Soleq

Gee, don't you hate it when you go to turn on the computer, expecting everything to go as normal, and then nothing happens? You push the button again and again, but still, silence? Yeah, I know what you're thinking: either the cord's loose or I'm an idiot and the power's out again. But nope, both are normal, so the only thing left is something wrong with the computer. Well, more often than not, it's a failed power supply. Most of the time you'll get the dreaded dead response, others you'll get neat sparks and smoke. Either case, it's not good.Anyway, after that's all said and done, and the power supply's been replaced, what you're left with is a dead PS. My question is, how would one rebuild it so it's functional again? I've had several power supplies die in my times, and I'm sick of basically throwing them out. Are there any diagrams online somewhere that people could point me at telling me how to rebuild them?

It's true that you can run Aqua and X11 side by side, however, they run differently. Aqua is used to run native OS X applicaiton, such as iChat. X11 is used to run ports of Unix programs. Hence, if you want to run X11 exclusively, you're limiting yourself to ports. Here's what I'd do if you want to investigate further: download Fink and browse the application database to see if there's an actual GUI replacement. I doubt that it'll be easy, but you might run across something that'll work.I'd personally be amazed if you could get iChat to run on anything other than Aqua. Apple's pretty tight about running its own software on its own operating system.Of course, if you wanted a challenge, you'd insteall Darwin alone, then configure you're own window manager using nothing by terminal commands.

As a longtime user of Mac OS X (since DP4), I've seen features been add that make this a wonderful operating system. I originally had my mixed feelings towards Dashboard, primarily because of Arlo Rose's Konfabulator, but then I remembered what Apple did to Cassidy & Green's SoundJam (the father of iTunes) and relinquished to the fact that Apple does indeed make things better. The upgrade itself is a giant leap towards the future, so no doubt I'll be upgrading. This is actually the first version of OSX where I haven't been receiving the developer releases, so I guess I'll just have to go buy a new Powerbook to avoid paying the upgrade fee. Aww shucks!Anyway, since the educational discount was mentioned, I should let you in on this little tidbit: if you're a student (high school or college), do yourself a favor and enroll in the Apple ACD Student Developer program. For $99 per year, you receive monthly mailings of Apple developer software. Best of all, every three months (I believe) they send you the latest operating system. Hence, I was able to get /every/ release of Mac OS X before it hit the stores, essentially for free. Since I'm no longer in ACD, no more mailings. Look at it this way: pay $149 for the upgrade, or pay $50 less for the upgrade AND monthly mailings. Hmm...tough choice...

While I love film (and always will), I switched over to digital about a year ago, and never looked back.I was an avid slide shooter. I took a college darkroom lab class and started developing my own b+w prints. That was fun. But the majority of my work depended on Photoshop, and it's such a time waste to scan photos in using a film scanner. I've spend hours doing this, and decided it wasn't worth it. So I switched over and bought a Canon 10D. I love this thing, and it produces excellent files for what it is. Some people claim that 6mp isn't enough, but I've blown up photos to 20x30", and that's plenty big for me.I hate digicams, so don't mistake what I use for a digicam. They're nice for casual family gatherings, but that's it. If you want something comparable to film, buy a DSLR.Now, people are right when they say that most professionals still use film. However, it depends on what type of professional you're talking about. Film offers two significant advantages: increased detail and a wider dynamic range. The detail has been recently matched with Canon's 16.7 MP EOS 1Ds MkII camera, or many of the 22MP MF digital backs. The dynamic range question still exists. Personally, I'd kill to have more dynamic range on my camera. Oh, and finally, you can utilize the different characteristics of various film makes, but that's a minor point.Digital has many advantages over film, and they only keep getting better. First, you get immediate results. That's good for clients who like to maintain a high level of control. Photographers can even send photos shot no more than 1 minute ago to a company half way around the world for review. Second, many of the film photos have only one original, whereas a digital file can be reproduced without loss many times over. Added security. Finally (not last, nor least), digital allows a much higher level of control on the editing side. If you don't like a shot, you know right away and can reshoot. If you don't like the color cast, change it in RAW. And so forth.Film has a certain nostalgia that won't ever go away. However, people that poo poo on digital are either unaware of modern business conditions, or are in a state of denial.

