Slashdot Mirror

Drum scanners are extraordinarily expensive. Much less expensive to use a flat bed scanner that has back illumination. Good discussion here: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0 032D0&tag= Microtek has several good models out.

Given a 16 year old web, what's the oldest continous content? Dr. Fun ceased, User Friendly "only" goes back to 1997 (a mere 9 years), I know of a monthly column that's come out each month since 1996 (RPGnet Soapbox, 10 years), but I'm out of examples.

Sites like photo.net date back to 1993 (13 years), but that's not the same as a single person chugging steadily for all 16. Anyone know of a creator who has hit their deadlines on the web for all 16 years?

1. The wonderful tonal range and interesting composition
2. Whoa... look at them tits.

In good light, though, I don't think SLRs have much advantage in image quality.

Yes, they do, actually. The larger sensors and larger, higher-quality lenses produce much sharper images. Take an SLR with a good lens and a P&S that have the same number of pixels and look at the images at 1:1 zoom. The P&S will be fuzzy, have chromatic aberrations like color fringing on all of the high-contrast lines, and will generally have much less fine detail, even in the center. The corners will be much worse than the SLR. Some P&S cameras also have pretty severe vignetting problems.

And that's just image quality. The other thing an SLR gives you is control. Depth of field control, in particular, can make a huge difference in the perceived quality and emotional impact of a photo. Even people who don't know anything about photography perceive a portrait with a shallow DoF (subject in focus, background blurred) as being better and more professional than one with a deep DoF, even if they can't say what makes it better. I've actually taken the same shot both ways and showed them around to get reactions. Better P&S cameras give you some aperture control, but they simply can't match an SLR.

Other important advantages of a DSLR are in the accessories: Lenses, filters, flashes, etc. By changing some attachments, a DSLR can become different kinds of cameras for different kinds of photos... including many kinds which simply don't exist in the P&S market. Some of those advantages are in poor light, but many are not. I can use a 400mm zoom lens for wildlife shots, for example, or a 90mm macro for pictures of flowers and insects. I can throw on a polarizing filter to cut the haze in landscape shots, or filter out unwanted reflections on water. I often use a flash even in full daylight, to fill in shadows on faces and soften the harsh glare of sunlight -- P&S flashes don't have the power to do that, even if the camera will let you.

I'm really just a novice photographer, just beginning to learn how to take good pictures, but even I can already get far more out of my DSLR than I can out of my high-end P&S camera.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=513737 5&size=lg

There's just no excuse for this kind of memory usage, and no I didn't visit any flash intensive / video pages.
I was surfing news sites, closed windows after using them.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=513737 5&size=lg

There's just no excuse for this kind of memory usage, and no I didn't visit any flash intensive / video pages.
I was surfing news sites, closed windows after using them.

There's this thing called a pinhole camera, it's a relatively new advance.

And, folks, here's a case indicating the limits of moderation by the unwashed masses. A pinhole camera is the very oldest type of camera. Having no lens, it can be made with a box and (gasp!) a nail. It is known to have been known about by the Chinese somewhere in the 5th century B.C, and Aristotle in 4th century B.C. Oh, how a small bit of research in widely available knowledge could have saved the parent poster from looking like a dolt!

But this worthless (and incorrect) piece of wisdom gets moderated up by the clueless who don't take the time to understand what the !@# they're reading.

Just when I start to get hope for mankind, I see something like this...

Please. If you're going to talk photography, at least has the decency to quote a photography site. Anandtech is no expert and the link you provided had no date to back of their incorrect claim.

Print has a maximum dynamic range of about 5.5 to 6 stops unless it uses a special process. Film itself can go up to about 11 stops although typical films offer less than 10. Furthermore, film is not linear and the resultant output is typically compressed to 8.5 or less. Dmax for slide film can be as great as 3.6 or 3.7 versus about 2.0 for print. Here's a quick link that is somewhat more useful than yours: http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/density_ra nge.htm. You can find real information on the subject if you are willing to look. Here's another: http://photo.net/learn/drange/

Regarding digital imaging, current digital SLRs offer dynamic range of over 10 stops, surpassing any available color film. For medical imaging work, imagers could be made with even better dynamic range. Don't know if they bother.

