Slashdot Mirror

>with correct WB.

Define "correct".
If you define it as "closest as possible to the actual colour of the subject" then you have something of a point (not much) - but in fact you will be surprised what lovely and subtle effects you can sometimes obtain by deliberately using the wrong one.
Take a picture with studio-flash white-ballance, and open it in RAW and then see what it looks like with Tungsten WB - 99% of the time you will hate the result - but 1% of the time you'll find a work of art you would never have had if you hadn't used RAW.
That 1% is enough to be worth it.

This exact example happened to me after a studio shoot just a week ago:
http://silentcoder.co.za/photography/art/Caryn-Fetish/IMG_1858.jpg/

Thank you for the inspiration:
http://silentcoder.co.za/2012/10/new-poem-the-shit-splattered-banner/

As an aside, the blogpost I linked is part of a four-part series, if you are interested - the rest are here:
http://silentcoder.co.za/?s=The+Libertarians&searchsubmit=

>Democracies are tyrannies of the majority. If a minority is coerced into sacrificing for the greater good - how is it socialism if a democracy does it, but not-socialism if done by a dictatorship?

I suppose I would say it's more a difference of principle than of practical outcome. The difference is that in a (working) democracy nobody has any MORE power than you do to affect the outcome of a decision. Republics are less democratic than anarchies - hence it's less socialist in them than it would be in an anarchy (since representatives can coerce things which the vote did not support).

>Under that principle, if the majority (society) demands the fruits of an individual laborer's work, they can rightfully take it. Again, socialism as I have defined it. Again, incompatible with your definition of socialism (where the laborer's right to his own work is sacred).

Not sacred, that implies religion, this is about justice. And I never SAID that SOCIETY cannot have a share of a labourers work - that is completely outside the SCOPE of what is or is not socialism. My definition applies to who keeps the PROFITS of productive labour. Socialism is any belief system that those profits should go to those who PERFORM the labour, rather than to employers.
The things you refer to - to a socialist is a completely unrelated topic. That is about the fact that no man is an island. All success is at least partially attributable to privilege (and any sociologist will confirm this: there is NO more reliable prediction about a child's future income than the income of his parents). Capitalists see privilege as an inherent right (with a few exceptions - Jefferson for example instituted the first estate tax to reduce privilege and prevent the rise of an aristocracy). Socialists see privilege as a debt to society. You got where you are on hard work (it's false that socialists deny this - they very much accept it) but ALSO thanks to privileges.
Socialists believe those privileges are a LOAN, not a PROPERTY - and must be repaid, by extending privilege to OTHER people who have less (a pay-it-forward kind of loan - an idea first proposed by a capitalist in fact: Benjamin Franklin).
But that is not a defining attribute of socialism, a lot of socialists believe this - enough that most socialisms include systems to achieve this (such as tax-funded schools), but many people reject this and are STILL socialists as they believes workers must own businesses.

>We're using different definitions for Capitalism. I define it as "private ownership"
Well if we can just make up our own definitions we're never going to get anywhere. Private ownership is an attribute of most capitalist systems but it's hardly the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a system of trade entrepreneurship is enabled by access to capital - there are many other ways entrepreneurship can work, but this concept is what sets capitalism appart from other market systems (free and non-free). This is it's defining attribute.
A side effect of this is that in any capitalism power is apportioned according to capital obtained - which is why all capitalism tends to degenerate into fascism.

> The business owner owns the equipment and land
And not a single one of them own it by any concept that can be called just. That's rather a long argument with a lot of defining evidence. Too much to write out now, but luckily, I have a blogpost on the topic I can link you to.
http://silentcoder.co.za/2012/01/the-libertarians-part-1-who-are-the-thieves/
When socialist libertarians say the workers must own those as well - it's because we know it was their property in the first place and it was stolen.

>businesses can fail, after all; the owner can lose everything even as the worker walks away with his wages
That's a common argument, and a false one. For the vast majority of people - the vast majority of their wages is spent on basic requirements to

Then you don't know what a mathematical formula, is, what a Turing machine is, or what a program is.

Hint: all three are different forms of the same thing.

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20091110152507492

http://silentcoder.co.za/2010/08/why-computer-programs-should-not-be-patentable-in-easy-to-understand-terms/

Among those things: a simple, testable proof of my claim. Unless you can refute my proof with evidence, I win.

Incorrect in that the product X is not a a mathematical formula. A computer program is a mathematical formula. All of them. No exceptions.

What is a computer program ? It is a mathematical formula. If you don't know that then you don't know how computers WORK. A computer program is the same thing as: 2+2=4
It's just a much more complicated one, but that's what a computer program is - it's what every computer program is.
In fact, it gets better, if you know computational theory then you know that a mathematical formula (any of them) is also a number. A computer program is just a very big number.

Can you patent 5 ? How about if you write in binary - can you patent 101 ?
So why the hell can you patent it if you just stick on a bunch more 1s and 0s ? Even scripting languages are ultimately just that: a number. It's just the timing of the translation that's changed.

