Which doesn't bode well for the continued existence of their "dial-up only" email provider continuing to stay in business and provide that email address. Submitter should migrate them over to gmail or other large, likely-to-have-plenty-of-warning-before-service-stops web mail company sooner, just to inoculate against the possibility of an unexpected cutoff (presumably they stay because they don't want to lose contact with people using that email address, but they will lose contact pretty quick if the provider goes out of business.)

As someone who learned photography "the old way" (film, darkroom, nasty chemicals), there is something to what both of you have to say. My rate of "keepers" in the film days was about 1 shot per roll (1 in 36). My rate of "keepers" in digital is about 1 in 100. So clearly I'm not being as careful to compose the shot perfectly. And I'm definitely taking multiple shots on many occasions with the hope that one will be good.

But my rate of "keepers" per trip has skyrocketed. With film I'd be happy if I managed just 2-3 keepers from a trip. With digital I expect 5+ and am disappointed if I don't get 10. This is because I shoot a lot more pictures with digital than I ever shot with film. The cost of the professional film I used + developing meant I was paying $0.50-$1 per shot. That put a serious damper on photography. I think the most film I ever shot on a trip was 12 rolls (432 pictures) over 4 weeks, or an average of 15 shots a day. With digital I'll take 2000-3000 shots on a similar trip, or 70-110 shots a day.

FWIW, the rate of keepers seems to be consistent (between 1 in 50 to 1 in 100) among both amateurs and professionals. i.e. The pro photographers aren't getting those great shots by snapping a few pictures. National Geographic did an article on how they make articles. The photographer shot over 5000 photos (on film!) to arrive at the 8 photos used in the article.

Which approach is better? Hard to tell. Though truth be told, equipment actually doesn't matter. National Geographic photographers have intentionally gone on trips equipped with nothing more than an iPhone and still take stunning photos using nothing more than the default camera app.

Equipment does matter. Photography isn't just a matter of seeing something cool and snapping a picture of it. Wide-angles can give you unusual perspectives. Better equipment gives you access to different capabilities. Telephotos allow you to compress perspective, as well as pick out distant subjects without having to run all over. A wider aperture lens can blur the backgrounds more in portraits. Flash exposure compensation can allow you to use a flash, but make the picture look like it was shot without a flash. Zooming during the exposure followed by a flash can create an impressionistic effect which emphasizes the subject. etc.

I recently drove some European friends to San Francisco. Unfortunately we arrived right around dusk, and they weren't able to get a decent shot of themselves with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. I simply borrowed one of their DSLRs, mounted it on a tripod, put it in aperture priority mode, turned the flash on with FEC dialed to about -1.0, and told them to stand perfectly still for a few seconds. When you do that, the DSLR automatically adjusts the exposure time for the background, but exposes the foreground by modulating the flash. The result was a perfect image of the bridge and city lights in the background, with my friends perfectly exposed in the foreground.

That was GP's point - that better equipment gives you access to more options and different things you can do to take different and better pictures. While it's certainly possible to take good photos with a smartphone, the number of different types of good photos you can take is considerably less than with a DSLR and good lenses. OP misinterpreted GP's post as a film vs digital thing.

Yeah, the DC-10's fatal accident rate isn't appreciably different from other planes of its era. It's a safe aircraft. It only picked up the reputation of being unsafe because of a grouping of accidents (two of which were MD's fault because of the cargo door problem), which sealed public opinion against it. Kinda like Malaysia Airlines' reputation has taken a permanent hit after the enormous publicity surrounding the loss of two of its airliners within 4 months of each other.

A300 = 0.61 fatal accidents per million flights
727 = 0.5
737-100/200 = 0.61
747-100/200/300 = 1.02
DC-9 = 0.56
DC-10 = 0.65
L-1011 = 0.48

(Note that when you get into incidents which occur this infrequently, the margin of error starts to become huge relative to the actual incident rate. So you can calculate the rate to as many decimal places as you want, but it's pretty meaningless. The above are statistically indistinguishable - (bad) luck played a larger role than the airworthiness of any aircraft type.)

Good plane, killed by the same stupid management that killed US Auto industry too. At least in the case of US auto they were actively aided and abetted by the unions. But McDonnel-Douglas was just self inflicted wounds. The third player Lockheed (L-1011 tristar) survived on military cargo plane contracts.

I had a brief internship at Lockheed where I worked under one of the managers who worked on the L-1011 project. According to him, both the DC-10 and L-1011 were good planes (though of course the L-1011 was better). The problem was that when both companies had decided to build the planes, they'd done their market analysis based on the assumption that their plane was the only one servicing the widebody-but-smaller-than-747 market. i.e. $x profit per plane * number of planes sold > design costs.

When both planes rolled out almost simultaneously, they split the market in half. Both manufacturer ended up selling about half as many planes as expected, and neither made much if any money. That's why Lockheed abandoned the commercial aircraft industry after a long and storied history - a decision by upper management that military contracts which were guaranteed to pay were safer than a commercial venture which went south not because of anything under their control, but because a competitor rolled out an almost-identical plane at the same time.

That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.

Normally that'd be the case. Their policies cripple their own society while competing societies flourish, until they eventually consign themselves to irrelevance.

However, they're simply executing anyone who opposes them. For their tactic to be self-defeating, there has to be a competing society in the first place. People in the West tend to assume that the only way to "win" (in the democratic sense) is to convince people of the merits of your philosophy and get them to support you until you have a political majority. However, there's another way - simply exterminate those who oppose you, which is what ISIS is doing. Both strategies result in you having the support of the majority of the (remaining) population.

