Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless? I'm guessing they had their headphones off (if such are even used), but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through. If nothing else, they should be tuned into some kind of emergency frequency no matter what.
It seems to me something is either designed wrong, or the pilots were being much more inattentive than one would expect from even someone using a laptop.
I saw this thing the other day about the Hindenburg and how it wasn't burning hydrogen that the world saw, but rather it was the doping compound used on the outside of the airship. Turns out the majority ingredients used in the compound are the same ones we use today... in solid rocket boosters!
Please don't take what you see on TV (or on the internet) at face value.
For the above to be true, one has to make a pretty wild assumption: engineers who knew how to get a 240-metre airship to fly at all were totally ignorant about the chemistry of the building materials they used. In addition to this, the papers below show that surviving pieces of the fabric covering are actually hard to ignite and slow-burning.
Except that the sensor size in the GH1 is much smaller than that in the 5D, so if you want to use a smaller DOF, you are going to have more problems on the GH1 than on a 5D with something like a Canon 85mm f/1.2. That same lens on the GH1 is going to be much less useful.
I won't deny that the 5D2 has a significantly larger potential depth of field range. However, I do doubt that that thin depth of field is all that usable. Your example, the 85mm 1:1.2 will have VERY thin depth of field wide open - basically, focus has to be spot on for stills, and for video it will have to be right continuously. This will be very taxing for any focusing system, manual or automatic. As such, if that one niche use is important the 5D2 will be justified, but I do firmly consider it a niche.
If my information is correct and the aperture changes on the GH1 are much smoother, I believe that will be a much larger net positive for one's video than the minimal depth of field potential. As I said though, to each his own - as long as one doesn't do the camera equivalent of MHz races.
This GPL'd firmware sounds cool and the 5D2 is a cool camera. However, people who are interested in getting one solely for video should also look at the Panasonic GH1: it has stepless aperture control (with the right lens) and is in general made for video, unlike the 5D2 which has half-afterthought video.
The reason I mention the GH1 is that it's really the first digital system camera that's 1) Made for video 2) Costs below 1500-2000 euros. It would be nice if the firmware hack people could do it for some other brands than Canon too though...
The models won't matter soon though: all of this points to high quality video soon being available from lots of companies for anyone with 1000 euros to spend. Essentially, anyone with a decent income can soon only blame themselves for their video footage sucking.
If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving. I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.
How is arriving at an airport without a car any different from arriving at a railway station without a car?
Also, both high pressure sodium and low pressure sodium lamps(2 most common street lamps) have a more pleasant spectrum on the eyes.
Low pressure sodium has a pleasant spectrum?
Low pressure sodium lights emit most of their light in one specific band. In effect, the light is monochromatic. Under one of these, one cannot see colour. It also makes people look dead.
Personally, I like the light. However, I'm a total nerd and most people I've met with an opinion have hated them. High pressure sodium is of course another thing altogether, which is why it's used pretty much everywhere.
Re:Men and Woman are different..... News film at 11. Well, at least it's becoming okay again to point out what is incredibly obvious to everyone, except feminists with an axe to grind.
I don't really see how that follows. The article and summary say:
The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors in explaining why women were underrepresented in science careers,
But women have to stay home with kids, right? Well, this gets us to a more balanced conclusion: increase paternity leave and/or make it compulsory, and the effects of one sex happening to be the one manufacturing kids will be greatly mitigated. In other words, the mostly arbitary decision that women have to stay home with the kids is the greatest problem (women don't have to be at home 24/7 to provide breast milk, either.) If both parents take the hit, the system will have to choose between adapting and just throwing away talent.
For an example of how much a society can do for both parents, check Sweden's stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave#Europe . Spoiler: 480 days paid paternity leave. (disclaimer: I'm not Swedish)
I wonder if you could also do that on Venus (too hot maybe?)
No need to wonder, it has been done: http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Vega.htm. The aerostats (that's the collective term for all lighter-than-air vessels) were part of the same payload as landers for increased difficulty, too.
Some quotes from the link:
The aerostats were deployed at the anti-solar point of Venus, above the continent of Aphrodite Terra. During 46 hours of operation, they traveled about 1/3 of the way around the planet in the 240 km/hour zonal winds.
After the end of signal, the balloons probably overheated and burst, somewhere on the daylight side of Venus.
So there is a first generation. Many are ignorant of this and the rest of the Venera program (linked site is recommended). This ignorance has probably been "helped" by Soviet scientific successes not being considered the hottest stuff to tell people about.
