i'm guessing it's about potential fuel for even further expeditions.
take a 50/50 rock/ice object and a "sufficiently advanced probe", you can extract aluminium from the rock, make nanoparticles, then use the ice with the nanoparticles as a rather powerful thermite style propellant.
or just make a shirtload of liquid H2, but that's possibly a bit more energy intensive.
linux wasn't running a race - they were running alongside, honestly not too concerned if anyone looked their way or not.
apple have the resources of a company. one of the biggest companies. and they still got their codebase from a free project... though i applaud that in some ways, you've gotta wonder why their own (pre OSX) efforts were so poor.
apple is currently beating the tits off windows for the hearts and minds of the consumer public, but linux has never been for consumers. it doesn't have a business model, though some distro-makers do.
btw, i use ubuntu on my home machines, winXP (with msys), win7, OSX at work. years of cynicism have worn my idealism rather thin, so i just judge as i see.
3) Most users want this software to work indefinitely so that they don't have to change data stores and/or workflows. 4) Apple has been much better at this than GNOME/KDE/Linux.
actually, Apple has quite the proven track record of doing the exact opposite. not just in the desktop market, either.
a few (from an uninformed PC user who has been dabbling in linux for 2 years or so):
- DVD Studio Pro - Apple Color - Final Cut Pro (FCP-X is no substitute, and old FCP is not available for sale anymore) - Shake - Xserve - Xsan
and that's just from the industry i'm involved in.
there's also the tradition of every iToy firmware breaking function from the last (why is it that we can't be allowed to sync tracks from another piece of software? what's it matter if we own the hardware, and their software is free?).
with open source, things are far more chaotic, of course. any project that lives long enough for backward-conpatibility to be desirable has treated it with almost zealous respect. of course there are exceptions, but you can't hold an anarchic community to a uniform set of standards like in a large corporation.
the probably got less and less reliable because we kept using those same disks from the 80s:)
the density increased at some point, too.
that said, i once spent a frantic and thankfully successful afternoon re-installing the OS on an archaic piece of telecine hardware that came as a block of 30 3.5" disks. every one of them worked in the c. 1991 disk drive.
the only reason it died in the first place was a power failure while writing to it's internal SCSI disk. you'd think that sort of thing wouldn't corrupt it's filesystem...
the phrasing leads a little to be desired (the Earth doesn't need to be anthropomorphized), but the statement is true enough.
simple - shit in your nest long enough, and it'll be so full of shit that you're no longer able to live there. you'll die of shit diseases that you caught from your own shit.
now, one could say "the nest got rid of what caused the imbalance", or you could equally say "the occupant of the nest was so damn stupid they didn't even know what to do with their own shit, and so they died". both are expressions of the same thing, though one has a bit more mysticism than i think is completely necessary.
maybe we should build a sensor with more than just RGB? like RYGCBM? depending on how much aberration, treating all those channels separately will get you within a subpixel's width of the desired lack of aberration.
why go with such big apertures if you want everything in focus? the beauty of such apertures is you can isolate your subject and blur the tits off everything else in the frame.
sensor dynamic range is increasing all the time - i'd say by the time one of these lenses works for visible light, they'd be unnecessary.
of course, there'd still be a need to focus with one of these - the focal point depends on where the subject is.
Slashdot Mirror
season 9 no doubt will be a protracted courtroom drama where everyone gets sued over the blue crystal design patents.
that's been happening for quite some time. i think it's too soon to say they're in the doldrums just because we're between product launches.
HERP HERP iPeerrd is teh cerrl yerr merrst beeuy eerrt.
i think once it's left the planet we stop spending money on it, and just maintain the systems down here.
btw, you're a dick.
your interest in finance would make you a good accountant, however i fear you only have sufficient imagination to be a mediocre accountant.
i'm guessing it's about potential fuel for even further expeditions.
take a 50/50 rock/ice object and a "sufficiently advanced probe", you can extract aluminium from the rock, make nanoparticles, then use the ice with the nanoparticles as a rather powerful thermite style propellant.
or just make a shirtload of liquid H2, but that's possibly a bit more energy intensive.
what about "Labyrinth"?? where are the parents in this poor girl's life?
tricky thing to get the stats on really. it's sort of between two.
it's easy to rock the casbah if you live by a river.
