It's true. I've been dealing with computers on a continues basis for 2 decades, and Windows computers are pretty much the most unreliable pieces of crap I've had to deal with. It's not just that they break routinely and need to be fixed, it's the fact that the configuration utilities and help files often times aren't correct and that often times I have to admit to not knowing why it's broken. The OSes completely lacking any coherence of design doesn't make it any easier. And frequently I have to resort to hackery upon install to make sure that things that I don't want and could break aren't installed.
Frequently I have to say I don't know why that reboot fixed the problem and I don't know when it's going to be an issue again. The help files and configuration utilities being often times broken, incomplete or including information from a different version of Windows hardly makes it any easier to fix. There was a time when I thought that was interesting, but these days it just pisses me off that MS seems to think that they know better than I do as to how the machine should be operated.
And that doesn't even get into the times when the update process freezes, one of their updates breaks my computer or I have to learn a new way of doing something because they didn't feel like giving the end users the ability to actually fix all the problems without some arcane hackery which one really shouldn't need to know how to do. Not to mention the fact that they don't make it particularly easy to find information on the obscure ways of doing things when things don't go the way that they should.
Honestly, if Linux and FreeBSD can get that stuff right, there's absolutely no excuse for MS not. They just don't care enough to do the QA and bug fixes necessary to make things work properly and reliably.
Honestly, I'll be buying a copy, if for no other reason than it's bound to be a train wreck. That and I'm really curious what 12 or so years of development actually gets. From what I've heard they've been close to releasing it a few times, but couldn't get over the perfectionist need to be as revolutionary as the previous game was.
I assumed it was because they don't want to buy a Windows computer and don't know how to use Linux, *BSD or any of the other alternatives.
Mac hardware for better or for worse tends to work much more reliably in my experience than the Windows equivalents do, for the simple reason that Apple is able to effectively set rules about what is and is not acceptable for the platform. Whereas MS has been caught over the years programming around hardware bugs rather than saying no, we won't support it. The most notable example I can think of is the ACPI debacle, where many motherboards would have buggy implementations which wouldn't properly compile on the Intel reference implementation, but would run fine on Windows thanks to workarounds in the Windows source. Sure it would work, but as a result there'd be consequences and ultimately you'd have a tough time using the hardware with full support outside of Windows.
It depends upon ones point of view. I'll probably see it now that it's presumably out on DVD for quite some time, but my expectations are likely to be low. I just don't think that a movie about bomb disposal that features any characters performing that work with a cowboy mentality is exemplary of a well written and conceived of film.
Sort of like how Speed was, ultimately it was a really, really bad film, where the lead character was coincidentally behaving in the cowboy bomb tech role as well. Didn't work out too well for that movie, and not even Dennis Hopper could save it.
Sure you can get people to suspend their disbelief, but you do still have to have some rationale for doing it and make wise choices about when to try.
Academy awards aren't necessarily tied to a quality film. There's a lot of politics involved and while most of the time winning awards means it's a superior film, not always.
I'm not personally convinced that Marrissa Tomei should've won her Oscar for her role in My Cousin Vinnie. Likewise there's a lot of legacy crap, which while amazing on technical grounds, just doesn't make for the sort of film that deserves to be making millions in box office returns. And then pop stuff like Star wars (The original trilogy, not the prequel crap) which isn't particularly good technically, but is poppy enough to succeed. Well the effects were genuinely amazing for the time, most of the rest of it was pretty terrible.
The point of it is that you don't have to put it in the precise spot for the contacts to touch, and you can share the same pad with quite a few devices. Well, usually a couple at once, and more if you swap them out. It's nice because you can have a couple of them in strategic locations and have them charge there as needed. Throw in a bluetooth headset and you can easily put it on charge as you move from room to room.
Additionally a lot of the newer ones are set up so that they shut the electrical drain down quite a bit when not in use, so instead of having a half dozen chargers plugged in at all times, you've got just one, and you don't have to worry about unplugging the other ones when you're not using them.
Well, to be fair, they may have a point. As soon as people started watching it, I'm sure that word of mouth started to circulate about the quality of the film. Personally, I haven't seen it, but I take it that it wasn't a very good movie. And in this day and age, a bad movie might only get one day before it's outed on the web for being a bad film. Which makes it very hard to make money if it sucks as people know better pretty quickly, unlike in the past where they might get a couple weeks.
Sued, probably, sued for the kind of money they're wanting for destroying the box office returns almost certainly not. And that's the problem, back when studios and such sued large scale operations, that made sense, there was a large number of copies being distributed and there was almost certainly a large negative impact on the studio. The problem is now that you're suing individuals it's somewhat questionable as to whether it's really appropriate in terms of punishment for being a small portion of the problem.
