Soleq

This really depends on how your computer was infected. As said above, you typically have to run a program or accept a change in order for the virus to actually run. While there are laws about virus spreading (called malicious intent or something like that), I think it'll be pretty hard for anyone to prosecute this hoster. Why? Because you went to his server (as in the virus wasn't spread to your computer through other means). Chances are, it'll be a case of "you shouldn't have done that, learn from your mistakes." Maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist.

Since I'm lazy today and didn't read the majority of the previous posts, I don't know if this has already been suggested: go to a template website and just buy a pre-made template. Most templates are pretty dang good, and some include CSS and Flash. Then, it's just a matter of customizing it, which is typically pretty easy to do. They range anywhere between $5 to $35 (I'm sure they go higher), so it's a realtively cheap option compared to buying a piece of software that you don't know how to use. Dreamweaver is one of the most common template formats, so you're set there.One option that I recently took was purchasing RapidWeaver (it's for OS X, not sure if it's for Windows). It's a bit cheesy, but the themes are well made and professional looking. I was able to churn out a site fairly quickly compared to writing a new site from scratch. The benefit of this option is that it gives you more flexibility, but it'll take longer to design. Plus, you actually need to know some coding.Basically, don't expect your first site to look uber-fantastic. I remember mine, and by today's standards it pretty much sucks. But you live and learn, and eventually you'll end up with a nice layout.

I think on a whole, my favorite/most used iApp is iTunes. Now that I have an iPod, I'm finding myself using it even more (which is pretty incredible, seeing as how much I used it before). I've dabbled with the other iApps before, and each has its place. I'll go a little in depth for each.iTunes: I personally disliked it when it first came out. I mean, come on, Apple bought the best MP3 player around (SoundJam) and transformed it from a great GUI to the blah brushed metal theme. At the time, I loved SoundJam, and this was beyond repair. However, as time went on, I began to notice that it doesn't matter what the thing looked like, as long as it could organize my music and play it at a good rate, I could live with it. Now, it's always open, and I love my keyboard that can control it using actual buttons.iPhoto: The second (?) iApp to be released was good when it first came out, and now, I refuse to use it. Why? Because it can't do anything that Photoshop can't do. Sure, you can order pretty books, but really, with the online photo labs out there (MPIX!), you're better off just printing yourself that way and binding it at home. The slide shows are nifty though...which leads me to...iMovie: I don't have a digital camcorder. Nor do I want one. So why do I use iMovie? To make slideshows! It's super easy to create slide shows using the Ken Burns effect using iMovie, then burn it to a cd or dvd. I guess I could use it for actually making movies, but nah...iDVD: Haven't used it. Don't really see the point in using it so far.GarageBand: I've only dinked around a little with this pseudo-iApp. It's something on my "to-do" list, as I have a rather nice keyboard that I'd love to hook up. Maybe after I finish doing the 20+ things on my list.So, that's my rundown. iLife is nice, but it's a pity that Apple quite giving basic updates for free for iPhoto and iMovie. I can remember plenty a night wishing for the latest versions of both, only to find I had to buy the set. At least iTunes is still free.

It's pretty amazing what people will believe, even though it defies all logic. My wife's old college roommate used to believe (and probably still does) that computers don't use any electricity when it's on screen saver mode. Even when we tried to reason it out to her, using plain english, she still couldn't believe that it was using as much electricity as before. "But that's what screen savers do!" Riiiiiiight...

I have mixed feelings about Tiger. First off, it's the first OS X release that I didn't get for free through ADC, so I guess right there it was an uphill battle. The OS seems quite stable, and most companies are just about through rushing out updates that fix compatibility issues. The loading times do seem a tad faster, and the new features do seem to work as they're intended. I'm always skeptical of a new OS, especially a major release, so I install it on a non-vital machine (usually my mothers) and try it out before I install it on my machines. So far, it's worked great, with only a few minor glitches.Of the new features, the things that I like the best are better RSS integration (that new RSS screensaver is flat-out awesome in my book), an overall tighter feel in the finder, and Dashboard. When I first heard about Dashboard, I knew it was an obvious Konfabluator knockoff, but you know what? Apple really pulled through, and I'm very impressed by the widgets. Even though Arlo is fantastic, and I support his work, I much prefer the Dashboard "behind-the-scenes" approach over the "always-on-the-desktop" style of Konfabulator.Now, the real question is, what will Apple include in their next major update? I think people right now are viewing some of these features as non-vital in the core OS, so when does it stop being useful, and start being bloatware?