Finally, any monitor easily exceeds print for dynamic range. After all, print has a contrast ratio of maybe 50:1. 6.5 to 7 stops is common from monitors.

When you know nothing about a subject, the first thing to do is closing your mouth and learn.
With any decent lens it's very easy to show anything dead on at close range (not close rage) without fish-eye'ing anything. Only cheap lens and cheap digicam will fish-eye'ing the subject at close range. For the close rage, I don't know.

And without getting you own shadow How stupid it could be, you never know something called a flash.

Follow this link : http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=100515 90

Do you see my shadow, do you see some fish-eye'ing on the subject !

When you know nothing about a subject, the first thing to do is closing your mouth and learn.
With any decent lens it's very easy to show anything dead on at close range (not close rage) without fish-eye'ing anything. Only cheap lens and cheap digicam will fish-eye'ing the subject at close range. For the close rage, I don't know.

And without getting you own shadow How stupid it could be, you never know something called a flash.

Follow this link : http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=100515 90

Do you see my shadow, do you see some fish-eye'ing on the subject !

If you're a real-estate agent, it's not really that big of an investment to buy a Kaidan 360 lens. It only takes a few seconds to take a picture with, and you only have to snap one picture. Their software builds a quicktime VR of the environment. In my opinion, a quicktime VR gives a better presentation of an environment than what was seen in the MS software anyway. The only benefit to the MS stuff is that it will let you zoom in on particular features you photographed more close-up, where I believe that Quicktime VR is the same resolution all around.

The MS stuff is still supposed to do all this auto matching-up of different people's photos and stuff, but for a simple VR tour of some location, the Kaidan lens and a digital camera seems like a superior way to go. Of course, if you're not a professional and only want to make one of these every now and then, you might want to use the MS stuff instead of having to invest in a new lens.

This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.

Bullshit. You don't read sites like photo.net, where stories of police harassment and intimidation are the norm, not the exception, and many photographers have stopped trying to photograph anything they think they might get in the slightest trouble over.

• Photography student is detained and his IDs 'reviewed' after taking night-time photos of a firehouse.
• Man was physically intimidated and threatened by private security and police after photographing, from public property, a commercial chemical plant.
• Young photojournalism student in Provincetown is roughed up by Provincetown police after shooting some pictures of cops beating a bunch of drunks.
• MBTA has never permitted photography anywhere on its property, and is well known for its officers harassing photographers. NYC just instituted a no-photography rule in the last year or two.
• Vacationers at the Golden Gate Bridge have had film confiscated for taking pictures of the bridge. When they said they were just tourists, they were told to buy a postcard from the vendor nearby. Security risk, or helping the postcard sellers?
• Photograhpers are often harassed for taking pictures of public buildings, bridges, reservoirs, dams, etc. It has been a prevalent experience that anyone with a camera taking a picture of some sort of infrastructure is deemed a potential terrorist, or terrorism is trotted out as an excuse (see the Golden Gate postcard fiasco.)
• Parents are reported to police by film development labs for taking pictures of their babies playing in the bath and have been threatened with having their children removed from them.

Those are just the few examples that immediately come to mind.

Try this search on for size. Add on fun keywords like "harassment","arrested", "questioned", etc.

People are rotuinely roughened up, threatened with arrest or being "reported" to the FBI, arrested and detained then released before the charge-or-release 24 hours are up, lied to about their rights, what the law is, or what they are criminally liable for, had film/cards confiscated, their IDs demanded (would it scare you more if I called them "papers"?), and so on. These days just about anything gets you on various watch lists and that means even more fun.

