True, but digital cameras make getting great photos much easier because you can shoot essentially infinitely. Just set the exposure and hold down the trigger with continuous shooting and you're bound to catch something awesome or a picture with everyone's eyes open, or whatever it is you are looking for. Take a picture of multiple exposure levels, multiple focal ranges, all kinds of different setups. Review them later and trash the ones that didn't turn out.
The current mantra is a regular photographer takes 10 pictures. A great photographer takes 1000, only 10 of which are great.
I was the same way and I wouldn't even consider hiring a photographer for my wedding who didn't offer a DVD with the original images and a signed release allowing me to use them for all non-commercial purposes including sharing, reproduction, and editing.
Either I pay you to take my pictures or I pay for use of your pictures. I'm not paying for both.
But the expense of the camera is only half of it. You'd also need to lug around that camera for your whole trip, remember to charge the battery, and take a computer with you to review, edit, and post the pictures. Or you could take mediocre pictures with your phone, apply a crappy filter, and post it to Facebook in a minute.
Who needs great, high resolution images of a trip to London? You can buy plenty of them already for less than the cost of camera and equipment. Or you can get one of the many free images available. Really all you want from your vacation is your experience and the ability to share it with friends. You don't need high quality camera equipment for that.
You are missing the point. Most people just look at pictures on their phone or maybe a tiny version on a computer screen. Hell most of the mouth breathers use the digital zoom which destroys what little quality their picture had in the first place. But it looks good enough for what they care about. Who is going to buy a dedicated phone they have to carry around and then transfer picture off of to share when they have a camera in their phone that will tweet it instantly?
In wedding photographers' defense... They do have to deal with brides, wedding parties, drunk people, church rules, and all kind of other bullshit associated with weddings. I don't consider their payment to be for the pictures, but for putting up with the wedding experience without any of the fun of being in a wedding.
Most people don't understand photography. The amount of people who know what F numbers, exposure time, and ISO mean are insufficient to support a camera market. Most people just want to mash a button and get a picture. Phones give them that. They aren't going to make prints, they aren't going to adjust color and contrast after the fact. They'll probably just slap a filter on it and tweet it. You ever been to the zoo or an aquarium? How many people turn off the flash when taking a picture of something through glass? Not many...
Meanwhile people who fancy themselves photographers buy the most expensive DSLR they can with the biggest lens and push people aside to get their prize photos, which they get with the automatic shooting mode... The demand for professional photos is dropping. Quantity is making quality less important. If you have 100 people with iPhones that can take print quality pictures at your wedding, out of the thousands of pictures that will be taken some are bound to be great. Sure a wedding photographer will get better ones, higher quality ones, closer ones. But is it worth the expense? First you have to pay the photographer, then you have to pay for the rights to the photo (assuming you can even obtain copyright ownership), then you probably have to pay for prints. When all most people will do is save it on their computer for posterity and post a bunch of pics on Facebook.
44 hours per unit isn't comparable to a car factory. How much footprint does the 3D printer take up, and how many of those can fit in the footprint of a car factory? I'm sure you'll get it down to a minute if you can put 2640 of them in the building. What you are saying is that it takes thousands of man-hours to make a car, how is that every going to be competitive?
Malicious intent is not necessary for a crime. Not getting vaccinated and working with children should be criminally negligent if you transmit the disease to them. Natural process or not. Think of it like having a pool at a daycare center. Choosing not to provide rescue equipment because you are cheap doesn't make you faultless because drowning is natural and you didn't have malicious intent.
Actually the number of laws each year is going up. Not that I can give you any statistics because no one knows how many there are... No wonder innocent people will admit guilt. With the sheer ridiculous number of laws out there, no one is truly innocent in the US.
I don't even know who you are, but we should be friends. I had to show my wife your comment because she was frustrated that all I could comment about after the last movie was the economic infeasibility of the whole district system.
As for the Mexicans, they aren't trying to get here because of climate or lack of resources, they are trying to get here because of jobs, benefits, and American society.
So Canada and Siberia are wrong because you say so. Explain to me why the majority of the population of Canada is scrunched up along the southern border... Is it because they don't want to live in the cold or because the availability of light for half the year is unbearable.