These were night-side aerostats though - the dayside is still out of reach, and a "global" longer-lived aerostat could be the goal for the next generation of missions.
The word "slightly" is a gross overstatement. The half-life of Bismuth is on the order of hundreds of billions of years (and Bismuth-209 has a half-life of 1.9*10^19 years).
Still not enough for the absolute of "not radioactive". Meaning grandparent was completely right, and MiKM linking the Wikipedia article as proof of it being a stable element is proof of low reading comprehension, not to mention that it shows a lack of appreciating the joke he/she replied to.
My inbox now seems to be filling up with lobster thermidor aux crevettes instead.
Thank God you didn't say 'Lobster Porn'. Don't want to hear about it. Wait, oops...
Re:Taking pictures of the sun?
on
The Quietest Sun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Your shutter speed will be maxed so the sensor's exposure to the bright focused sun will be minimal anyway, don't worry about it. Shoot it.
Apart from the other fault pointed out by another poster, you're missing the important fact that not only the imaging sensor is a sensitive component.
The autofocus sensors, the metering sensors, the mirror and *the shutter itself* are all sensitive components. The manual of my Olympus dSLR says not to do it, and I doubt it's in any way unique.
The only responsible advice is to get a filter built for this very purpose before shooting.
A couple of ideas spring to mind: 1. Ask a photographer. A pro will probably be too expensive (might not be, I of course don't know your circumstances). A photo nerd friend would be ideal - being a photographer myself, I could easily imagine someone photographing all the comics if he could get the necessary extra equipment "for free". Oh and I have no experience doing stuff like this, all I know is that a SLR with a prime lens will probably be best. 2. If you only find a slow way of doing it, consider digitizing a selection. If you have a nice collection like that, you probably know a thing or two about which parts are the good stuff. This should enable you to contribute lots of valuable things to the world without having to go through thousands of pages.
IIRC we cannot, by treaty, just let the Hubble's orbit decay like Skylab & Mir, we need to do a de-orbit burn and drop it in the Pacific, or some other relatively safe place. The problem was this, is that the Hubble has no rocket engines on board, so we need to send something up there to attach an engine.
From TFA:
In one additional piece of business, the astronauts will attach a grapple fixture to the bottom of the telescope so that a robot spacecraft could grab it and attach a rocket module in the future. The rocket would then drop the telescope into the ocean.
They seem to be thinking ahead, almost like it was their job or something. : )
I said "not much cleaner than many other less risky choices". Coal is only one of many choices. Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydro - all other choices that are less risky than coal.
I'm not completely following you anymore here. I apparently haven't read your posts as thoroughly as I should have. I'll just concede this point in order to make another.
You are not alone in thinking your choice is the best thing since sliced bread and has no problems. It's a common problem in energy research, this blinkered focus one has that one's choice is totally wonderful and has no faults. Believe it or not, oil and coal people are just like you.
No problems? I went through all my posts in this discussion to check this, and saw what I expected: I mentioned downsides of nuclear in every post, often using the word 'nasty'. At no point have I said that nuclear is problem-free, only expressed my belief that the problems of coal are greater (the only mention of other energy sources I have made is that they don't provice enough energy, meaning I've essentially ignored them for good or bad).
I admitted I didn't read your posts thoroughly enough. I hope you do the same in return.
Lung cancer is nasty, and work-related diseases are nasty. However, you've ignored my point:
Uranium mining has the same destructive effects, but we need thousands of times less of it. Since you provided links, I'll provide one too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6271773.stm . Quoting the link:
Every year, it is estimated that around 400,000 people in China die prematurely from pollution-related illnesses. Since I don't know the exact numbers, I'll assume that a tenth of that pollution comes from coal burning (probably an under-estimate, but fair's fair). That's 40 000 deaths!
I see no way for 40 000 people to die from uranium every year, even under the worst conditions. Also:
Remember the radon scare? Now just imagine going to work every day where there is a lot of radon present and your boss doesn't give you an air-tank to avoid it. That's not the fault of uranium, nor is it the fault of nuclear power. It is the fault of the boss who should be punished. He's clearly at the same level as the "village elders" in the BBC article I linked who conveniently don't live in their polluted home. Even with air tanks there's still room for improvement: uranium is so valuable that mechanized mining is very viable - the costs of nuclear are in personnel and safety anyway, not in the fuel.