Boy, this brings back memories. I took a photolab class in college, and then started developing my own b+w prints prior to my digital SLR. What's written down here is a good primer, but the best way to learn is just trying. Be prepared to spend quite a bit on the setup, and a fair bit more on the inevitable goof-ups. I personally fubar'd quite a bit of film before I got the knack of rolling it myself.Personally, I love the experience of developing my own film. There's something about it that digital can't quite seem to duplicate. Although, I mainly shot color slides, b+w negatives were fun to experiment with.Here's my suggestions for proper darkroom work-age.1) Use quality materials. Don't buy cheap chemicals, or plastic film rollers. Invest in quality stuff to produce consistant photos.2) Use an amber safelight instead of the infa-red light. It's easier on the eyes.3) When beginning, start out with Kodak TriMax 400 film. It's an easy film to work with, and has nice grain. The 100 is better (in my opinion), but the slower speed makes it less versatile. Later, once you get the hang of developing this film, you can go on to better Kodak films, or Ilford films (my fav). Fuji and Agfa also make b+w film, but I'd stick with Ilford.4) When buying paper, buy 8x10 first. Sure, you may want to buy a bag of each size, but with the proper paper trimmer, an 8x10 will give you 2 5x7 sheets. Saves you money. The Kodak RCIV paper is a good starter. I personally like the Satin finish. Again, when you gain experience with this paper, switch over to something higher end, like the Ilford RC Pearl.5) Don't spend all day in a darkroom. If you do, you'll come out blind like a bat, smelling of high heavens. "Ack! The light! My eyes!"6) Music is good. However, it's best to always bring a cordless phone into the darkroom to prevent those awkward "the paper's in the tray, need 30 more seconds, and the phone is ringing!" moments.7) Place a sign on the outside door saying "darkroom in use." That will prevent the majority of spousal darkroom-related incidents.8) Indiglo is not darkroom friendly.9) I'm running out of things to say, but always remember to have fun. You'll make mistakes. Film won't properly be developed (a.k.a. ruined), and sooner or later you'll want to give up. But fear not, as we all go through this. Practice does indeed make perfect.

I'll add my two cents here, seeing as I've own several of each.On a whole, I much prefer the portability that a laptop gives. When I had both, I often found myself using the laptop because I could choose where I could use it, whether it be sitting on the couch, at the dinner table, or my favorite, in bed. Most of the time, I don't need killer speed for my applications. I usually spend a good 80% of my computer time either doing business in Word, email, or on the web. I don't game that much, so having the top of the line graphics GPU doesn't matter to me, and my laptop did just about everything I needed it to do. The only thing I wished it did better was Photoshop (faster performance), but that I could live without.Now, onto the badside of laptops. My laptop basically died twice while I owned it. Both time the logic board shorted out, causing it to cease living. Both time it was covered by the warrantee, but sadly, this last time it didn't come back from the shop. Why might you ask? Because some punks decided to rob the shop in broad daylight and stole my laptop. Good thing it wasn't fixed yet. Bad thing is that it probably found its way into a dumpster.So, desktops have a slight advantage on theft protection, but not by much. If you're smart, you don't get things stolen. However, my case couldn't be helped, as I personally wasn't there to prevent it. Thank god for insurance.Sure, desktops offern higher speeds and more expandibiliity. But really, all I care about is just using it whereever I go, so laptops fit my bill nicely. Thanks to insurance, I should be getting a brand new one any week now.

It depends on what you mean by graphics. For a simple GUI, Java's Swing API is easy to use, and usually built in or included as an add-on package to install. There's another GUI API, but it slipped my mind. I always just used Swing.Java, as stated before, can be complied to run on the JVM. This creates a multi-platform application that you can easily distribute. The only negative part about this is performance, where the JVM is often sluggish and not fully robust enough for me to trust. I'm using a Yearbook creation software for a school, and it's the most poorly designed (and hideous) program I've seen in years, and I suspect that the problems lie mostly in the Java architecture rather than program design (could be wrong, but honestly, would anyone purposefully write a program that requires you to quit the application to open a new file?) I hated the JVM, and probably always will.C++ has its downfalls as well. It's harder to learn (generally), but more importantly, it's a ***** to actually port to other processors. Since most APIs are processor specific, you'd have to find a comparable API to fill in the gaps that can't be used again. The OOP concept is essentially the same, so that's a moot point here.If I had to classify Java and C++, I'd say Java is for learning, and C++ is for coding. C++ has significant advantages when it comes to performance, and can smoke Java in equal settings.

