SudsyFist

Track. Dive. Friday. Perris.

You can do plenty of nastiness to *nix OS's as users other than root. Anyone who's ever written C in vi can tell you that. Remember, there's more to being impacted by a virus than just catastrophic loss of data/config. Something as simple as slowing down your machine or making you reboot can, multiplied over thousands or millions of machines, cause some pretty hefty productivity losses. EDIT: Remember the good ol' finger exploit? Something about a root prompt...

This argument has been thouroughly debunked many times. One study found much more obscure OSs that still had a higher "market share" of viruses than OS X. I've read several related studies with completely conflicting conclusions (what's new), but I offer my own experienced perspective for whatever it's worth. A virus's "success" has less to do with how well or easy it is developed than it does with how well it propagates. How many shitty, completely inert viruses have made their ways across hundreds of millions of Windows PC's in the last five years? How well do you think a buffer overflow vulnerability somewhere in the Mac's TCP/IP stack (for simple example) can be exploited for propagation when only one out of every few hundred connected IP's are even *possibly* going to be vulnerable? You're right about Mac's growth. Mac will eventually reach a critical mass, however, where it becomes more of a target, and at that time it will be exploited. Period. And Mac's not alone... (*cough* GNU/Linux *cough* *cough*) Look at the browser world: Internet Explorer was *the* poster child for vulnerabilities and exploitation. Once Mozilla/Firefox got popular enough, though, guess what? Exploits are popping up right and left, and Microsoft's having a PR field day, particularly with Mozilla's claims of superior security. I agree with your assertion that Mac has a few security advantages over Windows in its architecture, but as any security professional will tell you, security measures do not prevent exploitation: they can only impede it. So long as code is not perfect and your machine is connected to a network, you are at risk, regardless of any clamor -- technical, marketing, fanboy, or otherwise -- about superiority of this or that or the other thing.

I'm so fed up with this crap. Ladies, if you ever consider putting your naughty bits in front of a camera, please take heed of the following: In case you haven't noticed, the 70's were thirty years ago. Shave that shit.In reference to #1, do so within an hour or two of the shoot. Five o'clock clam shadow is unacceptable. Week-old chemo growout is downright gross. Take Benadryl if you're prone to rash.Also in reference to #1, there's a spot at the top of your crack you undoubtedly missed. Go over it a few times; otherwise, I'm gonna make your asshole look like Bert from Sesame Street.TP tickertape/confetti littering the spokes: NOT SEXY.That is all.

No, Apple's tiny (read: midget porn) market share makes developing a virus on/for a Mac extremely fruitless. Unless you're Jeff Goldblum. This has nothing to do with who's got the biggest phallic-shaped security -- it's purely a matter of numbers: very few virus writers are interested in targeting the Apple platform; therefore, there are very few viruses which target the Apple platform. The only superior security in modern computing is unplugging your machine and enjoying the silence.

Google Search: hypnagogic state

I need to get me some ocean front property in Arizona. Learn to swim...

*WHAAAARRRRRRRRRFFFFFF* Ahem.

Are you zooming in at that point? Does the Cookie .5 support the camera's full range of zoom? That could be your issue. Also, for ground shooting, even with a wide attached, I usually just leave it on autofocus.

Really? I must have missed that.

Never, ever, ever, ever judge the quality of a piece of software proportionally by the number of lines of code from which it runs; the fact is that it's usually a measure of *inverse* proportion between the two variables (less code = higher quality). Microsoft's spaghetti code culture is nothing to be admired, and it's really catching up with them with Windows Vista. I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I'm not a total hater, either. I acknowledge both the good (.NET Framework, C#, e.g.) and the bad (business practices, code bloat, e.g.). Why must people espouse a staunchly black and white view so often?

Prog/tech house, techno, breaks, psytrance, tribal. Dark, evil, corpses crawling outta the ground stuff at times, peppered lightly with an uplifting track every now and again. Vinyl til I die.