Unless there is a malacious act or intent, most likely you'll get your internet privs revoked and a slap on the wrist. Basically, the question isn't "How do I avoid detection," it's "why do I want to do this?" There are easier ways to get online, especially from home. I wouldn't suggest doing this just for the sake of doing it, as it's easy for them to trace it back to you. Bear in mind though that a random MAC address isn't a smoking gun, as they need probable cause that it was you specifically to even find out what your laptop's MAC is.Quite simply, there's not easy way to disable the logging from a remote location.

Basically, you're venturing into pretty safe territory. As stated above, if you don't need to share files or printers, don't. Turn on your WEP protection, and if you're really paranoid, only allow your MAC addresses to access the router. If you have a suspecion that someone is piggybacking on your router, use a packet sniffer to see the data going to and fro. If you see stuff out of the ordinary, than you know that you need to take some steps. I believe the lastest 2600 has an article on this. Really, I've had a wireless network for over 2 years now, and I've had 0 problems with it.

Hmm..haven't heard of this. Got a source?

Personally, AirAmerica is 'good,' but certainly not great. Don't get me wrong, Al Franken does a good show, as do the other personalities, but there's only so much you can say that goes against the conservative dogma that's so rooted in this country. When I first heard of the concept "liberal radio," my interest was picqued, but after listening to it, it's liberal rhetoric to combat Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Fight fire with fire and whatnot. Sure, there are a few very interesting points, and it's enjoyable to listen to, but it's not earth-shattering.

It's funny, because in a way, I hold very similar beliefs about religion. I'll discuss the parts though where we differ a little. First, I believe that the nature of religion isn't necessarily to show us how to live our lives. Religion is created to give meaning to our lives (of course, religion isn't necessary to give meaning, but most people tend to go that route one way or another). It's from that sense of meaning do we begin to set protocols on how we should act. Secondly, about the misinterpretations, you really can't prevent people from misinterpreting a piece of writing. Sure, you say that a good religion would lay out everything in very specific points as to completely prevent (or likely avoid) any misinterpretations. However, people see things differently, and as such, you can't word everything so that everyone views it the same. Take for example a writing that states that men should not kill. Sounds like a pretty basic rule of ethics, right? Well, if you write it plainly, "Good men do not kill," then does that include everything alive, or just fellow men? If it's just men, then people can misinterpret it as everything alive. If you state "Good men do not kill other men" then you've created a specific, which leaves out everything else (and I know someone will say "hey, but women weren't listed"). It becomes a question on how specific the doctrines have to be, and then of course, there's always the problem of if the religion is too specific, people won't follow it. Honestly now, how many Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays anymore?I don't want you to think that your essay is flawed. Far from it. Your overall points are great, and I could agree with you more on the creation of fear and that horrific sense of self-righteousness that spawns xenophobia.

This really doesn't surprise me. Hell, they used to do it all the time in the 50's and before for those deemed mentally retarded or who had psychological disorders. Of course, lobotomies were popular then too. This just adds to my overall question "what will the government not do?" So far my only answers are: fully separate church and state, support the common man, and provide accurate information to those who are affected by certain actions relating to the information.

Since this topic is pretty much covered, I'll just add a short snippit.Since I sell my prints online, I need people to see what they're buying. However, I typically keep the image size fairly small, somewhere in the 300x500 range. That way, people can see the photos, but they can't easily take them and print them out. Nothing's worse than losing a sale to someone's printer.

I personally didn't find his post that confusing. What's so hard to understand about a guy posting some good freeware web development applications?I'll add on to this though and say that most of the freeware applications I've tried have been pretty limiting. I've since moved onto commercial applications (3rd party, not DW, GL, or FP), and I've been much more impressed. Of course, you get what you pay for.

All I see is trouble from this, or any company claiming that anyone can make a large amount of money fast. I shall explain:Photography is an incredibly difficult business to break into. Why? Because it's based on talent, and let's face it, you're either talented or you're not. So right away, untalented people will not succeed in the business. For the talented, they're facing an uphill battle. Purchasing equipment is expensive, advertising is expensive, and above all, you're there trying to please customers who are usually incredibly vague in what they want, yet dislike anything they see (of themselves). People are weird.Perhaps I'm sounding a bit bitter, but after dealing with fickle customers, I decided that it just wasn't worth the troubles. Instead, now I do it for pleasure, and if I sell a print because someone actually likes it, then that's fine. But for a company to claim that you can make a living in portrait photography is beyond laughable.

