does) display in real time exactly what the sensor sees, need this extra mirror to provide the SLR action? You haven't provided me any new information.
IBM did make a grave business error of not recognizing the direction of the market and collapsed. MS correctly predicted the future, and did well. MS doesn't want to make the same mistake IBM did, so it competes everywhere.
I can perform up to 3 simultaneous map searches. This means I can see the locations of all Safeways, libraries, and CompUSAs on the same map [live.com]. Useful if you intend on going to multiple places when driving.
And if you happen to have continuous broadband internet access while driving.
I am not a photographer, but I thought SLR was a way for you to see exactly what the film would capture rather than just what you see through a point-and-shoot camera's viewfinder (which depends on your eye's position relative to the camera). But almost all digital cameras come with LCD screens that let you see exactly what the camera will capture. Isn't DSLR the same thing, or am I missing something? It seems like it just signifies a professional camera that is shaped somewhat like most SLR film cameras (i.e., large) and is compatible with the same lens attachments. Does it really have single-lens reflex action and, if so, why? Can someone tell me what I'm missing?
Consider this question. Is it good for someone who thinks of himself as uninformed (like the submitter) not to vote while someone who really doesn't understand the issues but has a strong opinion votes? Surely everyone living in America has a vague idea of his political stance. Is it ok to stand by while someone who believes everything that a religious extremist nut like Pat Robertson says votes? What about the left-wing nut who believes that all conservative politicians are members of a secret cult that is trying to take over the world? I actually think it's the people who fervently support one candidate or party who are less capable of making a rational choice. I think it's better for a slightly informed but rational person to vote than to remain silent. At the very least, it may cause him to take more of an interest in politics in the future.
"or famous evangelical ministers are outed for using methamphetamines with male prostitutes [yahoo.com] and the news comes out in the weeks prior to the election..."
Come on, he was just getting a "massage" and he didn't use the drugs, he just threw them away. If I had a dime for every time I bought meth and then threw it away...
I've seen lots of plagiarism on WP myself. Mostly they were sourced, but they were copied directly from the source and not put in quotes. My usual response is to delete the offending passage and put a note in the discussion with a link to the plagiarism article. Sometimes people have asked me why I didn't paraphrase the content myself. My stock response is, "to make a point." WP won't survive if it's users continue to rip off others' work. I think WP needs to take this more seriously by, for example, providing a link on every page where plagiarism can be reported and imposing a temporary ban on people who do this. WP does NOT need the contribution of people who can't understand plagiarism or refuse to abide by the rules.
Cats are developing opposable thumbs. I've seen several cats with six toes on their front paws--some even have six on their back paws too. They can grasp things like little monkeys. I, for one, welcome our new six-toed cat overloads (who are soon to replace our five-toed cat overloads).
I tried to decline the IE7 install. But a little yellow shield with an exclamation point in the middle hung out in my system tray to remind me that my system was still vulnerable to attacks. How do you think the average user will respond to that?
I first installed Fedora Core 4 about a year ago, though I still continue to use Windows most of the time. I thought it looked just fine compared to Windows. I think there are a few reasons home users and businesses don't use Linux, but eye candy isn't one of them.
First, home users. In my experience, they're concerned mainly about two things: compatibility and usability. They want to know that their printer, their digital camera, and the software they're used to using will be compatible with their OS. While I think the free software available in Linux is top notch and more than adequate for the home user, the hardware support is not. How many times have you heard about people who install Linux only to find out they can't print, or their wireless network card doesn't work. Not to mention the hoops you have to jump through to install drivers. And the first time they can't find "My Computer" or the C drive, or, for more experienced users, the command prompt, they will panic. If they have to type in the root password every thirty seconds, they might get a little frustrated too.
Now non-IT businesses are mostly held back by the cost of switching. The company I work for would be absolutely crippled if they had to switch to Linux overnight. All of their important documents (Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, Access database applications, many of which make heavy use of VB macros) are hopelessly tied to Windows. For example, all of their ISO 9000 documents, which are absolutely critical to their business, are in MS Office documents that wouldn't work with OO.org because of the macros, etc. The cost of converting would be enormous, in terms of the additional IT man-hours required, the lost productivity of people not able to access the information they need, and possibly the loss of customers. They do use some Linux servers for the intranet, and various databases, but all of the non-IS office computers run Windows.