Seriously, what's your beef with this?

Hear HEAR!!!

ltdiver: Amy decided to cover her face when I was taking pictures of her. I tried shooting her nonchalantly from hip-level, but they didn't come out. I think my paparazzi approach doesn't work too well with the shy; perhaps I should be a bit more subtle? dunesurfer: Dude! You have an enormous, er, *point* there! If I have to start combing SoCal strip clubs looking for willing victims... i mean, participants... you down? Shit, I'm going to have to make up some scoring card books, too (9.2... 8.9... 0.0-get-your-fat-ugly-ass-off-the-fuckin'-stage...)!

I really wish I could help you with that, but alas, we're a continent apart. Miss you, m'lady.

Holy crap, there were a ton more skydivers there than I bargained for (read: mass debauchery)! Not bad for what essentially amounted to a leisurely stroll across the street. Photos Here (Flickr lists reverse chronological order) I'm still trying to figure out how I ended up on stage in front of a couple thousand people...

Keely, you crack me up...

I live a block away from there and parking's already nuts. Too bad I don't drink. Why couldn't they have a Festival of Whores? *sigh*

Absolutely.

Scheduled XCOPY works for what it does, but it's not very robust in terms of logging, real-time sync, flexible scheduling, caching, etc. Windows 2000 and 2003 have the kludgy File Replication Service (FRS), which requires Active Directory for use. Other COTS options range from lower-end products like Second Copy to Legato's line of enterprise replication software (Replistor, DiskXtender, etc.). Depending on business need and budget, you may wish to look down that path, as well.

My PC120 had a similar issue, where it linked to my laptop but not my desktop, then eventually crapped out even with my laptop. After going through multiple card and cable replacements, as well as OS reinstall, I took the camera to Sony (love being in San Diego), and they found an issue in their diagnostics and replaced a board inside the unit. Worked fine ever since. I had found a number references online to firewire issues with the PC120 hardware, so I wrote a letter describing such, convincing them to waive the post-warranty service charge. Don't know if you're experiencing the same issue, but I thought I'd share.

Manual focus, set to infinity.. Autofocus doesnt make for very good results with video cameras. Some lenses do better with a fixed focus (at your expected distance from the subject), rather than infinity. You do this on the ground by setting the camera on autofocus, frame a subject at a distance where you expect to be in freefall, let autofocus set the correct focus, then switch back to manual focus to keep the setting. I believe the Royal Lens line comes with such a recommendation, but I'm not sure about the Cookie lenses. Perhaps you can try both and see what ends up with crisper images for your setup. For ground shooting, though, I leave it on auto.

Thanks!

Note that the PC1000's widescreen captures are actually a *crop* of the standard (4:3 ratio) mode, cutting off the top and bottom of the image. You can see this in your viewfinder by simply switching modes back and forth. I point this out because I've overheard people (DISCLAIMER: no one on this thread; just trying to be informative) talking about shooting exclusively widescreen, even when they're going to manually crop it down (pan-n-scan) to 4:3 later. Their reasoning behind this was that they mistakenly believed they were capturing *more* of an image, on *more* pixels this way; whereas exactly the opposite is true. My recommendation is to shoot the spec of what you're going to produce -- 4:3 for 4:3 output, widescreen for widescreen output -- so you can frame properly at the time of shooting. The glaring exception here is freefall footage, or, for that matter, any footage where you're not framing things through the viewfinder/lcd screen. In those cases, I'd go with the 4:3 at all times, and manually crop for widescreen when you're editing later. That way, you have more versatility in fitting exactly what you want in frame. Sorry for the thread drift. EDIT: For the original poster, here are my reviews on the two cameras, for whatever they're worth:DCR-PC350 DCR-PC1000Unless you absolutely need to shoot in the dark (Nightshot) or in low light, my vote is for the PC1000. Hell, even after my rant, I bought one!