We live in a country where you can be arrested for taking a picture of a bridge on vacation and get harassed trying to board a flight home because you were placed on a "watch" or "no fly" list. Wake up and smell the fucking coffee- we're fast headed the way of fascist and communist countries.

Hey, could that [an Adobe acquisition] be why Apple is rumored to have this week just laid-off its entire Aperture development group?

Could be.

Yeah, and it could be that the product never lived up to expectations and saw little market adoption so Apple decided it was time to cut their losses and focus their resources on something else.

I don't know, though I haven't used Aperture myself or know anyone irl who has, much of what I've read photographers at Photo.net have to say is neutral or positive. Most of the comments I read about Aperture that may be considered negative is the recommended machine requirements, in at least one case the complaint being that it doesn't run on PCs. Others say it's "definitely still pre-release", that it was released too soon and should be in beta testing still, not that it's bad for what it's supposed to do.

I've been considering this for a while now. My recomendation is to scan the negatives. Wet drum scanners are the best, but it may be prohibitively expensive, and possibly overkill. You do have your negatives right? The big problem I ran into looking at film scanners is that the vast majority of the good ones are 35mm only. My parents have a lot of photos in a variety of formats. 110, 117 roll or medium format, along with 35mm. All those need scanned, which means for me I'd have to go with a flatbed, and use a jig/matte for differnent formats. You'll also need a flatbed to scan photos that you don't have the negatives to. Color correct software, especially software that can correct chroma shift in old color prints. You'll need automatic dust removal software as well. Check out photo.net. That site has all sorts of info, but it is heavily tilted towards pros.

The other thing I've been wanting is photo organization software. You know query for who, where, and when. I guess I'd have to make a custom DB system for that.

This is one of the most useful camera hacks that make kids smile for the photo.

PEZ Flash

Regards, Marc

But the eye's sensitivity to ~405nm is pretty poor. http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/vis00010.htm

420-440nm I could see. But 405nm, no...

You need ALOT (!!!) of laser light to make a decent sized raster scanned image with RGB wavelengths. Having a near-UV source as the blue is really going to burn some cash, and dust (anyone that's been around ~1W+ (per-channel) scanning laser projection displays knows what I'm taking about... Smells like burning hair/skin, yuck).

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/100
Tada!

Really, cropping is just digital zoom. You won't get additional resolution once past the lens resolution limit, which is by far exceded by 8MP APS-C sensors on consumer zooms or "normal" prosumer zooms (except the occasional hidden L). The problem is the lenses, not the sensor.

Just as an aside, I believe that most of the content is not royalty-free, but photo.net has some really high-class photography, if you're just wanting to browse for interesting photographs.

Never buy your electronics from front stores in the New York City area.

I'm afraid this is a bit like Sturgeon's law for camera stores -- of course 90% of the bad dealers in in NYC -- 90% of all the dealers are in NYC. Unfortunately, buying from dealers elsewhere doesn't really seem to raise your percentages much (if at all). Just for an obvious example, one particularly notorious scammer operated (still operates?) out of Washington or Oregon, if memory serves. At the same time, two thirds of the reputable dealers are New York.

In the end, it's all pretty simple: KEH, B&H and Adorama are about the only online camera stores worth considering. Of course, most online electronics/computer stores have at least some camera equipment, and if they're good otherwise, they'll probably do a perfectly fine job of shipping cameras as well. Just keep in mind that to them it's basically just a box -- as long as you're shopping the web page and don't expect them to supply you with any advice, they're fine. If you want to talk to a salesperson and get decent advice about what you should buy, you just about need to talk to a dedicated photography store (though dpreview.com, photo.net, etc. might be more useful, especially if you've narrowed things down so you want real detail on a few candidates, not just general guidance based on the kinds of pictures you usually take). If you drop by Photo.net after reading this, you're morally obliged to look at My Portofolio there. :-)

...the same rules apply now that applied 35 years ago when I started buying photo equipment. Most are places that will screw you one way or another. Some are downright crooks. And there are a few gems that stay in business year after year, garnering more and more loyal customers even though their prices aren't rock bottom.

