Very true. To the extent that it actually backfired on me. Picture this:
Travelling on an Australian passport, I boarded a flight from NY to Paris. For whatever reason, they did not take my I-84 out of my passport. Land in Paris, no passport stamp. Travel to Barcelona, no passport stamp. Travel back to Paris, no passport stamp. Board plane to St Louis.
So far, so good. Then Immigration looks at my passport, and asks me to step to the side, and if I could please explain to them why my passport shows no sign of me leaving the United States (the intact I-84), no stamps indicating any destination I've been, and yet I'm arriving back into the country on an international flight.
That took a lot of checking and verification to satisfy them.
No, the interesting story, as posited by Danny Wool, who is a good place to be able to say things like this with some credibility - is that at one point, Jimmy had $30,000 of expense receipting owing. He "settled" the reimbursement process with two checks, to the total of $7,000 or so, which were given as donations, not reimbursements, to the Foundation, so he could get a tax write off on them.
Wish I could get a tax-writeoff on the reimbursement of expenses on my for-profit company by virtue of making them charitable donations to the other arm (yeah yeah, they're independent, right, and the fact several sit on both boards, and the Form 990 filed by WMF lists Wikia as 'substantially related', that all means nothing).
but it is his tree so if he says it is not GPL compatible then it's not GPL compatible
HUH??
No, the wording of the license and its interpretation by legally qualified people determines whether or not something is GPL compatible, not the whims and say-so of a person, be it Linus, RMS, or whomsoever.
Because of course, The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise wouldn't have a particular POV to push, would it? I think the phrase used in Wikipedia is "notable for its strong pro-Israel views". I'm yet to see someone provide any actual evidence for that statement. But hey.
What, a Windows system requires more patches per DST setup than Unix? Because DST changes more on Windows servers, or something? I seriously fail to see your so-called point.
This argument is trotted out all the time - "We use P2P to get the music/we/ want. Indie bands, unsigned acts, obscure genres only available on import!"
Yet you go to any top 10 downloads tracker, and what do you find? A near mirror of the appropriate top 10 chart that week. Which indicates that, for the masses, they really/are/ there to get all the "mass market trash pumped out by the mindless zombie record labels", they just are incapable of admitting so.
In theory, "straightforward". After all you always know who your peers are by the time they're sending data. So extend UPnP (I'm almost certain it doesn't allow configuration of RST packets) to allow this...
Shh, you'll ruin a Mossberg hatchet job! You're not supposed to notice he compares the price of the hard-drive Air to the SSD Thinkpad. You're not supposed to notice the SSD Air is more expensive than the SSD Thinkpad. You're not supposed to notice the "paltry 64GB of storage" on the SSD Thinkpad is the same "paltry 64GB of storage" on the SSD Air. You're not supposed to notice that an 80GB HDD on a laptop as your "big storage" option is also pretty paltry, especially when it's a 4200 RPM PATA drive (yes, I realize there are benefits to that, but not as far as Mossberg mentions in his hatchet job).
Yeah, seems like "Troll" has become a synonym for "says something I don't want to hear".
Churches are difficult, very dependent on the celebrant, I've found. I'm not one for taking photos of people in public. Never have been, always seems awkward, to me anyway.
I should get into nature more. Currently my longest lens is a 200/2.8 which is not really ideal for a lot of stuff (though is plenty sufficient for most). I rented a 400/2.8 IS lens a few months back. That thing was beautiful (mind you, also weighed 13lb and retailed just a hair under $10,000 if I wanted to buy...).
More photography on a casual basis was a resolution of the new year. Not quite lived up to yet, but getting there.
The only issue with taking so many shots tends to be in managing them. I still wish I had more shots of our own wedding, and we have a couple of thousand.
VERY true. Even more so when you come into the task with an existing collection - can be Herculean.
A shot of a couple's first kiss will not replace putting on the rings, and will not replace any one of the hugs the bride gives on the way out. They're all different shots. Missing any one isn't acceptable.
Shoot less, think more - is what I say whilst knowing precisely zero about your situation. The first weddings I shot, I shot 2,000+ images. (Disclaimer right now: the images on my slideshow are crappy - rendered by batch job down to size, with zero consideration or tuning, and without applying Lightroom develop settings. Some just suck.)
Sure, shooting on average every 10 seconds, if not more, over an eight hour wedding will net many good shots, if only by the "broken clock, right twice a day" theory. Think more, plan more, and 20 deletions for 1 good picture over a period will become 2 deletions, 3 good pictures.
omg, you're a dick... What newer DSLRs don't use the film counterpart lenses? Canon's EF system, Nikon's AF system...
Unless you mean "the new batch of consumer DSLRs", which I don't see any pros using, and are probably point-and-shoot like Panasonic Lumix, etc.