As for people being welcome in my culture, I welcome people of all backgrounds, colors, peaceful religions, and means. I am an American and that was supposed to be the whole point. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
No, America has no friends because we torture innocent people even though we know it doesn't do us any good. We act like policemen of the world and thrust our political beliefs and morals on the rest of the world while we shit in our own living room back at home.
Pollution probably doesn't make the top 5 reasons to hate America worldwide.
Also, it's convenient when you get to define pollution to be whatever you want. Considering that the gasses you exhale as part of staying alive are considered pollution now.
You have a point. That's why we are releasing the pressure of all those hydrocarbons locked up below ground and putting the CO2 back in the atmosphere where it belongs.
I'd put money on there not being a collapse of human civilization due to climate change over the next (I'll even let you choose the amount of time). Would you?
In 500 years, billions of people could be living on the moon. How big was New York in 1500? Do you really think over 500 years people can't MOVE? It's not going to disappear in a tidal wave. If anything, it might turn into a city like Venice which is still managing to survive despite sinking into the sea. Even in the worst predictions of global warming, I fail to see how there won't be enough landmass to support all the people we currently have. In fact, given improving technology, it wouldn't surprise me if we could double, triple, or quintuple the population in 500 years and still have a higher standard of living. I mean well more of the landmass of the world is currently unlivable because it's too cold, not because it's too hot. Antarctica, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, most of Russia... Too damn cold.
Sure most of the population currently lives near the ocean, but that won't change in 500 years, just the location of the coast. People will move inland over generations and I'm sure they won't complain that more latitudes will have tropical weather.
This would get modded flamebait. Warmer periods in earth's history have been more life prolific. I have yet to see studies seriously listing benefits of a warmer climate and actually comparing that to any negatives. It's all catastrophe and death. Because if heaven forbid we might benefit from it, there's no reason to tax or subsidize things, which appears to be the end goal of climate research, to engage social change.
Good thing nobody has electric heat in the winter or an electric water heater... Oh wait. The grid is not going away. Batteries can't power stuff like that.
Actually, gem quality larger synthetic diamonds are becoming more feasible. My wife has a.79 carat fancy blue synthetic diamond in her engagement ring. And industrial diamonds don't compete with gem diamonds. Most diamond veins are suited for industrial use. Due to flaws, small size, undesired color, etc there are plenty of natural diamonds that won't get used for gems. Any that are of gem quality aren't used for industrial purposes due to cost.
What stops the mega wealthy is competition. What prevents competition is the government. As long as you have freedom of association, you can choose to associate with companies that don't exploit you. There is room for basic labor laws preventing child labor, discrimination, and a few other things.
OSHA should be privatized and made to be a safety standards company similar to how Underwriters Laboratories and other safety industries work. OSHA rules are out of date and often absurd.
The EPA should also be privatized. Let the public see what the environmental rules are and boycott companies that destroy the environment. The EPA as is currently set up is accountable to no one and can effectively ban anything based on if they determine it is a pollutant.
The FCC should regulate what frequencies can be used and regulate interference so jamming is considered the same as blocking speech.
Libertarians don't believe in NO government or a ridiculously tiny government. They believe in a limited government (limited by a document, like say the Constitution), an accountable government (fair elections, unlike what we have now), reasonable and low taxes, and personal freedom. History has shown that free people do a very good (but not perfect job) of advancing society and creating wealth for the entire population even if it is unevenly distributed.
Most libertarians believe the government should do a whole lot for society, but at the smallest level of government. Fire departments, police, schools, etc should be manages by the local government, not the feds. Federal officials aren't accountable over local concerns.
Your view is that we need to keep money out of politics. I see that as dealing with the symptom, not the problem. I want to get politics out of money. The problem is that the government is so large and powerful that they can control large amounts of private sector money. Take away their power, contracts, tax benefits, and straight up handouts and then there isn't an incentive to buy politicians anymore. Why spend a billion dollars to win a position that won't return a billion dollars in "influence"?
That's right, the surveillance state is a bipartisan effort. They only vote along party lines to show their voters that they don't get along even though they do.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but digital cameras make getting great photos much easier because you can shoot essentially infinitely. Just set the exposure and hold down the trigger with continuous shooting and you're bound to catch something awesome or a picture with everyone's eyes open, or whatever it is you are looking for. Take a picture of multiple exposure levels, multiple focal ranges, all kinds of different setups. Review them later and trash the ones that didn't turn out.