Personally, I use BHPhotoVideo.com for darn near everything photographic. Some things, like flash brackets, are personal taste problems. You just gotta touch and feel before buying. But for everything else, B&H is either the best or so close I can't tell the difference. They're businesslike (even brusque, sometimes) on the phone but they're also professional and reliable. The number of similarly high-quality online dealers in this market segment can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Actually, you only need two - B&H and Adorama. There are a few specialty dealers who are good for other things and if you need what they sell, they're wonderful. But for the full line of general photo gear available online, it's B&H and Adorama.

The best guidance I know of for buying a camera or related equipment in the U.S. is at photo.net.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/sony/DSC-R1/

Sure enough, the feckless dramaturge later shows us a technician clattering away at the keyboard of a laptop, by which time we are able to see that the shadowy figures in the distant window, though still barely resolved, may be up to no good. "That's about as good as I can get it... in analog," says the technician.

"What about...digital?" Asks the redheaded crime-fighter, portentously.

Well, there's what banks do with their optical media, which is have the glass master stored in a safe deposit box. A glass master for a DVD costs about $1000 , CD costs about $700. (Googled from http://www.cddvdking.com/ ).

Barring that, you can buy TDK professional media ( http://www.tdk.com/professional/ )

Also, googling for Archival CDR reveals a review on the subject by photo.net at http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column53/, which leads to the $3-a-disk Archival stuff here. http://store.mam-a-store.com/standard---archive-go ld.html

Hope this helps.

They won't even be able to view or preview the shot from the stock site.

Why not? What you can do is have reduced quality photos with a watermark online so potential buyuers can see them then once an order is confirmed you can either upload it to a password protected directory, email it to them, or perhaps snailmail/Fedex developed photos and/or cd. Without a preview how will people even know what the photos are, having them on a website can be your porfolio.

Also have you checked out Photo.net? If not maybe you can get more help there. Besides /. Photo.net is one of my fav sites.

Yes, computers are clumsy for operating on things like photos and multimedia[NOT SAFE FOR WORK].

Sadly, most of that will now go towards his bandwidth costs.

Yea, I read a few months back about how this lady who's an amateur photographer had uploaded some photos onto her personal website her isp, Earthlink, provides and some porn site linked to some of the photos. The next month when she got her bill there was a charge of several thousand dollars on it for the bandwidth used. As an amateur photographer I was thinking of up loading some photos myself and posting a link to them on Photonet myself, but as I'm an Earthlink subscriber myself I've had to reevaluate that idea.

So what he's saying is... the phone makes a good computer if you fundamentally change it's features? A full sized keyboard and monitor are not pocket sized. Pnoto.Net, Greenspun's own site would be a very different experience on a pocket sized device.

It's entirely possible (and has already happened) that someone creates a "blog" site intended to serve as sort of an electronic version of a personal diary, accessible anyplace they have Internet access, and mainly intended for a few friends or family members to use if they care to join in. But someone stumbles onto it, discovers what they view as an interesting conversation about something of significance - and starts directing heavy traffic to it. All of a sudden, this person's formerly "unknown" comments have big influence.

There's another possibility in what will happen. I read an article a few months ago about a link that was posted on a blog to some photos on someone's personal website hosted by Earthlink and her website was bombarded with hits. Earthlink charged her $8,000. What gets me is my ISP is Earthlink and I don't recall there being any limits in the service agreement. I was going to post some of my photos on my personal website (and on Photo.net as well) but now I'm concerned I might get hit with a large bill as well. I suppose I could use Geocities.

If you want to write comments that truly aren't even intended to reach an audience beyond a few selected people, you'd password protect it.

If it's a personal website hosted on the ISP's servers the only way I know to do this is to use javascript to write the page if the right password is entered. However this won't stop someone who knows how to from reading it, just look at the source code.

First off, Behe is a Christian:

"Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable."

