Slashdot Mirror

Judging by images like these, today's business class is pretty much what economy class used to be in the 70s. Some argue that flying has become too cheap. I beg to disagree: flying in a humane manner has not become cheaper, it's just that you'd have to book business class nowadays.

about the inconsequential things compared to media blackout on Al-Qeada London Bomb civilian victims of Al-Qeada Madrid civilian victims of Al-Qeada http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-2/afghanistan-war-civilians.jpg ">Afghan civilian victims of Al-Qeada also include women and children http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/06/article-0-071BAEFB000005DC-851_964x544.jpg

Yep looks like the guy did not do a cross platform, cross browser check .... move along

http://hotimg10.fotki.com/p/a/91_46/240_205/duhhhhhhhh.jpg

Check it: http://images31.fotki.com/v1093/fileIXTO/a065a/4/413321/6115355/PhobosInverted.jpg

I too was very disappointed to arrive at the archives and notice that payment was required. Did not follow through with the process to see what "rights" I was purchasing.

A friend of mine, now deceased, Amy Mahin was the copyright lawyer for Lassie. She was a wonderful person, thoughtful, and for the last ten years I've wondered often what her take on the copyright mess we are in would be. As many others have commented in the past - the current legal structure supports the distributors - with each individual artist often being required to audit the distributors to recoup their payments. The system also has made it almost impossible for any works to come into the public domain.

As a photographer I want to support the artists and creators of work, but the current system does not do that. To defend a copyright I must locate anyone who is using my work and sue them. That is an expensive process, most artists cannot do, including myself. If I don't defend my copyright, I have nothing, there is no "copyright" police or enforcement.

So thank goodness the Archives were scanned. Too bad that the works are not search friendly and in the public domain were they could inspire a new generation of forward thinking authors. Very sad will be the day if the archives are not profitable and the digital format the files are in are no longer supported [say 30+ years from now].

Luky's Hardware. This is another place for airplane and aerospace surplus stuff. Nurnies and greeblies galore. Everyone asks me where I got the aircraft aluminum mystery parts for my stunt lightsabres. They were obtained there.

I wrote up a small clip on the C/R system I use which is built into CPanel (BoxTrapper). If you know when to manually add things to the whitelist, there's nothing more effective. http://journals.fotki.com/airjrdn/Tech-Ramblings/e ntry/sqsggqkqrtq/

At Sager:

http://www.sagernotebook.com/pages/web_specials.ht ml

At PCTorque:

http://www.pctorque.com/sager-laptops.php

A sample desktop screenshot, wsxga:

http://public.fotki.com/Marspoet/desktops/windowma ker02.html

Place where people talk about them:

http://www.notebookforums.com/

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

I use Mpix.com for all my large printing needs. They are actually exposing the digital exposure to Kodak film paper which can be common among some people. Their price and service can't be beat either. 8x10s for $2.

However if I need a 4x6, or a 8x10, a home printer is a decent deal. I recently picked up the Kodak 1400 dye sub printer for just this reason. There was a $100 rebate so it's a $343 printer, and the paper size of 8x14 lets me print 4 4x6s, 2 5x7s, 2 6x8s, or one 8x10 or 8x12 per page. I won't be printing out a 'major event' like my son's 2nd birthday portrait or the disaster that was the attempt at my daughters 4th birthday portrait because I usually want a ton of wallets, a good amount of 4x6s, and 5x7s and 8x10s for the grandparents, my desk, what not.

But for quick and easy home prints, a decent (but not outrageous) printer works for me. I've got a bad taste in my mouth for inkjet because the Canon S9000 I got when I got my first digital SLR in 2002 fades pretty badly unless you frame it. It doesn't stand up to my 'fridge test' where you print it, take a magnet, and pin it to the fridge for all eternity.

Fotki.com and the Kodak Easyshare Gallery have so far withstood that test rather well. However Kodak keeps making me sign a release form for every order for copyright reasons. Mpix does not, because there is no copyright displayed on my images. Apple has the same issue in iPhoto, but Kodak is their print engine. Fotki has been on the fridge for over a year now with no fading, next to a S9000 4x6 that is about as faded as it gets.

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

I use Mpix.com for all my large printing needs. They are actually exposing the digital exposure to Kodak film paper which can be common among some people. Their price and service can't be beat either. 8x10s for $2.

However if I need a 4x6, or a 8x10, a home printer is a decent deal. I recently picked up the Kodak 1400 dye sub printer for just this reason. There was a $100 rebate so it's a $343 printer, and the paper size of 8x14 lets me print 4 4x6s, 2 5x7s, 2 6x8s, or one 8x10 or 8x12 per page. I won't be printing out a 'major event' like my son's 2nd birthday portrait or the disaster that was the attempt at my daughters 4th birthday portrait because I usually want a ton of wallets, a good amount of 4x6s, and 5x7s and 8x10s for the grandparents, my desk, what not.

But for quick and easy home prints, a decent (but not outrageous) printer works for me. I've got a bad taste in my mouth for inkjet because the Canon S9000 I got when I got my first digital SLR in 2002 fades pretty badly unless you frame it. It doesn't stand up to my 'fridge test' where you print it, take a magnet, and pin it to the fridge for all eternity.