I'd sort of sidestep the current conversation and say that I'd suggest the roots to this problem lie not in society's influence, but on basic human behaviorism. It's always easier to blame the other person. That's part of self-preservation, which is basically programmed into us all. You can find this with a corrupt CEO of a Fortune 500 company (who says "I didn't do it, I didn't know about it, I'm innocent") to a 2 year old who ate a cookie when he wasn't supposted to. Sure, society most likely plays a strong part in influencing more complex behaviors (such as alcoholism, etc), but when caught, anyone will do anything to get out of it.

I've played GT4 more extensively over the last week or so. After playing it for 12+ hours, I have these further comments to add.The rally racing is more difficult due to the new penalty system. Sure, I hated it initially, but it actually makes more sense and adds a higher degree of difficulty. No longer can I simply act like bumper cars and fly around corners without problem. The traction is not as good either, and the snow mode is downright frustrating at times. The added rally cars are a nice addition, but I'm saddened to see that the prize cars for even the beginning rounds are actually too good. It's almost as if you can trick out a Lancer or Subaru at the beginning, then win a few of those races, and you'd end up with a Cien or Toyota Raider. Of course the Cien is funky, but you get the idea.The suspension system seems more solid. While I only messed around with the settings a little in GT3, GT4's system can make a huge difference to an already awesome car. My M3 went from barely winning some races to absolutely creaming them with a few adjustments. Of course I'd like to credit that to driver skill, but I can't.The driving physics are relatively the same in game. Sure, they say they're upgraded, which they probably are, but I can't tell a huge difference. It's already awesome as it was/is.The models and scenary are gorgeous though. They did a great job with that.My final score for this game is about a 9.6. I like the improvements on an already great game. Internet play would be nice, as would the option for traditional rally races (time trials) or something that I've liked the concept of, one way destination races (much like Nurburgein or however the heck you spell it). Add those, and you'd have my dream game. Without them though, and it's still the best PS2 game I've ever played.

I went out and bought GT4 on the day of its release (the 23rd I believe). My first impression is: about time! Yes, GT4 does meet and beat my expectations. One nice feature is that you can import your licenses and up to 100,000cr from GT3. So, that saved me a ton of time, but at the expense of the getting started fun. Oh well, there's so much to this game that I honestly am very impressed.The overall gameplay is very similar to the other GT games. There are added tracks (finally), added cars (yes), and improved graphics, sounds, and menus. You can't imagine my surprise when I bought my M3 and discovered Yosemite as a track (I just returned from my wedding in Yosemite). Talk about awesome!The AI seems improved, and there's actually a buzz when you run into something (similar to getting stunned on other games). So no more bumper car feeling!Is this game worth the $50? Definitely. Every other driving game pales in comparison.

I personally loved the Time Crisis series (even though I've never played TC3). The first game brought about an hour of entertainment, but I must admit, it was just an okay game. Now, when TC2 came along, wow, that's when I was hooked. While the graphics and gameplay were relatively the same, the part that really hooked me was partner playing. I remember older games had two people playing on the same screen, which was cumbersome as we had to share our physical space. With Time Crisis 2, we each had our own screens (and full machines) which let us basically work in full unison. I particularly enjoyed where the characters would split off, basically having our own storyline, then reconnect later on in the stage. I remember playing through an entire game once, with that satisfaction of leaving the game completed. However, now when I see the game at the arcades, I don't feel the same way about it. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.Now thinking about it, whenever I would play with a partner, most of the time it was with some random person that joined in after I started. Talk about a great way to make a new bud.

This will never happen. Communism basically runs under the same principle: everyone working (or sacrificing) for the common good. Sure, good-will does exist in the world, but humans are notorious for finding and exploiting loopholes and taking advantage of others. There's a saying (I can't quite remember the exact saying) that goes something like "the law exists to keep the powerful in power." This can be applied to economics as well, where our current system benefits those who have already "made it." I believe something similar to this was said a few posts before this one. In any case, it's fine and dandy to praise our system for giving everyone a chance to suceed, but the reality is that America has a definite class system, and there's an unfair disadvantage to those on bottom.

I prefer Google. It's fast, accurate, and can search photos around the web. That's all I really need it to do. I've tried Yahoo in the past (as in 1996) and found it to be too cumbersome. Before Google, I'd use Altavista, which I still use for their Bablefish service. Prior to that, I was a fan of Webcrawler. However, since Google doesn't seem to be doing me wrong, I'll just stick with that.