Beyond that, if they have their account with Qwest, they couldn't possibly be guilty of any infringement large enough to warrant those kinds of damages, Qwest doesn't deliver the service to actually make any kind of substantial contribution to the piracy of something as large as a movie.
First off, I didn't make a typo. The word "man" is not the same as the word "Mann" is in German, which apparently you didn't know. Making it more than a little bit ironic that you're calling me an idiot when you didn't even know that.
Secondly, it's a legitimate follow up to assert that feminists get caught up in that out of bigotry and ignorance given that they aren't aware that the ultimate roots of it goes back ultimately to German via old English. Where it ultimately was derived from "wifman" as in basically a wife person, man meaning precisely the same thing at that point in time as it does now in German.
Or in other words if you're going to call somebody out for being an idiot it might help if you actually had some clue as to what it is the subject at hand.
Actually it's pretty solid, the only thing in the last 200 years or so that it's really screwed it up was when somebody disproved the fifth postulate. Which is to say that it wasn't the numbers that were the problem it was the presumptions we were making about reality which were. And right after the work to disprove it was completed all kinds of really amazing discoveries were made. There's still a lot of things like that out there to do, the biggest one is that there's a tendency to assume that because it works on paper that it works in real life, which is patently false. That's the only reason why we waste money on experiments is because sometimes the thought experiment or the calculation turns out to be wrong, in which case weird things happen.
Some areas are worse than others, probability theorists seem to be particularly blind to the absence of any means of accounting for entropy and outside factors affecting what they're looking at. And I know from personal experience that you can do all sorts of really weird and amazing things by taking even a rudimentary stab at including those other factors in.
You know what, just for that, from now on I'm going to call it "String Hypotheses" until such a time as somebody actually successfully falsifies something. And then comes up with a test that seems to work. It doesn't matter whether anybody has anything better to go on, the fact is that until they start to falsify things when they fail, it isn't science, it's a weird religious fetish for atheists.
But if they accept that it disproves that theory, then they may get a boost in credibility. From being incompetent liars to being merely wrong. Which for string theorists would be a substantial step up in terms of actual credibility.
Indeed, then later on we had to deal with the closet bigotry brought in by the women's movement. A group so ignorant as to start making up meanings and context where really there is none. Personally I like it when women spell it womyn, it makes it clear who the bat shit crazy, bigots are so that I can avoid them. I mean really, woman is derived in part from the German word "man" which is sort of the rough equivalent of what the Brits say as "one." It's neither masculine nor feminine, singular nor plural and is used in all those cases where one requires a generic placeholder noun.
Which is why we have the words mankind and woman. And don't get my started on the rather tenuous story that is "history." Given that that one predates the English language I have a really hard time buying the common explanation that it's a portmanteau of his story.
Indeed, it's one thing for a test to come inconclusive, but when it comes back that the hypothesis was false, there's limited scientific responses to be made. You can conclude that there was a different mechanism involved or that it wasn't happening in the first place. The problem is that when you start asserting that the results would've been correct in some other reality which you can't directly observe, you end up with something that's about as scientific as any of the world's religions. Including that one, which nobody practices and pretty much everybody agrees is pure bunk.
It's because the photosites are further apart and the lenses over the individual photosites are larger. Meaning that you can crank up the gain further without increasing the interference between photosites and have more light available to begin with. Basically you end up with more photons being directed at the photosite and less chance of energy generated at other photosites from interfering.
If you want low light, you shouldn't even consider Nikon. I'm not sure about in recent times, but Canon has been kicking Nikon's ass in that respect for many years. It's really not a coincidence that the vast majority of sports photographers have those lenses with the red ring around them. It's simply because Canon is better at low light, fast shutter speed photography than Nikon is. On top of that they do a much better job with the longer lenses needed for those pursuits.
That's not to say that Nikon is trash, it's not, they just don't focus on those markets for whatever reason. If you're just looking for things which are more standard, a Nikon or Fuji is just fine. In fact Fuji is great if you're into portraits, they've always been very good about reproducing skin tones.
Precisely, the best photographers whether they be pro or serious amateurs know that the best chance to get the shot is in camera. You can do a lot of those things in photoshop, but it really and truly isn't the same. Best case you limit the size at which you can print and more likely you get something of inferior quality. Beyond that, it just takes less time to do it right the first time, than to try and figure out how to fix it later on, even with raw formats it's still just not as good.