Fotki.com and the Kodak Easyshare Gallery have so far withstood that test rather well. However Kodak keeps making me sign a release form for every order for copyright reasons. Mpix does not, because there is no copyright displayed on my images. Apple has the same issue in iPhoto, but Kodak is their print engine. Fotki has been on the fridge for over a year now with no fading, next to a S9000 4x6 that is about as faded as it gets.

I did the linked portrait session at home with some alien bee strobes & a collapsable background.

I imported them into iPhoto, and used their photo service to order 4x6s, 5x7s, and 8x10s.

I got a nice email about how it looked like I was reproducing a pro's prints, to which I was amused because I thought they didn't look that amazing but I digress.

I had to sign a simple release form, fax it in, and I got my prints.

Get a cheaper lens then. Decreasing your aperature and increasing your depth of field is cheap for the lens maker and requries only the twist of a knob for you. Going very far in the other direction is what is hard. High F-stop = large depth of field and low shutter speed. Low F-stop = small depth of field and high shutter speed. Any cheap camera lens will give you a 22+ F stop on the high side. Going the other direction is where the glasss gets expensive. IIRC the stock lens with the Canon Rebel (digital) has an F stop of 3.5 at 18mm. That is okay, but if you *want* a small depth of field (say for something more artisitc than a picture of the kids on Santa's lap) you need to get a better lens or more distance between you and the subject.

There is a three way tug of way betweeh shutter speed, depth of field (F-stop) and noise (ISO.) At least with a D-SLR as opposed to a plain film SLR you can readily choose the later on the fly, giving you somee control on the amount of blur in your photo.

Any DSLR can be set to act just like its cheaper counterpart. Please understand that when a reviewer is saying "this SLR camera has a smaller depth of field than its non-SLR counterpart" you should append "and I don't have a clue about what knob to turn to make it look different; damn it I told my boss I'm not qualified to write this review." to the end of their sentence.

If you are really on a tight budget and want the small field of view of an expensive lens, step back and zoom in. Get a cheap telephoto if you can afford it. A low F stop is one contributing factor to a small field of view; a high focal length is the other. The focal length can outweight the F-stop rather quickly in this matter giving you some rather nice fuzzy backgrounds from even the cheapest of lenses. Of course the zoom will conspire against your already paltry shutter speed by magnifing camera shake, so get a tripod too.

I've been using http://www.fotki.com/ for the past several years. For $30/year you get unlimited storage (I have over 7000 photos, using 15 gb). In addition, you get easy, deep linking to original resolution photos. And most important (for me), there is ftp access for upload/download. I have a 1 line "wget" statement running in cron that each night automatically syncronizes every photo of mine @ fotki and stores a copy on my local machine. That way, if my hard disk crashes, I get back every photo from them. If they go out of business, I have a copy of everything. They also have photo printing, but I prefer the quality of other sites better (I've tried 10+!!)

I found it in my cache, you'll find it here.

Of course the Jeep is better off road, if you are so inclined.

For many, that is the whole point. I bought a Grand Cherokee a year ago because of its off road capabilities, which I promptly tested.

Jeeps truly are a blast.

Of course the Jeep is better off road, if you are so inclined.

For many, that is the whole point. I bought a Grand Cherokee a year ago because of its off road capabilities, which I promptly tested.

Jeeps truly are a blast.

You seem to be confused on the purpose/point of ISO. High ISO allows you to take sharp images in lower light. In the digital world, ISO correcponds to the amplication level of the signal from the CCD or CMOS chip. The problem is that most consumers don't understand this and that is why most consumer digicams have poor high ISO performance. The latest and greatest performer at high ISO is the Canon EOS 1D Mark II. Here is an 800 ISO image from that camera. Another thing that is difficult with most consumer digicams is a shallow depth of field

You seem to be confused on the purpose/point of ISO. High ISO allows you to take sharp images in lower light. In the digital world, ISO correcponds to the amplication level of the signal from the CCD or CMOS chip. The problem is that most consumers don't understand this and that is why most consumer digicams have poor high ISO performance. The latest and greatest performer at high ISO is the Canon EOS 1D Mark II. Here is an 800 ISO image from that camera. Another thing that is difficult with most consumer digicams is a shallow depth of field

It's really neat to drive by this area. Here are some more photo links to give you an idea what it's like, if you've never been.

From here: pic1 pic2 pic3 pic4

another pic

some pics from the car driving by

pic with sun low in sky with long shadows

And finally here's a link describing all the wind power resources in California.

Excellent point.

IAAPP (I Am A Professional Photographer), and have been shooting almost exclusively digital for almost a year now. I have a Canon D60, which gives me about 6.1 megapixels, a 1 gig IBM microdrive, and two Lexar 256 meg CF cards. The microdrive must have bad sectors or something, because the write speed after a year is abysmal. The Lexar cards still work perfectly.

On a related topic, every so often someone will tell me that the digital SLRs don't give you a qualitatively "better" image than a point-and-shoot. Judge for yourself: fotki gallery.

SJ Mercury News run the same article on Monday. They also included the following picture in it: Aerie Chief Executive Mort Aaronson stands on a rooftop in downtown Denver next to a wireless application protocol : See
photo.