Of course it's possible, and it's a great thing to have.Because XP directions were already given, I'll post the OS X way.First, you need to have File Sharing turned on, which is in the Sharing pane of the System Preferences. Turn on Fire Sharing, and voila, you can set options concerning how people can access your computer. To actually connect to a computer on the network though, you need to (on the client computer) go to "Go" in the menu bar, and then Connect to Server. Enter the server address, or you can browse, but then connect and you'll be prompted for your username/password. This should be your regular login name and password, though you can create a separate account just for file sharing. That's pretty much it, but remember to turn on File Sharing for each computer you want to access.Now, a greater concern is wireless security. Now that you have file sharing turned on, people can access your data. If you use a modern router, turn on WPA, or if it's a tad older, turn on WEP. WEP is still pretty easy to crack, but hey, it's something.

While they most likely won't erase your account, there's always a risk of Apple purging old accounts. That to me just doesn't seem worth it. Plus, as stated before, Yahoo and Google offer far more storage than .Mac. While I love Apple, I've never been a fan of .Mac (iTools). I remember when it was free, and even then it wasn't that great. I guess if you're dying for a @mac.com address, then it's fine, otherwise, it's a waste of effort.

Well, I had to go for three weeks without my own computer, and it was living hell. I use my computer primarily for pleasure, though I do need it for work on a daily basis. Since I actually needed to use a computer, I had to run to Kinkos and pay by the minute to word process. That my friends is a complete rip-off. Oh well, it's all said and done. I find it more frustrating having a computer and not the internet than not having a computer at all. Why? Because it's like having a car without any gas. Sure, you can sit in it, pretend like you're going somewhere, but in the end, all you're doing is fooling yourself. I need to be connected, and that's final. Overall though, it wasn't a horrible experience. Sure, there were times that I wished I had my computer working (I had a laptop stolen and my desktop was waiting for a repair part), but it just gave me more time to read or spend time with my wife.

VPC on Macs is pretty pathetic. While I initially loved the idea of running Windows on my Mac, after being disappointed time and time again by emulators I have since given up any hope of this pipe dream. Before Microsoft bought it from Connectix, VPC actually could do what it was intended to do: run simple business-oriented applications in dire need situations. However, it was always a processor hog and didn't deliver the results people expected. When VPC was bought out, Microsoft promised improved performance because they, after all, knew how to "optimize" Windows. Sure, right, whatever. What they shipped was garbage, and for quite a while completely incompatible with G5 processors. Now that there's a patch, people are still getting mixed performance results. In all, if you absolutely have to run a particular Windows-only application, you're better off buying a cheap PC than buying VPC. However, if you just want to toy around, and you have access to VPC, then by all means try it out. Just be prepared to only run Word, Pinball, and perhaps Solitare.

Eh, I'll never consider myself a programmer. I started about 9 years ago on Pascal, then switched to C++ and Java. I ditched the C++, got sick of Java, and throw in some HTML and you basically have my programming experience. I've since picked up PHP and SQL, though only casually.

Chiiyo - You're aware that most colorcasts on digital cameras are just caused by incorrect whitebalance settings? Ususally because of the photographer, and not by the camera?Anyway, the best digital camera out there is the Hassleblad H1D, bar none. 22 MP of power baby! I've seen the Mamiya equivalent, and I'm sure that's a nice camera too (even though it looks like a beast). On the more "domestic" side, the Canon 1Ds MKII is a fine camera, if you can afford it.On the more reasonable side, I'd choose the 20D any day. I own the 10D, and love the thing. In most cases, 6MP is fine. The only reason I'd choose the 20D over the 10D is because of the wider dynamic range and the improved Digic II processor. Otherwise, 2MP isn't that big of a deal. Oh, 20D has better AF as well (shucks).I was once a Nikon supporter, but after they released the D70s and D50, all I can say is they have it all wrong. I cannot support Nikon any longer, and strongly encourage people to think again when purchasing their equipment. At least the DSLRs (the F6 is still king of the hill for me).For a less expensive alternative, I'd choose a Pentax or something similar. Heck, most smaller digicams are about the same, so just choose a name brand. With DSLRs it's different, as you're not buying just the camera, but you're buying into the system. Nikon makes fine lenses, but so does Canon. In the end, I like Canon's USM, so I went with Canon.