That's not correct. It's much more than that. The large format cameras are far more than just the camera movements. It's the relationship between the lens, film plane and the meditative stance that one must take with film that expensive. And the time it takes to set up. Sure the camera movements are necessary, but it's the format which Ansel Adams used which was special, on top of his processing and other technical mastery. I doubt very much that he'd be using anything other than large format were he alive today.
That's not true. Canon's professional cameras have larger sensors combined with higher pixel counts, however, once you hit a certain point where you're out resolving the lens, you're not going to get a whole lot out of adding more pixels without enlarging the area by more than that. Which is why the full frame 35mm format will always be capable of having more pixels than the APC-S or 4/3 formats will, at some point you hit the point of out resolving the lens at which point you're only option is to go larger. No technical wizardry in chip or in the camera hardware will ever make up for that.
Same goes for lens aberrations of various sorts, you can make them less obvious, but at the end of the day, you're still sacrificing image quality and counting on the camera system to do the right thing. But you're still going to lose detail and introduce other image problems.
The problem is that until virtually nobody has Flash, developers aren't going to stop using it. And by being one of the few that doesn't have access you're not likely to have much of a negative impact on Flash's market share.
Except that he's not maintaining market share. In recent months he's been losing ground to Android mobiles which don't come with all the restrictions that the various iPhones do. I rooted my Nexus One yesterday, and apart from being informed that doing so would void my warranty, the whole process was painless. And really, I can't blame Google for voiding the warranty, if I'm going to introduce software which they can't protect me against, it's only fair that I'm on my own. And at least they made it crystal clear while I could still turn back.
One of the things which killed Mac marketshare was the closedness of things. With the IBM compatible computers you could do anything the hardware could handle, with the Macs you were much more limited in what you could do, and if Apple didn't bless a hardware bit, it probably wasn't going to be available at all. Admittedly there were other mistakes, like the high cost and the terrible clones, but the closedness of things definitely hurt them.
There's other solutions to that. I'm sure somebody could rig up a version of flashblock that asked you if you really wanted to open the flash content. Or do it how noscript does, as in require you to click on the flash object to get it to run.
By that logic, Windows doesn't support flash either. Adobe provides a legitimate version of Flash for Android, that's as supported as you're going to get. What do you expect, for Google to send a software engineer over to your house to install it for you?
Slashdot Mirror
You meant tracking should be opt-in. Opt out is better than what we currently have, because at least you can get out if you want to.
It's true. I've been dealing with computers on a continues basis for 2 decades, and Windows computers are pretty much the most unreliable pieces of crap I've had to deal with. It's not just that they break routinely and need to be fixed, it's the fact that the configuration utilities and help files often times aren't correct and that often times I have to admit to not knowing why it's broken. The OSes completely lacking any coherence of design doesn't make it any easier. And frequently I have to resort to hackery upon install to make sure that things that I don't want and could break aren't installed.
Frequently I have to say I don't know why that reboot fixed the problem and I don't know when it's going to be an issue again. The help files and configuration utilities being often times broken, incomplete or including information from a different version of Windows hardly makes it any easier to fix. There was a time when I thought that was interesting, but these days it just pisses me off that MS seems to think that they know better than I do as to how the machine should be operated.
And that doesn't even get into the times when the update process freezes, one of their updates breaks my computer or I have to learn a new way of doing something because they didn't feel like giving the end users the ability to actually fix all the problems without some arcane hackery which one really shouldn't need to know how to do. Not to mention the fact that they don't make it particularly easy to find information on the obscure ways of doing things when things don't go the way that they should.
Honestly, if Linux and FreeBSD can get that stuff right, there's absolutely no excuse for MS not. They just don't care enough to do the QA and bug fixes necessary to make things work properly and reliably.
Honestly, I'll be buying a copy, if for no other reason than it's bound to be a train wreck. That and I'm really curious what 12 or so years of development actually gets. From what I've heard they've been close to releasing it a few times, but couldn't get over the perfectionist need to be as revolutionary as the previous game was.
I assumed it was because they don't want to buy a Windows computer and don't know how to use Linux, *BSD or any of the other alternatives.
Mac hardware for better or for worse tends to work much more reliably in my experience than the Windows equivalents do, for the simple reason that Apple is able to effectively set rules about what is and is not acceptable for the platform. Whereas MS has been caught over the years programming around hardware bugs rather than saying no, we won't support it. The most notable example I can think of is the ACPI debacle, where many motherboards would have buggy implementations which wouldn't properly compile on the Intel reference implementation, but would run fine on Windows thanks to workarounds in the Windows source. Sure it would work, but as a result there'd be consequences and ultimately you'd have a tough time using the hardware with full support outside of Windows.
