As long as you follow the terms of a license, how can you "rip" it off?
In some people's understanding of the language, if somebody fixes the fuckups in your code but doesn't give you back the fixes, they 'ripped you off.' It doesn't work that way in any other industry, but apparently it does in the world of buggy software developers.
It probably isn't a strong point of your arguement to use an example like Ford Motor Company as a company with good business practices. They've squandered their entire company on exceptions and loopholes to vehicle emissions and safety standards (i.e. building SUVs and basically letting their passenger line wilt to near death.) Ford is an ill-managed failing company. The only thing that keeps them operating is the sheer mass of the company.
Anybody who wastes their +1 posting privledge to post a comment that is more than 50% focused on 'moderation' should never again be allowed to moderate or 'meta' moderate. Better yet would be for such a person to permanently lose their +1 posting privledges, but some would say that goes too far.
pay 1c every time you opened Google's continuall-improved word processor?
I have good enough uptime that I'd probably only be paying four or five cents a year. It would thus be not a bad deal at all. But an obvious no-sale as I already have a word processor or two that work just fine.
I suspect the $.35 charge is intended to eliminate micropayments. It's too obvious a move on their part to be a blunder. So PayPal has chosen to have nothing to do with micropayments for some reason. Apparently it doesn't fit in with their business model. It probably isn't them simply being short sighted, though.
Your attitude, shown in your language where you say you 'order' things from eBay, shows that you don't understand a peer-based exchange system. I run into people like that all the time, who think they are just 'punching buttons' in their transactions with me on eBay (both in buying and selling transactions). I say 'good riddance' to people with that attitude. If you can't deal with the idea that there are 'real people' involved in your ebay transactions, we don't need you as part of our marketplace.
That _also_ goes for commerical ebay sellers who think they can just slap up huge screens of boilerplate explaining their rigid policies, then treat queries from buyers as 'click and discard.'
Indeed. I haven't heard of anybody doing that level of surface mount construction, but it should be possible. The constraint would be that you'd have to build the computer with only small enough chips to fit through the neck. That would eliminate many LSI and larger chips. The whole thing could be built with SO-14, SO-16, SO-20, and SO-24 pin packages, though, using conventional 'logic gate' design. Lots and lots of soldering, though.
Just like music - digital has a ways to go before it can match the nuances and quirks of analog.
The challange is for master technician photographers to learn how to make good use of the New nuances and quirks. It is not enough for the camera manufacturers to figure out how to drag in the 'quirks' and problems from the old film technology.
People have to move on. Sometimes it is necessary for an entire generation to die off before new artists and artisans can figure out the new methods. Hopefully that won't be the case here.
The 8MP (or whatever it may end up being) limit is defined by human perception.
True, but if you could take a single wide-field shot, and crop 50 or 60 good usable 8MP images out of it because it had TREMENDOUS resolution, then you would have 50 or 60 simultaneous instances of reality all recorded at one instance. This is more than is possible today, but it would make for some tremendously interesting 'city view from a high building' shots if that degree of high resolution zoom were possible.
Similarly, if you can only carry around one or two devices all day, it's much better to do everything.
This is true. And if the camera is one that doesn't have any features in it but camera ones, and I choose to carry a non-wireless PDA as the second device, I won't be distracted from my photographic work by unnecessary phone calls, IM pages, and what-not.
I call BS on your example. Mainly because I only have one system faster than 550 MHz and it isn't the one I use to browse the web. And I am NOT constrained by the hardware I use. I run four systems all spread out, thorough a KVM switch.
Mozilla runs great on this Pentium III 450 system running NetBSD 2.1, on FVWM.
True, but for a specific image size as stored on the recording medium, if you use JPEG compression, you can get the shot at a higher 'effective' resolution, since you're not wasting storage on big single-tone fields. So there is a balance of sorts. If you're memory constrained, using JPEG compression might let you take twenty shots at the highest resolution, whereas using uncompressed images, you might only get those same twelve shots at a lower resolution.
It's a tradeoff, which confuses absolutist 'the best possible evah!' fanatics.
And even better: on a digital camera, you can remove obviously botched shots out in the field by simply deleting them. This means even more good shots on the final memory card you bring back to the studio.
You're criticizing Digital Photography for not having the same artifacts and 'tweak' features as silver halide photography.
You run the risk, in doing so, of echoing previous complains, i.e. the complaints that were surely made when the sound recording industry switched from mechanical to electrical means of recording sound patters onto wax platters.
In other words: You're trying to make a new technology fit your old techniques. Instead, you need to adapt your techniques to fit the new technology.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that all 'Excel' is, is a container to transfer data between different companies?
Man, you live in a different world than the rest of us....
I won't go down the NetBeans versus Eclipse, IBM versus Sun, or SWT versus Swing battle. Those are all non-issues to the bigger picture.
Everybody keeps refuting all your FUD, so you'll instead just opt to go down the 'Sun bad. Hate Sun.' route, eh?
To summarize: You don't like Sun.
Nothing new there.
There have been Sun haters nearly as long as there have been Microsoft or IBM haters.
Mastodon Linux, however, is the last a.out distribution.
As long as you follow the terms of a license, how can you "rip" it off?