The current mantra is a regular photographer takes 10 pictures. A great photographer takes 1000, only 10 of which are great.
I was the same way and I wouldn't even consider hiring a photographer for my wedding who didn't offer a DVD with the original images and a signed release allowing me to use them for all non-commercial purposes including sharing, reproduction, and editing.
Either I pay you to take my pictures or I pay for use of your pictures. I'm not paying for both.
But the expense of the camera is only half of it. You'd also need to lug around that camera for your whole trip, remember to charge the battery, and take a computer with you to review, edit, and post the pictures. Or you could take mediocre pictures with your phone, apply a crappy filter, and post it to Facebook in a minute.
Who needs great, high resolution images of a trip to London? You can buy plenty of them already for less than the cost of camera and equipment. Or you can get one of the many free images available. Really all you want from your vacation is your experience and the ability to share it with friends. You don't need high quality camera equipment for that.
You are missing the point. Most people just look at pictures on their phone or maybe a tiny version on a computer screen. Hell most of the mouth breathers use the digital zoom which destroys what little quality their picture had in the first place. But it looks good enough for what they care about. Who is going to buy a dedicated phone they have to carry around and then transfer picture off of to share when they have a camera in their phone that will tweet it instantly?
In wedding photographers' defense... They do have to deal with brides, wedding parties, drunk people, church rules, and all kind of other bullshit associated with weddings. I don't consider their payment to be for the pictures, but for putting up with the wedding experience without any of the fun of being in a wedding.
Most people don't understand photography. The amount of people who know what F numbers, exposure time, and ISO mean are insufficient to support a camera market. Most people just want to mash a button and get a picture. Phones give them that. They aren't going to make prints, they aren't going to adjust color and contrast after the fact. They'll probably just slap a filter on it and tweet it. You ever been to the zoo or an aquarium? How many people turn off the flash when taking a picture of something through glass? Not many...
Meanwhile people who fancy themselves photographers buy the most expensive DSLR they can with the biggest lens and push people aside to get their prize photos, which they get with the automatic shooting mode... The demand for professional photos is dropping. Quantity is making quality less important. If you have 100 people with iPhones that can take print quality pictures at your wedding, out of the thousands of pictures that will be taken some are bound to be great. Sure a wedding photographer will get better ones, higher quality ones, closer ones. But is it worth the expense? First you have to pay the photographer, then you have to pay for the rights to the photo (assuming you can even obtain copyright ownership), then you probably have to pay for prints. When all most people will do is save it on their computer for posterity and post a bunch of pics on Facebook.
Yes, a parent is responsible for some crimes committed by a minor if they should have been able to prevent the action.
44 hours per unit isn't comparable to a car factory. How much footprint does the 3D printer take up, and how many of those can fit in the footprint of a car factory? I'm sure you'll get it down to a minute if you can put 2640 of them in the building. What you are saying is that it takes thousands of man-hours to make a car, how is that every going to be competitive?
Malicious intent is not necessary for a crime. Not getting vaccinated and working with children should be criminally negligent if you transmit the disease to them. Natural process or not. Think of it like having a pool at a daycare center. Choosing not to provide rescue equipment because you are cheap doesn't make you faultless because drowning is natural and you didn't have malicious intent.
Actually the number of laws each year is going up. Not that I can give you any statistics because no one knows how many there are... No wonder innocent people will admit guilt. With the sheer ridiculous number of laws out there, no one is truly innocent in the US.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/...
I don't even know who you are, but we should be friends. I had to show my wife your comment because she was frustrated that all I could comment about after the last movie was the economic infeasibility of the whole district system.
http://www41.statcan.gc.ca/200...
Looks like it's pretty sparse up north...
As for the Mexicans, they aren't trying to get here because of climate or lack of resources, they are trying to get here because of jobs, benefits, and American society.
So Canada and Siberia are wrong because you say so. Explain to me why the majority of the population of Canada is scrunched up along the southern border... Is it because they don't want to live in the cold or because the availability of light for half the year is unbearable.
As for people being welcome in my culture, I welcome people of all backgrounds, colors, peaceful religions, and means. I am an American and that was supposed to be the whole point.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
I'd say it's more analogous to a capacitor. And it will lose its charge very quickly if not kept powered.