A computer program is a number.

A car-part is not a number. There are maths involved in designing it, but it isn't itself maths.

There's maths involved in adding 2 and 2 together to get 4 - but 4 is still maths. A computer program is like 4, it's not like the car part.

Anybody who tells you different doesn't know how computers work.

http://silentcoder.co.za/2010/08/why-computer-programs-should-not-be-patentable-in-easy-to-understand-terms/

>And that's just in the capture - the reason you'd want 16bit in the software is so that those 10bpc values don't keep getting re-converted to 10bit values while working with the file, accumulating error as you go (aspects of GEGL looks promising on this front, but for other reasons). You still do that in 16bit, but the error is much smaller.

But you just made my point - even the best camera captures only capture in 14 bpc values. I am sorry if I was unclear about what I meant. Either way - this is not a crucial feature for professional art photography with heavy post processing.

http://silentcoder.co.za/photography/art/Inside-Out/ http://silentcoder.co.za/wp-content/gallery/art/boudoir/Caryn%20and%20Caity/thumbs/IMG_6181.jpg

Perfect quality - heavy (though very subtle) post processing.

So while you may find higher bit depths useful, they are not in fact required for good quality post processing. That is, if you know what you're doing (for starters, once you import your RAW, don't change the bit-depths again, EVER - and never scale unless you have to and if you must scale use liquid-rescale).

>P.S. If I had to pick anything out of The GIMP that I find lacking, it would be the transform tools rather than bit depth issues - but that's getting addressed in a future version and I happily use The GIMP in favor of e.g. Photoshop most of the time.

This is true - they aren't quite as good as they could be, but they are already much better than they were in the past and will only improve. Personally I prefer to limit my transforms to cropping for composition anyway so it doesn't bug me much. As far as I'm concerned if you're rotating an image you took it wrong in the first place.

Either way - my point is still simple. I'm a professional art photographer. I've been published in several international magazines. I use gimp and it does everything I've ever needed.

>A defect/feature? in the design of HSP, (Mutation maybe?) which will lead to other mutations.

HSP90 is an evolved feature. It's good for organisms to mutate, it's even better to only mutate when the environment changes, so those organisms that used a proteine like HSP90 for proteiene folding quite accidentally ended up with a way of doing it that had an advantage- once there though, it was a major advantage and thus survived.

>I agree, falsifying the latest beliefs in evolution wont stop it. You should not ever question evolution because that is unscientific. ;-)
That's not what I said. I said if you falsify evolution, you would have too use science to do so, and we would get a NEW theory that is also science. It may not be evolution (though reality is it will almost CERTAINLY be a variant of evolution - the evidence for it is just too damn strong, just like relativity isn't a REPLACEMENT for Newtonian physics but a REFINEMENT). One thing I can say with absolute certainty. This theory will NOT be creationism.
ID tries to be scientific but it fails because of bad assumptions. The whole watch (in a field not on a beach btw) argument has been thoroughly debunked and proven false. Even when it was first proposed by Palley 350 years ago it was already out of date with the science that was current THEN.

Before you try to defend ID to me - I suggest you read this, I have already summed up my biggest argument against it in a blog post, I don't feel like redoing it here: http://silentcoder.co.za/2010/11/how-intelligent-is-the-designer/

The entire rest of your post is basically stuff that is so thoroughly proven false and just plain wrong that it's not worth trying to explain further. Yes, all modern biology not only benefits from but DEPENDS on evolution. Our entire understanding of all life is built on that theory.

http://silentcoder.co.za/2010/11/how-intelligent-is-the-designer/

Nuff said.

You're welcome to that with mine - hell use my blog: http://silentcoder.co.za/

Only thing is - credit me with a link. I give you permission to copy. I don't give you permission to plagiarize.

In fact - the content is already under a CC license so I've already given that permission to EVERYBODY who goes there.

You seem to confuse copyright law with plagiarism law. Their not the same thing.

As a point of information, humans don't need protein (or anything else) from meat or even other animal products. Plenty of people live on an entirely plant-based diet, usually more healthily than their omnivorous neighbors. Even if you also skip dairy and eggs the only thing you're missing is vitamin B12, but you only need tiny amounts of that, and it's gleaned from plant-based sources and added to most multivitamins and to things like soymilk.

So you can say you WANT to eat meat, but you cannot truthfully say that you NEED it.

this has been shown to be untrue, and is in fact disinformation spread by vegans.

http://silentcoder.co.za/2009/11/the-major-lies-of-veganvegetarian-pseudoscience/

Heh, your post reminded me of this and this .

Disclaimer: yes I am the person responsible for that crime against humanity but those strips were done a long time ago - they just fitted the occasion frighteningly well..

Heh, your post reminded me of this and this .

Disclaimer: yes I am the person responsible for that crime against humanity but those strips were done a long time ago - they just fitted the occasion frighteningly well..