In some people's understanding of the language, if somebody fixes the fuckups in your code but doesn't give you back the fixes, they 'ripped you off.' It doesn't work that way in any other industry, but apparently it does in the world of buggy software developers.
It probably isn't a strong point of your arguement to use an example like Ford Motor Company as a company with good business practices. They've squandered their entire company on exceptions and loopholes to vehicle emissions and safety standards (i.e. building SUVs and basically letting their passenger line wilt to near death.) Ford is an ill-managed failing company. The only thing that keeps them operating is the sheer mass of the company.
Anybody who wastes their +1 posting privledge to post a comment that is more than 50% focused on 'moderation' should never again be allowed to moderate or 'meta' moderate. Better yet would be for such a person to permanently lose their +1 posting privledges, but some would say that goes too far.
As soon as someone figures out something that people are willing to pay for online in a 'trickle' mode.
Me, I have less fun by default if I know a meter is running and it's costing me. It's a definite deterrent.
...and here I am in flat old Kansas....
pay 1c every time you opened Google's continuall-improved word processor?
I have good enough uptime that I'd probably only be paying four or five cents a year. It would thus be not a bad deal at all. But an obvious no-sale as I already have a word processor or two that work just fine.
I suspect the $.35 charge is intended to eliminate micropayments. It's too obvious a move on their part to be a blunder. So PayPal has chosen to have nothing to do with micropayments for some reason. Apparently it doesn't fit in with their business model. It probably isn't them simply being short sighted, though.
Your attitude, shown in your language where you say you 'order' things from eBay, shows that you don't understand a peer-based exchange system. I run into people like that all the time, who think they are just 'punching buttons' in their transactions with me on eBay (both in buying and selling transactions). I say 'good riddance' to people with that attitude. If you can't deal with the idea that there are 'real people' involved in your ebay transactions, we don't need you as part of our marketplace.
That _also_ goes for commerical ebay sellers who think they can just slap up huge screens of boilerplate explaining their rigid policies, then treat queries from buyers as 'click and discard.'
Indeed. I haven't heard of anybody doing that level of surface mount construction, but it should be possible. The constraint would be that you'd have to build the computer with only small enough chips to fit through the neck. That would eliminate many LSI and larger chips. The whole thing could be built with SO-14, SO-16, SO-20, and SO-24 pin packages, though, using conventional 'logic gate' design. Lots and lots of soldering, though.
If you don't put enough water in the bottle to go up into the neck there might be plenty of surface area.
Just like music - digital has a ways to go before it can match the nuances and quirks of analog.
The challange is for master technician photographers to learn how to make good use of the New nuances and quirks. It is not enough for the camera manufacturers to figure out how to drag in the 'quirks' and problems from the old film technology.
People have to move on. Sometimes it is necessary for an entire generation to die off before new artists and artisans can figure out the new methods. Hopefully that won't be the case here.
The 8MP (or whatever it may end up being) limit is defined by human perception.
True, but if you could take a single wide-field shot, and crop 50 or 60 good usable 8MP images out of it because it had TREMENDOUS resolution, then you would have 50 or 60 simultaneous instances of reality all recorded at one instance. This is more than is possible today, but it would make for some tremendously interesting 'city view from a high building' shots if that degree of high resolution zoom were possible.
Similarly, if you can only carry around one or two devices all day, it's much better to do everything.
This is true. And if the camera is one that doesn't have any features in it but camera ones, and I choose to carry a non-wireless PDA as the second device, I won't be distracted from my photographic work by unnecessary phone calls, IM pages, and what-not.
You made a good point there.
massive, monolithic applications are often failure-prone, unwieldy, and overly expensive.
And what has the long history of the Linux kernel taught us, then?
I call BS on your example. Mainly because I only have one system faster than 550 MHz and it isn't the one I use to browse the web. And I am NOT constrained by the hardware I use. I run four systems all spread out, thorough a KVM switch.
Mozilla runs great on this Pentium III 450 system running NetBSD 2.1, on FVWM.
True, but for a specific image size as stored on the recording medium, if you use JPEG compression, you can get the shot at a higher 'effective' resolution, since you're not wasting storage on big single-tone fields. So there is a balance of sorts. If you're memory constrained, using JPEG compression might let you take twenty shots at the highest resolution, whereas using uncompressed images, you might only get those same twelve shots at a lower resolution.
It's a tradeoff, which confuses absolutist 'the best possible evah!' fanatics.
And even better: on a digital camera, you can remove obviously botched shots out in the field by simply deleting them. This means even more good shots on the final memory card you bring back to the studio.
My old 1.3 Megapixel Olympus Camedia D-360L that I bought in the late 90's lets me save images uncompressed. That isn't a new feature at all.
You're criticizing Digital Photography for not having the same artifacts and 'tweak' features as silver halide photography.
You run the risk, in doing so, of echoing previous complains, i.e. the complaints that were surely made when the sound recording industry switched from mechanical to electrical means of recording sound patters onto wax platters.
In other words: You're trying to make a new technology fit your old techniques. Instead, you need to adapt your techniques to fit the new technology.
I know you won't agree, but many people view 'getting rid of the CIA' as being equivalent to 'getting rid of the fire department' on certain levels.
Is Free Software a registered trademark of the FSF? It should be, if it is not already.