In ideal conditions, both capitalism and socialism (read communism) both are the "perfect" economic systems. However, since humans are inherantly greedy (see theory of rational self-interest), both systems are flawed.Capitalism thrives off of the "I have more than you" mentality. People generally want more: more money, more land, more power, etc. However, due to limited resources, there has to be a point where not everyone can achieve "more." John Stewart Mill was essentially the father of captialism, and even his definition of the ideal capitalistic society included those who were disadvantaged. Now, granted that Mill believed these people were there because of their own choices, they nevertheless were poor and at the whim of the more successful.On the flip side of this lies socialism. While I'd personally love to see a well-executed socialistic economy, the truth is that socialism ignores human greed. While capitalism runs smoothly with greed, socialism crumbles. Why? Because the entire philosophy of socialism is equality (in this case economic). If everyone was guaranteed the same wages, no matter what job you had (as in a complete socialistic economy), personal motivation would basically be non-existant. Humans follow the same rule as most applications in physics: we'll attempt tasks that require the least amount of work. Hence, with socialism there's way too much incentive to take the easy way out and let others carry the work. Now, if everyone did that, you have the entire economy flushed down the tubes. I guess it's important to note that most "socialistic" governments now (with the possible exception of China, mainly because I know nothing about specifics of their economy) are really capitalistic with socialistic programs. And granted, I believe that Russia's communism experiment's failure was rapidly hastened due to Lenin's impatience and Stalin's intolerance.After writing the above, I really can't think of a "perfect" economic system. I suppose the capitalism is the most likely to succeed, but the current American system favors the elite far too much. Fair trade is a nice concept, and I agree with MTF's statement of creating a fair definition of "fair," but one has to agree that most of these unfair practices are brought on by political agendas that stem out of basic greed. So by creating an honest fair, you're going against the entire principle of capitalism, which simply won't happen.

Well, my opinion really depends on what this will be used for. Just for personal pleasure, then it's fine no matter what it looks like. However, if it's for a business use, then I have to critique it more seriously. The first thing that pops out is the lack of any hands or feet. Perhaps adding something there would make me think less of a quadruple amputee. Other than that, fine details would be nice, but again, it depends on the application.

I'd have to go with the ol' apples and oranges answer. Both the PC and console have their own advantages, and it's up to each person to decide which they prefer. Here's my quick runthrough: Advantage PC: generally more state of the art, much better for FPS (mouse and keyboard controllers), can be patched/upgraded, large selection of shareware (not to mention non-gaming applications), usually free online playing. Advantage Console: everyone has the same machine specs (playability constant), no risk of viruses/system crashes, can actually rent games before buying them, systems cost hundreds less and go out of style much slower (hell, I'm still being amazed by my PS2 every day even though I've had it for over 4 years, say that about a PC). Thus, I find it hard to choose one over the other. Maybe I should just stick with owning both.

I purchased a 6x8 Wacom Graphire3 for Christmas this year, and I'm very satisfied with it. I opted for the 6x8 simply because the 4x5 looked way too cramped to do much other than edit a very small portion of the screen. I find that the 6x8 suits my needs rather nicely.Being a graphics person, I never fully imagined how a tablet would change my workflow. The mouse used to be just the de facto standard, and now I'm realizing what I've been missing out on. The wireless pen and mouse are a great duo (though I'll admit, I don't use the mouse at all, in lieu of my other wireless mouse), but it's nice to know I have a backup when my primary mouse's batteries die (yes, the wireless Wacom mouse requires no batteries). The motion is fluid, the pressure sensitivity is awesome, and I find myself doodling in Illustrator or Sketchbook Pro more than actually editing my photos. Sure, the Intuos tablets are more professionally oriented, but the Graphire line is a great introduction. Hell, I didn't even know if I'd like a tablet when I paid the $200 for the Graphire. One of the best decisions I've made in a long time.

There's an emulator named Executor (I think) that was marketed several years ago touting full OS8 emulation. However, the major drawback is that it could only emulate the 68k instruction set, meaning it basically ran as a 400mhz 68040. This alone limited both the operating system, as well as any real usage with PowerPC applications. So, it's essentially a novelty.On the flip side, VirtualPC actually does produce a usable version of Windows on MacOS X. While it's not powerful enough to run games, it does allow one to use programs like Access that aren't available for Macs (but really should be). I've heard of PearPC, but I haven't cared to look for any real specifics or benchmarks.