The sweet spot for a PS camera is around 6-8mp, no more.
But your logic makes close to zero sense on a full frame digital. EOS 1Ds Mk III? 35mm sensor, 21mp. Can use every (well, except EF-S) Canon lens made in the last 25+ years? Yeah. Only an "idiot" would use that (yes, I know, the MkIII doesn't have this).
The hardware is the real issue. I remember a PM in my department who couldn't find any justification for it business-wise, going ahead and ordering himself a Core 2 Duo laptop, 2.6GHz, 4GB RAM, 200GB HDD, etc, etc, etc. That was around June last year. The cost came to around $5,000. Approved without batting an eyelid.
Works wonders most of the time - "what you think are the tools you need, you can get", but does have downsides.
They do precisely that - people in my area (MSN) were running Vista around December `06 on their primary work machines (before, too, but that's when I arrived). If you re-installed your machine from the network, Vista was in fact the default option, well before release.
This is the same crap you have to do to install Windows. It comes up in some low-res crap graphics mode if you're lucky
What UTTER bullshit.
I have not seen a computer come up in less than perfect resolution following an install since pre XP, with one exception (an onboard SiS video card on an Asus box. Running Windows 2003). I just put Vista on this desktop last night, and when the first boot came up, it had detected my Nvidia 7600 GS, and enabled both my LCD panels, one at its native 1600x1200, and the other at its native 1920x1200.
Or my Asus laptop, with XP SP2, and an ATI Radeon Mobility X600. Hey, whadda you know, the vanilla (not the vendor supplied) XP Pro SP2 disc got the laptop up and running at its native 1440x900.
Or my wife's Dell, with XP SP2 and then Vista. Native Windows drivers for the Geforce Go 7900 GS? No problem, 1920x1200, right there (although one of the OS's, can't remember which, did say "Your display is running at a less than optimum resolution, click here to open the display panel" and hey, whadda you know, native resolution, right there.
Or my work Sony Vaio SZ, also with an Nvidia card, native resolution 1280x800. Worked fine.
So, it's their fault, right? Funny, just reading their page alone mentioned how they'd already made mention of how this affects more than just extensions, but Mozilla ("What leaks? Show us a single leak!") developers shrugged, blamed extensions, and released, without fixing the core problem.
From their 2007 Annual Report. Total assets, $63.2B. Total liquid cash: $23.4B. Over twenty three billion in cash isn't chump change by anyone's measure.
Yeah, good point, especially when USPS will overnight a 1 pound package from Phoenix to Seattle for $19, you can see there's just a little padding in their shipping.
offer much higher quality photos (don't even try to debate this point-- this if not opinion, it is fact. The resolution and dynamic range of 8perf (24x36) 35mm film is unmatched in even $30k medium format digital backs)
What a stupid remark? ISO 25 film? ISO 3200? Why not suggest slide film? Are you going to tell us that the resolution of a P45 digital back (7,216 x 5,412) is less than that of, say ISO 400 film (yes, I'm aware that film is at some level an analogue medium, but let's discuss grain in a moment). 4,800DPI? I think not. Film grain less than 5 thousands of a millimeter? Hah.
Exactly. When they're tithing to you, why not have the most expensive you can? After all, it lowers your balance more so you can request more. And like anything else, you can claim it's for the glory of God - has worked for the Catholic church for centuries, to the extent they are now the richest entity in the world (well, have been for a long time).
Slashdot Mirror
Travelling on an Australian passport, I boarded a flight from NY to Paris. For whatever reason, they did not take my I-84 out of my passport. Land in Paris, no passport stamp. Travel to Barcelona, no passport stamp. Travel back to Paris, no passport stamp. Board plane to St Louis.
So far, so good. Then Immigration looks at my passport, and asks me to step to the side, and if I could please explain to them why my passport shows no sign of me leaving the United States (the intact I-84), no stamps indicating any destination I've been, and yet I'm arriving back into the country on an international flight.
That took a lot of checking and verification to satisfy them.
Or to being a multi charting Australian Top 10 act?
Sorry, Occam's Razor ain't on the EA games' side, on that one.
He has just a slight vested interest in pimping his wares, here.
Wish I could get a tax-writeoff on the reimbursement of expenses on my for-profit company by virtue of making them charitable donations to the other arm (yeah yeah, they're independent, right, and the fact several sit on both boards, and the Form 990 filed by WMF lists Wikia as 'substantially related', that all means nothing).
HUH??
No, the wording of the license and its interpretation by legally qualified people determines whether or not something is GPL compatible, not the whims and say-so of a person, be it Linus, RMS, or whomsoever.
What, a Windows system requires more patches per DST setup than Unix? Because DST changes more on Windows servers, or something? I seriously fail to see your so-called point.