Not opposing them now is going to mean the overwhelming majority of survivors in the region will subscribe to their philosophy. Even if you defeat them later and install a democracy, they're just going to vote for something close to ISIS again because everyone who would've voted differently is dead.. This is one of those cases where failing to stop them quickly is going to result in decades if not a century or more of problems down the road.

Now, iPhone / Apple fans aren't going to care that Apple marketers took this liberty with the images - they are going to buy it regardless.

Only those who want to find fault with Apple, for whatever reason, give a rat's ass that Apple might engage as something so underhanded as to photoshop out the "bulge" to clarify their marketing point.

What IS more interesting is how much attention Android fans are giving to something which they claim no interest in owning.

Personally, I don't care about it. The only issue I have with it is that in the past, Apple fans have criticized my Android phone for having a protruding camera lens. Now when the iPhone has the same, suddenly it doesn't matter to them?

See, that's the difference. You think it's about the device. It's not. It's about consistency, honesty, and hypocrisy. Same reason people were upset Apple photoshopped images of the Galaxy Tab to make it more like an iPad in the German court documents.

The closest analogy I can think of is Xerox. For a time during the 1980s, people would tell you "xerox it" instead of photocopy it. In both Xerox's and Google's cases, the company's name was being used as a generic verb for something their product did, but not as a generic description for a similar product by another company. And in both cases, the companies retained their trademark.

I have a feeling the person you are arguing with spends his days
1) eating lead with the word "beef" chiseled on it,
2) drives his car inside the shopping mall and convenience stores to get to the indoor ATMs, and
3) likes to troll handicap people

Since the first action item somehow hasn't killed him yet, that just gives more weight to the rest as an indicator of just how awful of a person it is ;P

Says Mister DarkOx, if that is your real name...

Since you are out right admitting you are doing nothing but illegal crimes (perfectly sound reasoning once I saw your not-name in your post after all) - you'll need to do much much better to convince me and all of us why we should take the opinions of a criminal to be worth more than a grain of digital salt.

But it was a nice try, pedo :P

It works for Cafe Courier, and they have been doing just that (and making a profit, including off me) since the late 90s.

For the two years Kroger had their peachtree* delivery service, I used the crap out of that! Groceries and pharmaceuticals to your door, and for some even further and right into your fridge.
(Thou I mainly saw that last bit only for older and disabled people. I am just lazy and not wanting to go to the store)

These days I have to hope I get a regular pizza delivery guy that I can uber-overpay for him to stop and get me something extra, and even then if it isn't on or damn close to his normal route I don't even ask.
Plus it sucks dropping an extra $20 just for two fast-food milkshakes that would be like $6 otherwise :/

But hey, sometimes it can be worth it :P

You still have a point about the drones with claw-machine game arms... Once/if those happen, I say let the two options battle it out on price and time! Should be a good show even if a win.

Sounds great in theory, but in the US the term "broadband" is defined such that the minimum requirement is 128kbps (the speed of a fully utilized BRI line - the original high speed connection)

Since I don't see them successfully raising that first the past hundred or so attempts, the fact they are moving forward on any neutrality issues is pretty much a certainty your plan will never happen here.

In fact given the lack of evidence in either direction, I would naturally assume they will end up changing that min limit to 64k if anything... we suck just that bad :/

While I'm sure it was intended as a joke, we do (sadly) have that answer...

Just about 200 pages: http://oi61.tinypic.com/11tbbr...

I can second that.

A couple years back a week before christmas my uncles place burnt down in the middle of the night.
Everyone always said that because of the historic covered bridge from the road to back where those few homes were, that everyone best not have a heart attack or play with fire because no emergency vehicles could possibly get there...

Fortunately they both got out unharmed - but at that point with no worldly physical possessions except his truck (which I can't say was the bestest idea to go back in the garage to get) and the PJs on their backs.

To this day the things they miss the most are the few old family hand-me-downs, and the massive amounts of photo albums they had amassed.
Including family hand-me-down albums, over a hundred years worth of memories were gone just like that.

As my imediate family is only two people (my mother and her brother/my uncle) - a total of two people asking for computer help is far from problematic for me and so of course I still do.

Somewhere between un-oem'ing his laptops windows install and handing the thing back to him, I set him up an ssh account on one of my servers and a winscp dropbox style icon on the desktop for offsite backup purposes.
But every picture from 1920 to 2009 is now gone and gone for good.

Us "youngins" have a wonderful advantage with digital media that naturally affords us easy copies and easy backups, up to ridiculous extents that simply wouldn't be possible with physical items.

There is no excuse for us not to avail ourselves of them, file format be damned.

In retrospect I now kinda feel bad for the joke I made about the offsite storage thing (long before the fire however)
I told him that machine was "only" backed up to servers in three other states plus a backup server in my basement, but with a slight config change I could add his homedir to be copied to my non-us servers as well - resulting in the possibility of our data out surviving all of us if ww3 happened...

But my point with that is that it is so cheap and easy to fling data around these days that having only one or even two backups is only slightly less painful to hear than someone who has no backups, and the slight time investment most people would need to recover and the relatively tiny cost for something that was literally impossible to do not two generations ago - there is just no excuse not to.

I would even go so far as to say a pirated movie collection would deserve some redundancy right next to personal data like home pictures and movies - and the barriers to doing so are so tiny that they truly are not worth even thinking about at the "yes or no" level.
Only the higher up level of how many copies is worth pondering over (Ex. I don't really feel its worth having a copy of the matrix 2 spread over 8 machines and multiple countries for example ;P )

More like "The North Remembers!".

"Direfox! King in the North!"

vs

"Steve Ballmer sends his regards"

Opera did the same thing. I still like Opera 12.x. But I prefer Chrome to the newer, Chromium based, versions of Opera. And the problem is that Opera 12.x is doomed in the long run.