"Sid Viscous is long dead you nobber"
yes, he came to a rather sticky end.
fair and square?
linux wasn't running a race - they were running alongside, honestly not too concerned if anyone looked their way or not.
apple have the resources of a company. one of the biggest companies. and they still got their codebase from a free project... though i applaud that in some ways, you've gotta wonder why their own (pre OSX) efforts were so poor.
apple is currently beating the tits off windows for the hearts and minds of the consumer public, but linux has never been for consumers. it doesn't have a business model, though some distro-makers do.
btw, i use ubuntu on my home machines, winXP (with msys), win7, OSX at work. years of cynicism have worn my idealism rather thin, so i just judge as i see.
implying that people posting from work have any choice as to what their workstation will run.
3) Most users want this software to work indefinitely so that they don't have to change data stores and/or workflows.
4) Apple has been much better at this than GNOME/KDE/Linux.
actually, Apple has quite the proven track record of doing the exact opposite. not just in the desktop market, either.
a few (from an uninformed PC user who has been dabbling in linux for 2 years or so):
- DVD Studio Pro
- Apple Color
- Final Cut Pro (FCP-X is no substitute, and old FCP is not available for sale anymore)
- Shake
- Xserve
- Xsan
and that's just from the industry i'm involved in.
there's also the tradition of every iToy firmware breaking function from the last (why is it that we can't be allowed to sync tracks from another piece of software? what's it matter if we own the hardware, and their software is free?).
with open source, things are far more chaotic, of course. any project that lives long enough for backward-conpatibility to be desirable has treated it with almost zealous respect. of course there are exceptions, but you can't hold an anarchic community to a uniform set of standards like in a large corporation.
no, talking about loony conspiracies makes you a loon.
the wall street stuff can be easily and eloquently put such that a reasonable person must at least concede the possibility that it happened.
timecubers, illuminati, birthers, truthers, moon-fakers, chemtrailers, HAARPers, grassy knollers, alien autopsyists don't meet that burden.
the probably got less and less reliable because we kept using those same disks from the 80s :)
the density increased at some point, too.
that said, i once spent a frantic and thankfully successful afternoon re-installing the OS on an archaic piece of telecine hardware that came as a block of 30 3.5" disks. every one of them worked in the c. 1991 disk drive.
the only reason it died in the first place was a power failure while writing to it's internal SCSI disk. you'd think that sort of thing wouldn't corrupt it's filesystem...
no, journalists are taught from day 1 to use simple language.
not for dumbing down, but for brevity - time is money, and if you don't have to reach for a dictionary, you shouldn't.
including the definition, or simplified part of it relevant to the article would have been appropriate and saved the ire of the /. hordes.
yammer called. the have some nails to pass to facebook. something about closing a coffin lid or some such.
troll offering a half-serious post?
is this a fail troll or a win for regular posts?
btw, playgirl wont be necessary. diaspora was full of dick pics already last time i looked.
correlation does not imply.. um...
wait, wait...
missed the last few weeks, did we?
what about Nazis?
http://www.ironsky.net/
to quote more pop culture: "dogs go in the corner".
of course we can't stop shitting, but we can take a little care about where we shit, and if we didn't eat so much we wouldn't need to shit so much.
the circle of poo implies a balance of poo, and right now it's out of balance - our shit's fucked up.
Incept dates. Longevity.
I want more life, fucker.
i have a 15 month old kid.
one thing i've learnt - if you ignore his crying long enough, he'll get hysterical.
scientists have been crying since the late 19th century, so perhaps they could be forgiven for getting a tad hysterical?
the phrasing leads a little to be desired (the Earth doesn't need to be anthropomorphized), but the statement is true enough.
simple - shit in your nest long enough, and it'll be so full of shit that you're no longer able to live there. you'll die of shit diseases that you caught from your own shit.
now, one could say "the nest got rid of what caused the imbalance", or you could equally say "the occupant of the nest was so damn stupid they didn't even know what to do with their own shit, and so they died". both are expressions of the same thing, though one has a bit more mysticism than i think is completely necessary.
so... stop shitting in our nest!
maybe we should build a sensor with more than just RGB? like RYGCBM? depending on how much aberration, treating all those channels separately will get you within a subpixel's width of the desired lack of aberration.
why go with such big apertures if you want everything in focus? the beauty of such apertures is you can isolate your subject and blur the tits off everything else in the frame.
sensor dynamic range is increasing all the time - i'd say by the time one of these lenses works for visible light, they'd be unnecessary.
of course, there'd still be a need to focus with one of these - the focal point depends on where the subject is.