Save yourself the trouble and invest in Photoshop Elements 3. Sure, it costs about $99, but the ease of use will save you time in the end. GIMP is great if you can handle it, but your limited because of the lack of Photoshop plugins and actions.

Your story of your friend hit a lot of personal notes with me. So, I'll post both my experience and advice.First, I was a film user for about 5 years before I switched to digital. I was a staunchy traditionalist too. An old Nikon manual camera, a 50mm lens, and barely anything else. I started with the Kodak Portra films, but soon discovered the wonders of slides. After that, it was E100V all the way, that is, until I discovered Fujifilm. Long story short, I began to develop my own b+w films in the college lab, and was sure that I'd never switch over. Ha, it's funny looking back at life sometimes.I decided that it was in my best interest to look at the future instead of the present. Sure, spending about $8/roll in cost and developing isn't that much at any single time, but over time, it really adds up. Seeing as I also bought a film scanner, that's another chunk of change that I can't recoup. Anyway, I needed something that would last me, but I never thought digital could. That is, until I looked at my situation this way: my current camera gives me slides. These slides never change in resolution, can't be upgraded, or anything fance associated with digital. However, what they do give me is a beautiful image, and that's what's important. A digital camera can give me the same image, and after I take the shot, it also can't change in resolution or be "upgraded," but I can fiddle around with the file in Photoshop. Sure, digital costs more, but even now as my camera is already "outdated," I'm still producing images that I love and were "state of the art" until only recently. I'm still satisfied.So, I bought a 10D with my graduation gifts. I plopped down my change for the body alone, and then added in the following months a nice 70-200mm F/4L and 50mm F/1.8. Also, I bought memory cards, a FW card reader, a backpack, a tripod, and filters. All in all, I've spent around $3000 on my setup, and I'm still not done. I've been extremely happy with this so far, and I haven't once said "damnit, I need more megapixels!" 6 is fine with me.So that's my "experience" I guess. Onward to my recommendations.Your friend is in a dicey situation. First off, he's a wedding photographer, which I personally swore I'd never do. Personal feelings aside, he should be looking towards getting the highest resolution possible for the price. Wedding portaits are extremely unforgiving, and if your client wants a 30"x40" wallpiece, and you're shooting with 6MP, you'll see the ill-effects of interpolation. Bar none. I know that you're Nikon traditionalists (and trust me, I was once too), but you have to get over it. Unless your friend owns high end AFS lenses, Nikon isn't worth it. Heck, look at what Nikon released for the "upgrades" to the D70: a D70s that is basically the same camera, and a stripped down D70 called the D50. Lame in my opinion. Canon released a D70 killer called the 350D or Digital Rebel XT, and they cost about the same. Trust me, in most cases those extra 2MP wouldn't matter, but for weddings, they do. There's a reason why wedding photographers pick up MF cameras instead of 35mm.So, even though you may not like Canon, they're you're best bet. You're in the game for profits (especially in wedding photography), so don't blow it by saying you favor one side over the other. If it really matters that much, go get a personal loan to cover the cost of the S3Pro or D2X. In a year or so, you'll be able to pay it back.I wish the best of luck to your friend. Oh, and if he has to do the post-processing, you'll have to add the cost of either Photoshop and/or CaptureOne to the mark.

GIFS larger than JPEGs? I think not.GIF files don't exactly use a compression algorithm. Instead, they use a selective color palate to reduce the data inside the file. Hence, most GIFs are limited to 256 colors (8 bits), but that's it. JPEGs on the otherhand are granted 8-bits per channel, which results in millions of colors. This is why GIFs are good for simple web graphics, but not for photographs, and why JPEGS are great for photographs, but overkill for web images.Kind of a pointless addition to the thread, but it irked me the wrong way.

Thanks guys. As I have very little experience in circuitry, I just went out and bought a new power supply. Perhaps one day I'll get the gumption to fix my old one, or perhaps I'll just hock it on eBay. Either case, my woes are now over (hopefully), and I can enjoy my old computer once again.

Very rarely do I get bored at the computer. Normally I find myself browsing various forums, chatting with friends over various IM services, checking out my regularly visited websites, checking the news, or occasionally playing a game. Recently I've become hooked on homestarrunner.com's Strong Bad. But hey, I'm also a guy, so when all else fails, there's always...