It actually depends if http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ is a physical entity or not. Most copyrights are owned by an individual, such as my works of photography. Since I myself created them, I myself own the copy right. However, what you ask is if http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ owns the copyright. This can only be true if http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ is the legal name of a corporation (that also has a registered ficticious name statement already filed). In that case, the corporation owns the copyright, not the individual. You have to be careful with this sort of thing, as if you sell the company, you lose control over the copyrights as well. Hence, in my old photography business, I copyrighted everything under my name, not the business name. People are right when they say that registering with the govt. only basically gives you an added monitary award if you sue someone for infringement. However, it also establishes that you created it first. Suppose you post something on a website, and then a week later you find it somewhere else. You try to sue, but you'd have a hard time seeing as the other person could easily say "I created it first, so it's therefore mine." What do you have to counter that? If it's a work of art, you could show the original file, but if you wrote something (poetry, essay, other), it's basically your word against his. Thus, registering it solves that problem. And about registering names and whatnot, of course you can't do that. That's what trademarks are for.

I believe that you can order them as a BTO option. In any case, the standard Apple keyboard and mouse is outclassed by 3rd party keyboard and mice combos. I just "upgraded" to a wireless keyboard and mouse, and I'm lovin' it. I guess I'll give my two bits on this converstation. When I saw the initial rumors of a $500 mac, I knew it would be something I'd be interested in. Why? Because really, I don't play games. Nor do I care if a certain photoshop filter takes 15 more seconds. While speed is nice, pretty much anything today can outrun my old G4 (and yes, I do know that the mini has a G4 as well). I have always bought computers with the pretense of upgrading them in the future. However, for Macs, this is pretty much illogical, as most CPU upgrades cost tremendously more than their Intel/AMD counterparts, and Apple doesn't release stand-alone logic boards. For me to get the same performance in a CPU upgrade as a mini would give me, I'd have to spend about $150 more than a mini. Hence, the choice is obvious: keep the G4 tower the same, and add a mini. Shucks, I already love my monitor, and my new keyboard I can't dream of parting with, so this is a match made in heaven. I guess that the average wintel user won't see a huge incentive to switch over to the mini. Sure, I guess that some people will, but as several people have stated prior to me, the primary purchaser will be Mac loyalists who want a simple upgrade without the famed Apple "premium." I'll add a special note though: I have decided to postpone my mini purchase for one reason - my beloved iBook was stolen while being repaired at the local MacOnline. Thus, my next computer will be a new iBook covered by the insurance agency.

World security is such a subjective term. Secure for whom? Surely not for the people who have been detained simply because they look Middle Eastern. Bush's world security can be read as business security for US corporations.And I do believe that the Bush administration tauted WMD as the goal of the invasion, to stop terrorists from obtaining said WMD. Then when it was obvious that there weren't any in Iraq, the administration pulled back.

I've been thoroughly impressed by the responses here. Not only have I learned from the other people, most specifically MajesticTreeFrog, but new avenues of thought have been opened up. I apologize to the original thread poster for somewhat hijackin the thread, but it was somewhat based on it.

Interesting connection. So playing devil's advocate, I ask of you now, does anything have a concrete opposite?

I'll start off by saying that philosophical discussions are always meant in respectful terms. I'd hate to convey a sense of hostility among us. The poles for dualism are in fact opposite, but again, I remind you that you have to take the most basic forms. What you have created in your rounded-edge triangle is neither triangle nor blob: it lies somewhere in the middle. It's reasonable to acknowledge that not everything in life can be polar opposites, but polar opposites do in fact exist. Yes, there are instances where there is no middleground. Take for instance genders. You're either male, or you're female (discounting the so called "supermale" parrot fish ). And yes, definitions are dependent on the individual, so of course some people are going to view things a bit differently than others. I think it's a bit rash to assume that just because you used a single example to say "this has no realistic opposite" (and to me, the example you used was comparable to "what's the opposite of a car?"), that the theory is nothing more than a parent using the old excuse "because I say so." Yes, philosophies are opinions, and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that. But tell me that when I ask "what's the opposite of love?" the first thing that pops in your mind isn't "hate." Sometimes things just seem arbitrary.

I think you're being too specific with your examples. It's not "find the opposite of xxx", but instead take the most general form of said object, and there will surely be an opposite. Take triangles for instance. Triangles are a subset of polygons. All polygons have one thing in common: straight lines. Hence, the opposite of polygons are curved forms, aka blobs. Likewise, while black has the distinct opposite of white, grey is deemed "colorless," hence the dualism opposite is "colorful." I understand where you're coming from, and I'll agree that no philosophy is completely rock-solid. However, if you take everything to its most basic form, I almost assure you that you'll find an equal but opposite match.