It depends upon ones point of view. I'll probably see it now that it's presumably out on DVD for quite some time, but my expectations are likely to be low. I just don't think that a movie about bomb disposal that features any characters performing that work with a cowboy mentality is exemplary of a well written and conceived of film.
Sort of like how Speed was, ultimately it was a really, really bad film, where the lead character was coincidentally behaving in the cowboy bomb tech role as well. Didn't work out too well for that movie, and not even Dennis Hopper could save it.
Sure you can get people to suspend their disbelief, but you do still have to have some rationale for doing it and make wise choices about when to try.
Academy awards aren't necessarily tied to a quality film. There's a lot of politics involved and while most of the time winning awards means it's a superior film, not always.
I'm not personally convinced that Marrissa Tomei should've won her Oscar for her role in My Cousin Vinnie. Likewise there's a lot of legacy crap, which while amazing on technical grounds, just doesn't make for the sort of film that deserves to be making millions in box office returns. And then pop stuff like Star wars (The original trilogy, not the prequel crap) which isn't particularly good technically, but is poppy enough to succeed. Well the effects were genuinely amazing for the time, most of the rest of it was pretty terrible.
The point of it is that you don't have to put it in the precise spot for the contacts to touch, and you can share the same pad with quite a few devices. Well, usually a couple at once, and more if you swap them out. It's nice because you can have a couple of them in strategic locations and have them charge there as needed. Throw in a bluetooth headset and you can easily put it on charge as you move from room to room.
Additionally a lot of the newer ones are set up so that they shut the electrical drain down quite a bit when not in use, so instead of having a half dozen chargers plugged in at all times, you've got just one, and you don't have to worry about unplugging the other ones when you're not using them.
Well, to be fair, they may have a point. As soon as people started watching it, I'm sure that word of mouth started to circulate about the quality of the film. Personally, I haven't seen it, but I take it that it wasn't a very good movie. And in this day and age, a bad movie might only get one day before it's outed on the web for being a bad film. Which makes it very hard to make money if it sucks as people know better pretty quickly, unlike in the past where they might get a couple weeks.
Sued, probably, sued for the kind of money they're wanting for destroying the box office returns almost certainly not. And that's the problem, back when studios and such sued large scale operations, that made sense, there was a large number of copies being distributed and there was almost certainly a large negative impact on the studio. The problem is now that you're suing individuals it's somewhat questionable as to whether it's really appropriate in terms of punishment for being a small portion of the problem.
Beyond that, if they have their account with Qwest, they couldn't possibly be guilty of any infringement large enough to warrant those kinds of damages, Qwest doesn't deliver the service to actually make any kind of substantial contribution to the piracy of something as large as a movie.
First off, I didn't make a typo. The word "man" is not the same as the word "Mann" is in German, which apparently you didn't know. Making it more than a little bit ironic that you're calling me an idiot when you didn't even know that.
Secondly, it's a legitimate follow up to assert that feminists get caught up in that out of bigotry and ignorance given that they aren't aware that the ultimate roots of it goes back ultimately to German via old English. Where it ultimately was derived from "wifman" as in basically a wife person, man meaning precisely the same thing at that point in time as it does now in German.
Or in other words if you're going to call somebody out for being an idiot it might help if you actually had some clue as to what it is the subject at hand.
Actually it's pretty solid, the only thing in the last 200 years or so that it's really screwed it up was when somebody disproved the fifth postulate. Which is to say that it wasn't the numbers that were the problem it was the presumptions we were making about reality which were. And right after the work to disprove it was completed all kinds of really amazing discoveries were made. There's still a lot of things like that out there to do, the biggest one is that there's a tendency to assume that because it works on paper that it works in real life, which is patently false. That's the only reason why we waste money on experiments is because sometimes the thought experiment or the calculation turns out to be wrong, in which case weird things happen.
Some areas are worse than others, probability theorists seem to be particularly blind to the absence of any means of accounting for entropy and outside factors affecting what they're looking at. And I know from personal experience that you can do all sorts of really weird and amazing things by taking even a rudimentary stab at including those other factors in.
You know what, just for that, from now on I'm going to call it "String Hypotheses" until such a time as somebody actually successfully falsifies something. And then comes up with a test that seems to work. It doesn't matter whether anybody has anything better to go on, the fact is that until they start to falsify things when they fail, it isn't science, it's a weird religious fetish for atheists.
But if they accept that it disproves that theory, then they may get a boost in credibility. From being incompetent liars to being merely wrong. Which for string theorists would be a substantial step up in terms of actual credibility.