Secondly, if you apply Behe's arguments to Rainbow Bridge, it'd declare that it never could have formed naturally. It did. It also would declare that bubbles are impossible in nature (remove any part of the bubble, it pops), fire can't be started naturally (remove any of the ingredients, and it goes out), ice dams can't form (remove any part of the ice dam, and the water rushes out behind it destroying the dam), and geysers aren't natural (alter any part of the geyser's path, and it stops erupting).

"Irreducible complexity" is a one-way process. Structures come into being for reasons other than their initial functionality (and for the above cases that I mentioned, for no reason at all related to the end aesthetics or functionality).

For example, a commonly cited case is the bombardier beetle. They produce hydroquinones and H2O2 which collect in a resevoir. The resevoir opens into a tough, thick-walled reaction chamber that produces catalyases and peroxidases; this breaks down the H2O2 and produces heat and helps break down the hydroquinone to p-quinones. A fifth of the mixture is vaporized, and propels the burning mixture through a series of valves and nozzles that spray it onto the target.

Irreducibly complex to say the least, right? Gish sure thought so. Yet, the intermediary stages already exist for most stages, and the others are obvious progressions. From here:

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.

This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in t

Unfortunately, advances in tiny lens quality will be undone by advances in CCD chip size (which is to say, shrinking). A lot of digital cameras are already deficient because of the tiny size of the sensor.

Further reading:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
http://www.digicaminfo.btinternet.co.uk/sensors1.h tm

Bigger is better when it comes to CCDs.

And that's to say nothing of the limitations imposed by a small aperture.

Yea, the processing for C41 B&W is the same as for consumer level colour. The film companies came out with C41 so labs can use the same chemicals for it and colour.

Most digitals only shoot color anyway

Though it voids warranties on new cameras it is possible to modify digicams to shoot inferred. Digicams with inferred offers such startling photos, though I don't recall bookmarking any website I came across a few that had some terrific photos. I think Photo.net had some.

Its funny you liked the nature photos.

Other than inferred I love two areas of photography, nature and photojournalism. I don't get into shooting parties, weddings, or studio work. Occasionally is alright but that's it.

I just bought a wacom tablet, its great.

Tablets are much better than mice, amoung other things using a pen is much more natural than using a mouse and offers greater control and pressure sensitivity.

Falcon

Yea I know medium format doesn't work well with photojournalism but it allows big enlargements of nature shots.

You'd be surprised how many (most of the users on this board are amateurs). I know I'm one of many. Professionals are dumping their medium-format gear for digital SLRs, so the prices have hit rock-bottom and are very affordable to amateurs like me.

For example, back-in-the-day, the Mamiya RB67 was the workhorse of a studio camera and you can now pick one up for US$172.00. Cheap, I tell ya!

That's when your exposure SHOULD be one thing by mathematics, but it doesn't come out right - so you have to change it to something else that SHOULD be wrong instead.

Erm...

All it means is that the mathematical model the camera is using is only valid for typical situations. Like a lot of things, the reciprocity characteristics of film can be modeled in various ways. If you might recall from your math courses, models are typically valid for only a given domain. For example, we might model a non-linear system of differential equations by pretending it's a linear system around a certain point. The model we develop for that point is not necessarily going to be valid anywhere else. The same is true for the reciprocity models. The tables are only good for certain values. Beyond that, correction is needed.

I'd really like to see some smart chemist or mathematician try to figure that one out!

It is figured out because there are tables and tables of reciprocity data.

As if high quality DIY photoprinting on ever cheaper home printers weren't making life hard enough for photo labs, now the professional photographer's version of DRM is further cutting into business. Washington Post enlarged on an AP story about Walmart and Walgreens refusing to print pix of ordinary folks because they looked "too good" to be amateur and where suspsected of being pirated from the internet. The pro photographers do understand the problem: "Steve Noble, who oversees regulatory affairs at the Photo Marketers Association, believes the situation will remain hazy unless copyright laws that were written in a different technological era are altered to reflect the ossibilities of digital dissemination." If you google around, you find the problem is on blogs and bulletin boards for the last 6 months. ....yet another story of a digital technology leaving a world of gutenburg legal ideas in disarray.