Science doesn't leave subjects and move on. That's not how it works. That sounds more like a religion or a cult to me.
No, America has no friends because we torture innocent people even though we know it doesn't do us any good. We act like policemen of the world and thrust our political beliefs and morals on the rest of the world while we shit in our own living room back at home.
Pollution probably doesn't make the top 5 reasons to hate America worldwide.
Also, it's convenient when you get to define pollution to be whatever you want. Considering that the gasses you exhale as part of staying alive are considered pollution now.
You have a point. That's why we are releasing the pressure of all those hydrocarbons locked up below ground and putting the CO2 back in the atmosphere where it belongs.
http://longbets.org/
I'd put money on there not being a collapse of human civilization due to climate change over the next (I'll even let you choose the amount of time). Would you?
Yeah, didn't think so.
In 500 years, billions of people could be living on the moon. How big was New York in 1500? Do you really think over 500 years people can't MOVE? It's not going to disappear in a tidal wave. If anything, it might turn into a city like Venice which is still managing to survive despite sinking into the sea. Even in the worst predictions of global warming, I fail to see how there won't be enough landmass to support all the people we currently have. In fact, given improving technology, it wouldn't surprise me if we could double, triple, or quintuple the population in 500 years and still have a higher standard of living. I mean well more of the landmass of the world is currently unlivable because it's too cold, not because it's too hot. Antarctica, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, most of Russia... Too damn cold.
Sure most of the population currently lives near the ocean, but that won't change in 500 years, just the location of the coast. People will move inland over generations and I'm sure they won't complain that more latitudes will have tropical weather.
This would get modded flamebait. Warmer periods in earth's history have been more life prolific. I have yet to see studies seriously listing benefits of a warmer climate and actually comparing that to any negatives. It's all catastrophe and death. Because if heaven forbid we might benefit from it, there's no reason to tax or subsidize things, which appears to be the end goal of climate research, to engage social change.
Good thing nobody has electric heat in the winter or an electric water heater... Oh wait. The grid is not going away. Batteries can't power stuff like that.
Actually, gem quality larger synthetic diamonds are becoming more feasible. My wife has a .79 carat fancy blue synthetic diamond in her engagement ring. And industrial diamonds don't compete with gem diamonds. Most diamond veins are suited for industrial use. Due to flaws, small size, undesired color, etc there are plenty of natural diamonds that won't get used for gems. Any that are of gem quality aren't used for industrial purposes due to cost.
What stops the mega wealthy is competition. What prevents competition is the government. As long as you have freedom of association, you can choose to associate with companies that don't exploit you. There is room for basic labor laws preventing child labor, discrimination, and a few other things.
OSHA should be privatized and made to be a safety standards company similar to how Underwriters Laboratories and other safety industries work. OSHA rules are out of date and often absurd.
The EPA should also be privatized. Let the public see what the environmental rules are and boycott companies that destroy the environment. The EPA as is currently set up is accountable to no one and can effectively ban anything based on if they determine it is a pollutant.
The FCC should regulate what frequencies can be used and regulate interference so jamming is considered the same as blocking speech.
Libertarians don't believe in NO government or a ridiculously tiny government. They believe in a limited government (limited by a document, like say the Constitution), an accountable government (fair elections, unlike what we have now), reasonable and low taxes, and personal freedom. History has shown that free people do a very good (but not perfect job) of advancing society and creating wealth for the entire population even if it is unevenly distributed.
Most libertarians believe the government should do a whole lot for society, but at the smallest level of government. Fire departments, police, schools, etc should be manages by the local government, not the feds. Federal officials aren't accountable over local concerns.
Your view is that we need to keep money out of politics. I see that as dealing with the symptom, not the problem. I want to get politics out of money. The problem is that the government is so large and powerful that they can control large amounts of private sector money. Take away their power, contracts, tax benefits, and straight up handouts and then there isn't an incentive to buy politicians anymore. Why spend a billion dollars to win a position that won't return a billion dollars in "influence"?
Diesel is also a much safer fuel as it's not as highly flammable and explosive as gasoline.
That's right, the surveillance state is a bipartisan effort. They only vote along party lines to show their voters that they don't get along even though they do.