Indeed, then later on we had to deal with the closet bigotry brought in by the women's movement. A group so ignorant as to start making up meanings and context where really there is none. Personally I like it when women spell it womyn, it makes it clear who the bat shit crazy, bigots are so that I can avoid them. I mean really, woman is derived in part from the German word "man" which is sort of the rough equivalent of what the Brits say as "one." It's neither masculine nor feminine, singular nor plural and is used in all those cases where one requires a generic placeholder noun.
Which is why we have the words mankind and woman. And don't get my started on the rather tenuous story that is "history." Given that that one predates the English language I have a really hard time buying the common explanation that it's a portmanteau of his story.
Indeed, it's one thing for a test to come inconclusive, but when it comes back that the hypothesis was false, there's limited scientific responses to be made. You can conclude that there was a different mechanism involved or that it wasn't happening in the first place. The problem is that when you start asserting that the results would've been correct in some other reality which you can't directly observe, you end up with something that's about as scientific as any of the world's religions. Including that one, which nobody practices and pretty much everybody agrees is pure bunk.
It's because the photosites are further apart and the lenses over the individual photosites are larger. Meaning that you can crank up the gain further without increasing the interference between photosites and have more light available to begin with. Basically you end up with more photons being directed at the photosite and less chance of energy generated at other photosites from interfering.
If you want low light, you shouldn't even consider Nikon. I'm not sure about in recent times, but Canon has been kicking Nikon's ass in that respect for many years. It's really not a coincidence that the vast majority of sports photographers have those lenses with the red ring around them. It's simply because Canon is better at low light, fast shutter speed photography than Nikon is. On top of that they do a much better job with the longer lenses needed for those pursuits.
That's not to say that Nikon is trash, it's not, they just don't focus on those markets for whatever reason. If you're just looking for things which are more standard, a Nikon or Fuji is just fine. In fact Fuji is great if you're into portraits, they've always been very good about reproducing skin tones.
Precisely, the best photographers whether they be pro or serious amateurs know that the best chance to get the shot is in camera. You can do a lot of those things in photoshop, but it really and truly isn't the same. Best case you limit the size at which you can print and more likely you get something of inferior quality. Beyond that, it just takes less time to do it right the first time, than to try and figure out how to fix it later on, even with raw formats it's still just not as good.
That's not correct. It's much more than that. The large format cameras are far more than just the camera movements. It's the relationship between the lens, film plane and the meditative stance that one must take with film that expensive. And the time it takes to set up. Sure the camera movements are necessary, but it's the format which Ansel Adams used which was special, on top of his processing and other technical mastery. I doubt very much that he'd be using anything other than large format were he alive today.
That's not true. Canon's professional cameras have larger sensors combined with higher pixel counts, however, once you hit a certain point where you're out resolving the lens, you're not going to get a whole lot out of adding more pixels without enlarging the area by more than that. Which is why the full frame 35mm format will always be capable of having more pixels than the APC-S or 4/3 formats will, at some point you hit the point of out resolving the lens at which point you're only option is to go larger. No technical wizardry in chip or in the camera hardware will ever make up for that.
Same goes for lens aberrations of various sorts, you can make them less obvious, but at the end of the day, you're still sacrificing image quality and counting on the camera system to do the right thing. But you're still going to lose detail and introduce other image problems.
The problem is that until virtually nobody has Flash, developers aren't going to stop using it. And by being one of the few that doesn't have access you're not likely to have much of a negative impact on Flash's market share.
Except that he's not maintaining market share. In recent months he's been losing ground to Android mobiles which don't come with all the restrictions that the various iPhones do. I rooted my Nexus One yesterday, and apart from being informed that doing so would void my warranty, the whole process was painless. And really, I can't blame Google for voiding the warranty, if I'm going to introduce software which they can't protect me against, it's only fair that I'm on my own. And at least they made it crystal clear while I could still turn back.
One of the things which killed Mac marketshare was the closedness of things. With the IBM compatible computers you could do anything the hardware could handle, with the Macs you were much more limited in what you could do, and if Apple didn't bless a hardware bit, it probably wasn't going to be available at all. Admittedly there were other mistakes, like the high cost and the terrible clones, but the closedness of things definitely hurt them.
There's other solutions to that. I'm sure somebody could rig up a version of flashblock that asked you if you really wanted to open the flash content. Or do it how noscript does, as in require you to click on the flash object to get it to run.
By that logic, Windows doesn't support flash either. Adobe provides a legitimate version of Flash for Android, that's as supported as you're going to get. What do you expect, for Google to send a software engineer over to your house to install it for you?
I see you've been hanging out on a Bieber slash Twilight fan site.