First, you have to write Gay software, such as this Gay Software and license it under the GGPL.

Second, you need to succeed in gathering a few "Gay Users" on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to contact Richard Stallman, creator of the GGPL, and ask him to sacrifice a straight person for you in the name of All Fags.

If you have mod points and would like to support GGPL, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by SARS Monkey, writer of GGPL software.

And now, the GGPL.

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a Gay regime (such as blue plastic dicks, or a frozen potato reference) placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Gay General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under Vatican law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "a fag".

Activities other than copying, distribution, modification, or cock sucking are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. (Serve the gay community.)

A fag may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it (up the ass), in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice, Gay pornographic image, and disclaimer of warranty or straightness; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

A fag may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your opti

Longevity of CD-R's has been studied, and a preliminary government study of DVD-CD lifetimes indicates that you should keep multiple copies, check the media for errors annually and create new dups as bit rot occurs. This is also mentioned in this article on archival life for DVD's.

There doesn't seem to be a single method that is known to last 20 years. Of note, optimal storage conditions for optical media is 50-59 degrees F or 10-15C. That's a bit cooler than your average living space and certainly cooler than "human-optimal" office temperatures of around 77F (vs. the 68F "standard" adopted for heating during the first energy crisis).

It's the Digital Rebel in the US, the Kiss Digital in Japan, and the 300D elsewhere. Hang around photography forums a bit, and you'll find people tend to use DR and 300D interchangably.

I tend to refer to mine by 300D in that type of a situation (easier to type, sounds better ;-)) and as a Rebel when I'm talking to friends in person. It really just comes down to the person talking about it.

Being in the US and first learning of it as the Digital Rebel may exert an influence but I'm also biased in calling it the Digital Rebel as I've got a film based Rebel. Actually to find out what the 300D was I went to Photo.net, where I sometymes hang out.

You can get EF-FD converters for Canon Lenses. These are apparently problematic wide open, but are fine stopped down. (I know, I know- when do you ever get perfect light?)

(pictures)
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_ id=00Bdi1

Anyway, I'm happy with my EF lenses. If I have any complaint about Canon, its the EF-S mount type. I don't want to have to buy up to a 20D to get a reasonably priced wide-angle zoom lens. Grrr.

"Fortunately, he's one of those computer geniuses. [hotel links]I'm sure he'll be able to think of something[/hotel links]."

You're right that he can find a hotel (though they're scarce in some parts; I'm pretty inured to sleeping in my car when necessary, annoying as it can sometimes be -- however, I don't have an RV for which to find safe haven), but that additional cost adds up quickly, especially if the repairs are like those experienced by Phillip Greenspun. (The link was handy; this story had made me find it to post in an earlier comment, too ;)) As I warned in that earlier comment, be careful lest you are sucked into the world of interesting things Greenspun has written, which are addictive and time-sucking.

timothy

Airstream has made some self-contained units ("Land Yachts" -- example: http://www.racer-net.com/rairs002.htm), though I'm not sure if they are currently producing any.

And while I agree with you on "pressboard and vinyl" when it comes to most RVs, Airstreams are generally quite nicely constructed; I lived for a time* in a 1966 22' model, and despite being older than I am, the construction held up well. (Some of the internal systems, not so much, but as I as parked rather than traveling, with facilities avaiable, that was OK.) Many RVs are in the cheap-n-chintzy category, too, though -- they may be a home on wheels, but in many cases, that home is the same pressboard and vinyl you rightly decry ... just stuck on a truck body. Sometimes not well stuck on, too :)

(See Phillip Greenspun's account of buying, driving, repairing and selling a Winnebago -- but be warned: it's very easy to get sucked into his site, as I just did. He's a great writer, in addition to all the other bazillion things he does.

timothy

* In Austin's coolest trailer park, Pecan Grove -- long may it wave ;)

Obligatory own gallery whoring: me! me! me!

