 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly - video data typically eats a
> few GB per minute. So why do you need 1,000 GB? That's, like, several
> *hours* of video data. You'd have to be producing a feature film or
> something to need more, surely?
I took nine hours of video on my vacation to Africa. Editted down to (I
think) 2.
It's sitting on tapes, waiting for me to pull it in to burn to DVD, now
that I have that capabilitiy.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's incredible how you find ways to bash C++ in every possible context.
Actually, I'd like to apologize.
If, for some reason, you're taking my C++ comments as a personal
offense, I'd like to point out they weren't made with that intent. I
think you, Warp, are an extremely skilled and intelligent person. While
I haven't seen any of your code, I expect I would hire you to work on
mission-critical software my livelihood depends on without a second
thought. Your comments are usually insightful and thought-provoking,
enough so that I went out and bought a couple of C++ books to re-learn
its capabilities in case it would be appropriate in my future. When my
opinion differs from yours, it's almost always simply a matter of
preference or opinion rather than something factual. (Windows sucks!
Linux is hard to use! :-) In the rare case where it's something factual
and I think I happen to be right, it's something where I have recent
experience and you don't and the "common folklore" is out of date.
I bash C++ because its power excuses it for many of the flaws I see. I
could equally bash Perl or PHP or any other language I've ever used,
probably easier, because they have so few other redeeming qualities.
It's easy to bash a lame language that's lame because the designers
didn't care. It's more fun to bash a powerful language that seems lame
because of complex intentional restrictions on its design.
I bash C++ for the same reason I'd mock someone who fells trees with
dynamite: If you can manage it, hats off to you, but let me stand way
over there and watch the fun while you do it... :-) It's certainly most
effective, as certainly as it's inappropriate for inexperienced people.
If you think that when I'm making fun of C++'s shortcomings I'm also
making fun of those who use C++ effectively, let me just say I'm not,
and I am sorry if my being silly upset you. If so, let me know, and
I'll knock it off here, and only be serious about it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> The Amiga has always been able to work at resolutions other than TV.
>> That's just the default settings.
>
> Sorry. I never saw the A1000 plugged into any monitor more resolute than
> a television. Maybe in theory, yes, but not something you could buy off
> the shelf.
I've had my A1200 plugged into a monitor running at 960 x 720 for ages.
It's just that games tend to not like it very much. :-(
[That's kind of the Amiga's downfall. Too many applications bypass the
OS because "the hardware is always the same". This fails epically when
the hardware changes...]
> It was very awesome technology. I still have all the textbooks. I still
> think it's a great way to build an OS. It's just hard to do it
> multi-user. :-)
It *was* nice to feel all smug watching those PC guys struggling along
with 16-colour VGA graphics when I had a machine that would display
*millions* of colours simultaneously. ;-)
But then the hardware stood still for 10 years...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:21:46 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Doctor John wrote:
>> Why is it that so many M$ users (present company excepted) defend their
>> choice by pointing to the success of M$ as a company rather than being
>> able to rationally discuss the pros and cons of Windows (all variants)
>> as a stable and secure OS?
>
> Because non-technical people don't know about that stuff. They just know
> that it can't be *too* bad if that many people are using it. I.e., they
> look at the users, and trust the opinion of those who most got it right.
>
> It's not science, it's politics.
Another conversation
"Millions of people can't be wrong!"
"Why not?"
"Um well because er if something was wrong then people would stop using it"
"And the first person who tries that gets told 'Millions of people can't
be wrong'"
"Um"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:27:22 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
> I would far rather trust MS with that than a group of voluntary
> workers. MS has a brand name to protect and shareholders to please,
> they are not going to do anything stupid.
Vista? Sorry cheap shot ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
Video comes to mind. I use my 0.5TB external drive to store photos (in
raw format, JPEG is inferior, much better to have the full-res 14bit
file) It's nice to know I have breathing room, though, but it is slowly
shrinking. I'll probably need to buy another one in a year or two.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I would far rather trust MS with that than a group of voluntary workers.
>> MS has a brand name to protect and shareholders to please, they are not
>> going to do anything stupid.
>
> Vista? Sorry cheap shot ;-)
Hehe, but would have been stupider not to release Vista (what would happen
to MS once everyone owned a copy of WinXP?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Another conversation
>
> "Millions of people can't be wrong!"
> "Why not?"
> "Um well because er if something was wrong then people would stop using it"
> "And the first person who tries that gets told 'Millions of people can't
> be wrong'"
> "Um"
Behold the King's Magical Suit!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
>> Haven't used a distro's config for a few years now. Call me a dinosaur
>> but at least if anything goes wrong I know what I did so I can reverse
>> it.
>
> Well, there are advantages to that too - but it does require you to be a
> complete expert in exactly how everything on the entire machine works in
> order to configure anything.
>
...and the way I learnt was by playing with the various config files and
making (frequent) mistakes. :-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...and the way I learnt was by playing with the various config files and
> making (frequent) mistakes. :-)
Dude, that's like trying to learn POV-Ray without reading the manual! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