I think the Linux community should focus on making Linux usable to the home user. Hardware support comparable to that of Windows and easy updating of software and drivers are the most important things. GUI eye candy just makes existing converts feel better about their OS. Macs have had a pretty GUI for a while now, and yet most people continue to use Windows. With the outrageous cost of Vista, I think Linux has a real shot at winning over more home users in the near future.
[...]they had one case where a woman was found to have XY chromosomes, and STILL ended up having a child.
Link please. I think I would have heard of a biologically male human giving birth. There are times when an individual can have two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome, but in that case, it usually ends up looking more like a male (they are called "double-X Y males") and is not able to give birth.
The terms were defined as such to resolve ambiguity back in the 19th century to better describe intersexed, homosexual, and transsexual people.
Way to "revise" history. The usage of the word gender to describe someone's personality as opposed to their biological sex was invented in the middle of the 20th century. It is technical jargon used by social scientists and psychologists. I'm really tired of seeing people "corrected" when they use gender as a synonym for sex. When the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists "sex" as a definition, it's good enough for me. Stop trying to impose what you were told in your Humanities electives on the rest of us.
Not only have people forgotten about bird flu, they don't even remember that Microsoft was ordered to separate IE from Windows. And they've also forgotten about that bird flu thing. People have such short memories.
I could have sworn that the last time I flew, they actually scanned my ticket before I boarded. If they don't do this, then they definitely should. How hard would it be to check the barcode on a ticket against a database of tickets that have actually been sold?
I'm not suggesting that they include the drivers with the installation. I'm suggesting that they allow their update tools to install them, after making the user aware that they are proprietary, closed source drivers, of course. Rigidly adhering to a policy of not dealing with proprietary software/drivers seems like a disservice to users.
When he's a congressman, I'd say it does. Although technically a member of the legislative branch, not the executive, a congressman can be very influential.
(I'm currently very happy with wxWidgets, but have used Qt heavily in the past).
Have you looked into FLTK? I confess I haven't looked at wxWidgets lately, but when I had to choose a free, cross-platform widget library a couple years ago, I decided FLTK was my best choice. I was a bit put off by its sluggish development, but I liked the API.
I tried to install updated nVidia drivers for my Fedora Core 4 partition a while back. It didn't work. I followed the directions exactly, but X wouldn't start up. This makes me wonder, with nVidia being one of the most common 3d accelerators in PCs, why can't the update manager download and install these for you? I don't see why I should have to go through a complicated (for a newbie) multi-step installation procedure just to update video drivers. For a time, Linux support was one of the advantages that nVidia had over the competition, so why isn't nVidia working with the major Linux distros to try to make this process simpler? It seems like promoting Linux as a viable gaming platform would be one of the best ways to encourage the adoption of Linux for home computers.
I vote for the pink pony. Except it has to have a single horn growing out of its head. And it has to be invisible. Hey, for all we know, he actually did use that icon for this story.
And here's why: humans didn't pop into existence at the beginning of the twentieth century. We've been around more-or-less in our modern form for at least a hundred thousand years. In the past there were multiple species (or sub-species) of hominids existing at the same time. They developed independently because they were isolated (by desert, glaciers, water, etc.) But when the climate allowed for population movements, these other (sub)species either died out or interbred with modern humans to give one species: Homo sapiens sapiens. Even populations that were isolated for thousands of years (American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, etc.) managed to remain the same species. So how are we to believe that modern humans, who can travel to the opposite end of the globe in a day, can actually become segregated enough to evolve into multiple species? This is completely contrary to human history and our current understanding of evolution. It's certainly a provocative idea that grabs a lot of media attention, but I don't see much scientific basis for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I would have thought it would have belonged to a whale.
OK, I'll bite. To restate my question, why does a digital camera, which can (and usually does) display in real time exactly what the sensor sees, need this extra mirror to provide the SLR action? You haven't provided me any new information.