And psst: since this is Slashdot, you'll want to know that there's some pretty damn good free pr0... err, I mean kinky photography out there too.

Cheers,
-j.

Obligatory own gallery whoring: me! me! me!

And psst: since this is Slashdot, you'll want to know that there's some pretty damn good free pr0... err, I mean kinky photography out there too.

Cheers,
-j.

Obligatory own gallery whoring: me! me! me!

And psst: since this is Slashdot, you'll want to know that there's some pretty damn good free pr0... err, I mean kinky photography out there too.

Cheers,
-j.

Obligatory own gallery whoring: me! me! me!

And psst: since this is Slashdot, you'll want to know that there's some pretty damn good free pr0... err, I mean kinky photography out there too.

Cheers,
-j.

• Add the Free/FixedAspect/FixedSize options from the Rectangular Select tool into the Crop tool.
  
• Add a "macro recorder" to make writing Script-Fu easier
  
• Add a simple "debug mode" to trace Script-Fu execution and/or hand off to the Script-Fu Console from the invokation dialog box
  
• Add a de-red-eye tool that's a bit more intelligent, specifically
  
  • that identifies round or ovoid red-eyes rather than anything red
    
  • that uses soft edges rather than doing scalpel-like total excision
• build a Script-Fu to do this either straight from the camera or with all of the layers in a designated image.

I don't understand why xxx hasn't been approved yet. Followed by a mandate that pornographic sites must use

"Is it compiled into native code? I know this is more a Python thing but even mentioning an application server built in a scripting language will have me ridiculed out the door."

You're saying you'll be ridiculed for proposing an application server using an interpreted language, because it supposedly can't keep up with a J2EE server?

Maybe Zope, Inc.'s customers disagree. Or photo.net, a site getting over 10,000,000 hits a day that's written in OpenACS, which is itself written totally in Tcl?

If you feel forced to keep using J2EE because you'll be ridiculed otherwise for using a "non-compiled" app server, go ahead. But other developers are likely gaining a lot of productivity by using more dynamic and "slower" interpreted languages. Check out this 22MB quicktime demo movie of the Ruby on Rails framework...pretty awesome stuff.

Linux Virtual Private Servers for Professionals

Those interested in photoblogging might be interested in photo.net's "no words" forums: http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1801

From the samsung definition, it didn't seem to me that they were individually controlling the values of the sub-pixel colors. by this I mean: the four green pixels are probably still being excited from the same single driving line. What I think is different, is that the four green pixels are affected by their neighbouring pixels, and the hardware automatically does the anti-aliasing...

The article doesn't mention anywhere that they have increased the quality of the digital to analog signal converter precision of the LED drivers. It's using a standard RGB signal feed, so it can't be using a 0-2047 color range for the green.

Sorry, I know that wasn't clear.

http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/vis00010.htm is a clear description of the eye. http://acept.la.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/color/color.shtml is another page that describes things as I have previously been taught them. I'm not sure which is right. Most literature seems to use a log scale, showing the eye to be less sensitive to blue than red or green. Such as: http://www.4colorvision.com/files/photopiceffic.ht m. I believe that we may be referring to different things. Blue cones are more efficient, and more sensitive to radiation than red or green cones, but red and green cones FAR outnumber blue cones. For this reason, we see blue as being less intense. http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandp lite/pages/chap_9/ch9p1.html

One thing I find really interesting is that the eye is actually sensitive to the near-UV. We can see light below 400nm, as I have frequently experienced while teaching a spectroscopy lab. Students build their own Czerny-Turner spectrometer, and observe the emission bands from a mercury pen lamp. Some of the UV peaks are visible (not to all students), although very dimly due to our poor UV-response.

How do we know it was the police anyway, if they were supposedly undercover? If they were, and someone photographed them, the undercover police shouldn't have had identifying marks.