Yet you go to any top 10 downloads tracker, and what do you find? A near mirror of the appropriate top 10 chart that week. Which indicates that, for the masses, they really /are/ there to get all the "mass market trash pumped out by the mindless zombie record labels", they just are incapable of admitting so.
In theory, "straightforward". After all you always know who your peers are by the time they're sending data. So extend UPnP (I'm almost certain it doesn't allow configuration of RST packets) to allow this...
Shhh... everyone will know. We can't have that!
Churches are difficult, very dependent on the celebrant, I've found. I'm not one for taking photos of people in public. Never have been, always seems awkward, to me anyway.
I should get into nature more. Currently my longest lens is a 200/2.8 which is not really ideal for a lot of stuff (though is plenty sufficient for most). I rented a 400/2.8 IS lens a few months back. That thing was beautiful (mind you, also weighed 13lb and retailed just a hair under $10,000 if I wanted to buy...).
More photography on a casual basis was a resolution of the new year. Not quite lived up to yet, but getting there.
VERY true. Even more so when you come into the task with an existing collection - can be Herculean.
Also true, and very worth noting. :)
Sure, shooting on average every 10 seconds, if not more, over an eight hour wedding will net many good shots, if only by the "broken clock, right twice a day" theory. Think more, plan more, and 20 deletions for 1 good picture over a period will become 2 deletions, 3 good pictures.
Unless you mean "the new batch of consumer DSLRs", which I don't see any pros using, and are probably point-and-shoot like Panasonic Lumix, etc.
The sweet spot for a PS camera is around 6-8mp, no more.
But your logic makes close to zero sense on a full frame digital. EOS 1Ds Mk III? 35mm sensor, 21mp. Can use every (well, except EF-S) Canon lens made in the last 25+ years? Yeah. Only an "idiot" would use that (yes, I know, the MkIII doesn't have this).
Touché. I recall that now - don't know why I missed it first time round.
Not with Vista x64, at least partially. There's no 16 bit subsystem, whatsoever. It just won't run.
Works wonders most of the time - "what you think are the tools you need, you can get", but does have downsides.
They do precisely that - people in my area (MSN) were running Vista around December `06 on their primary work machines (before, too, but that's when I arrived). If you re-installed your machine from the network, Vista was in fact the default option, well before release.
What UTTER bullshit.
I have not seen a computer come up in less than perfect resolution following an install since pre XP, with one exception (an onboard SiS video card on an Asus box. Running Windows 2003). I just put Vista on this desktop last night, and when the first boot came up, it had detected my Nvidia 7600 GS, and enabled both my LCD panels, one at its native 1600x1200, and the other at its native 1920x1200.
Or my Asus laptop, with XP SP2, and an ATI Radeon Mobility X600. Hey, whadda you know, the vanilla (not the vendor supplied) XP Pro SP2 disc got the laptop up and running at its native 1440x900.
Or my wife's Dell, with XP SP2 and then Vista. Native Windows drivers for the Geforce Go 7900 GS? No problem, 1920x1200, right there (although one of the OS's, can't remember which, did say "Your display is running at a less than optimum resolution, click here to open the display panel" and hey, whadda you know, native resolution, right there.
Or my work Sony Vaio SZ, also with an Nvidia card, native resolution 1280x800. Worked fine.
It's F8, btw.
So, it's their fault, right? Funny, just reading their page alone mentioned how they'd already made mention of how this affects more than just extensions, but Mozilla ("What leaks? Show us a single leak!") developers shrugged, blamed extensions, and released, without fixing the core problem.
Doesn't sound like they're killing themselves to do so, subprime mortgage style.
From their 2007 Annual Report. Total assets, $63.2B. Total liquid cash: $23.4B. Over twenty three billion in cash isn't chump change by anyone's measure.
Yeah, good point, especially when USPS will overnight a 1 pound package from Phoenix to Seattle for $19, you can see there's just a little padding in their shipping.
What a stupid remark? ISO 25 film? ISO 3200? Why not suggest slide film? Are you going to tell us that the resolution of a P45 digital back (7,216 x 5,412) is less than that of, say ISO 400 film (yes, I'm aware that film is at some level an analogue medium, but let's discuss grain in a moment). 4,800DPI? I think not. Film grain less than 5 thousands of a millimeter? Hah.
Fact, my ass - says who? Certainly not 35mm enthusiasts, photographers, physicists, hardware geeks, film developers, that's for sure.
Exactly. When they're tithing to you, why not have the most expensive you can? After all, it lowers your balance more so you can request more. And like anything else, you can claim it's for the glory of God - has worked for the Catholic church for centuries, to the extent they are now the richest entity in the world (well, have been for a long time).