IBM did make a grave business error of not recognizing the direction of the market and collapsed. MS correctly predicted the future, and did well. MS doesn't want to make the same mistake IBM did, so it competes everywhere.
OK, there's one more way to say it. Who knows it?
I can perform up to 3 simultaneous map searches. This means I can see the locations of all Safeways, libraries, and CompUSAs on the same map [live.com]. Useful if you intend on going to multiple places when driving.
And if you happen to have continuous broadband internet access while driving.
I am not a photographer, but I thought SLR was a way for you to see exactly what the film would capture rather than just what you see through a point-and-shoot camera's viewfinder (which depends on your eye's position relative to the camera). But almost all digital cameras come with LCD screens that let you see exactly what the camera will capture. Isn't DSLR the same thing, or am I missing something? It seems like it just signifies a professional camera that is shaped somewhat like most SLR film cameras (i.e., large) and is compatible with the same lens attachments. Does it really have single-lens reflex action and, if so, why? Can someone tell me what I'm missing?
Consider this question. Is it good for someone who thinks of himself as uninformed (like the submitter) not to vote while someone who really doesn't understand the issues but has a strong opinion votes? Surely everyone living in America has a vague idea of his political stance. Is it ok to stand by while someone who believes everything that a religious extremist nut like Pat Robertson says votes? What about the left-wing nut who believes that all conservative politicians are members of a secret cult that is trying to take over the world? I actually think it's the people who fervently support one candidate or party who are less capable of making a rational choice. I think it's better for a slightly informed but rational person to vote than to remain silent. At the very least, it may cause him to take more of an interest in politics in the future.
"or famous evangelical ministers are outed for using methamphetamines with male prostitutes [yahoo.com] and the news comes out in the weeks prior to the election..."
Come on, he was just getting a "massage" and he didn't use the drugs, he just threw them away. If I had a dime for every time I bought meth and then threw it away...
I've seen lots of plagiarism on WP myself. Mostly they were sourced, but they were copied directly from the source and not put in quotes. My usual response is to delete the offending passage and put a note in the discussion with a link to the plagiarism article. Sometimes people have asked me why I didn't paraphrase the content myself. My stock response is, "to make a point." WP won't survive if it's users continue to rip off others' work. I think WP needs to take this more seriously by, for example, providing a link on every page where plagiarism can be reported and imposing a temporary ban on people who do this. WP does NOT need the contribution of people who can't understand plagiarism or refuse to abide by the rules.
Cats are developing opposable thumbs. I've seen several cats with six toes on their front paws--some even have six on their back paws too. They can grasp things like little monkeys. I, for one, welcome our new six-toed cat overloads (who are soon to replace our five-toed cat overloads).
I tried to decline the IE7 install. But a little yellow shield with an exclamation point in the middle hung out in my system tray to remind me that my system was still vulnerable to attacks. How do you think the average user will respond to that?
...who didn't see the first indicator of a commercial listed in the article? Maybe it got flagged as a commercial.
I first installed Fedora Core 4 about a year ago, though I still continue to use Windows most of the time. I thought it looked just fine compared to Windows. I think there are a few reasons home users and businesses don't use Linux, but eye candy isn't one of them.
First, home users. In my experience, they're concerned mainly about two things: compatibility and usability. They want to know that their printer, their digital camera, and the software they're used to using will be compatible with their OS. While I think the free software available in Linux is top notch and more than adequate for the home user, the hardware support is not. How many times have you heard about people who install Linux only to find out they can't print, or their wireless network card doesn't work. Not to mention the hoops you have to jump through to install drivers. And the first time they can't find "My Computer" or the C drive, or, for more experienced users, the command prompt, they will panic. If they have to type in the root password every thirty seconds, they might get a little frustrated too.
Now non-IT businesses are mostly held back by the cost of switching. The company I work for would be absolutely crippled if they had to switch to Linux overnight. All of their important documents (Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, Access database applications, many of which make heavy use of VB macros) are hopelessly tied to Windows. For example, all of their ISO 9000 documents, which are absolutely critical to their business, are in MS Office documents that wouldn't work with OO.org because of the macros, etc. The cost of converting would be enormous, in terms of the additional IT man-hours required, the lost productivity of people not able to access the information they need, and possibly the loss of customers. They do use some Linux servers for the intranet, and various databases, but all of the non-IS office computers run Windows.
I think the Linux community should focus on making Linux usable to the home user. Hardware support comparable to that of Windows and easy updating of software and drivers are the most important things. GUI eye candy just makes existing converts feel better about their OS. Macs have had a pretty GUI for a while now, and yet most people continue to use Windows. With the outrageous cost of Vista, I think Linux has a real shot at winning over more home users in the near future.
[...]they had one case where a woman was found to have XY chromosomes, and STILL ended up having a child.
Link please. I think I would have heard of a biologically male human giving birth. There are times when an individual can have two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome, but in that case, it usually ends up looking more like a male (they are called "double-X Y males") and is not able to give birth.
The terms were defined as such to resolve ambiguity back in the 19th century to better describe intersexed, homosexual, and transsexual people.
Way to "revise" history. The usage of the word gender to describe someone's personality as opposed to their biological sex was invented in the middle of the 20th century. It is technical jargon used by social scientists and psychologists. I'm really tired of seeing people "corrected" when they use gender as a synonym for sex. When the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists "sex" as a definition, it's good enough for me. Stop trying to impose what you were told in your Humanities electives on the rest of us.
Care to back up your assertion that Diebold is "held by a right-wing company"? I didn't think so.
Not only have people forgotten about bird flu, they don't even remember that Microsoft was ordered to separate IE from Windows. And they've also forgotten about that bird flu thing. People have such short memories.
I could have sworn that the last time I flew, they actually scanned my ticket before I boarded. If they don't do this, then they definitely should. How hard would it be to check the barcode on a ticket against a database of tickets that have actually been sold?
I'm not suggesting that they include the drivers with the installation. I'm suggesting that they allow their update tools to install them, after making the user aware that they are proprietary, closed source drivers, of course. Rigidly adhering to a policy of not dealing with proprietary software/drivers seems like a disservice to users.
When he's a congressman, I'd say it does. Although technically a member of the legislative branch, not the executive, a congressman can be very influential.
(I'm currently very happy with wxWidgets, but have used Qt heavily in the past).
Have you looked into FLTK? I confess I haven't looked at wxWidgets lately, but when I had to choose a free, cross-platform widget library a couple years ago, I decided FLTK was my best choice. I was a bit put off by its sluggish development, but I liked the API.
I tried to install updated nVidia drivers for my Fedora Core 4 partition a while back. It didn't work. I followed the directions exactly, but X wouldn't start up. This makes me wonder, with nVidia being one of the most common 3d accelerators in PCs, why can't the update manager download and install these for you? I don't see why I should have to go through a complicated (for a newbie) multi-step installation procedure just to update video drivers. For a time, Linux support was one of the advantages that nVidia had over the competition, so why isn't nVidia working with the major Linux distros to try to make this process simpler? It seems like promoting Linux as a viable gaming platform would be one of the best ways to encourage the adoption of Linux for home computers.
I vote for the pink pony. Except it has to have a single horn growing out of its head. And it has to be invisible. Hey, for all we know, he actually did use that icon for this story.
It's called "diet soda". If it contains no calories and it takes energy to ingest, it will lead to a net loss of energy.
And here's why: humans didn't pop into existence at the beginning of the twentieth century. We've been around more-or-less in our modern form for at least a hundred thousand years. In the past there were multiple species (or sub-species) of hominids existing at the same time. They developed independently because they were isolated (by desert, glaciers, water, etc.) But when the climate allowed for population movements, these other (sub)species either died out or interbred with modern humans to give one species: Homo sapiens sapiens. Even populations that were isolated for thousands of years (American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, etc.) managed to remain the same species. So how are we to believe that modern humans, who can travel to the opposite end of the globe in a day, can actually become segregated enough to evolve into multiple species? This is completely contrary to human history and our current understanding of evolution. It's certainly a provocative idea that grabs a lot of media attention, but I don't see much scientific basis for it.
Cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and malware! Where do I sign up?