To sum up: nuclear has some nasty side-effects, as you showed clearly. They pale in comparison to the effects of the current coal use though, which was and still is my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless? I'm guessing they had their headphones off (if such are even used), but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through. If nothing else, they should be tuned into some kind of emergency frequency no matter what.
It seems to me something is either designed wrong, or the pilots were being much more inattentive than one would expect from even someone using a laptop.
Any pilots or other I am a somethings around?
Please don't take what you see on TV (or on the internet) at face value.
For the above to be true, one has to make a pretty wild assumption: engineers who knew how to get a 240-metre airship to fly at all were totally ignorant about the chemistry of the building materials they used. In addition to this, the papers below show that surviving pieces of the fabric covering are actually hard to ignite and slow-burning.
Here's an excellent page with papers about this thing: http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire.htm . It states sources, authors and credentials so you don't have to trust it blindly, either.
Hope this helps.
I won't deny that the 5D2 has a significantly larger potential depth of field range. However, I do doubt that that thin depth of field is all that usable. Your example, the 85mm 1:1.2 will have VERY thin depth of field wide open - basically, focus has to be spot on for stills, and for video it will have to be right continuously. This will be very taxing for any focusing system, manual or automatic. As such, if that one niche use is important the 5D2 will be justified, but I do firmly consider it a niche.
If my information is correct and the aperture changes on the GH1 are much smoother, I believe that will be a much larger net positive for one's video than the minimal depth of field potential. As I said though, to each his own - as long as one doesn't do the camera equivalent of MHz races.
This GPL'd firmware sounds cool and the 5D2 is a cool camera. However, people who are interested in getting one solely for video should also look at the Panasonic GH1: it has stepless aperture control (with the right lens) and is in general made for video, unlike the 5D2 which has half-afterthought video.
The reason I mention the GH1 is that it's really the first digital system camera that's 1) Made for video 2) Costs below 1500-2000 euros. It would be nice if the firmware hack people could do it for some other brands than Canon too though...
The models won't matter soon though: all of this points to high quality video soon being available from lots of companies for anyone with 1000 euros to spend. Essentially, anyone with a decent income can soon only blame themselves for their video footage sucking.
I just hope this lack of fuel won't cause problems, and doesn't href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105
If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.
I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.
How is arriving at an airport without a car any different from arriving at a railway station without a car?
Also, both high pressure sodium and low pressure sodium lamps(2 most common street lamps) have a more pleasant spectrum on the eyes.
Low pressure sodium has a pleasant spectrum?
Low pressure sodium lights emit most of their light in one specific band. In effect, the light is monochromatic. Under one of these, one cannot see colour. It also makes people look dead.
Personally, I like the light. However, I'm a total nerd and most people I've met with an opinion have hated them. High pressure sodium is of course another thing altogether, which is why it's used pretty much everywhere.
Re:Men and Woman are different..... News film at 11. Well, at least it's becoming okay again to point out what is incredibly obvious to everyone, except feminists with an axe to grind.
I don't really see how that follows. The article and summary say:
The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors in explaining why women were underrepresented in science careers,
But women have to stay home with kids, right? Well, this gets us to a more balanced conclusion: increase paternity leave and/or make it compulsory, and the effects of one sex happening to be the one manufacturing kids will be greatly mitigated. In other words, the mostly arbitary decision that women have to stay home with the kids is the greatest problem (women don't have to be at home 24/7 to provide breast milk, either.) If both parents take the hit, the system will have to choose between adapting and just throwing away talent.
For an example of how much a society can do for both parents, check Sweden's stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave#Europe . Spoiler: 480 days paid paternity leave. (disclaimer: I'm not Swedish)
There really is a person on this planet named "Goldsteinberg"???
Typical American prejudice - you think it's wrong just because someone has an Arab last name.
As long as Will Smith isn't in any more of them. Between Independence Day, I Robot, and I am Legend I think he has saturated this market enough.
What, you mean I'm the only one who wants to see Will Smith as the Silver Surfer??? Damn, I feel so burned now...
I wonder if you could also do that on Venus (too hot maybe?)
No need to wonder, it has been done: http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Vega.htm. The aerostats (that's the collective term for all lighter-than-air vessels) were part of the same payload as landers for increased difficulty, too.
Some quotes from the link:
The aerostats were deployed at the anti-solar point of Venus, above the continent of Aphrodite Terra. During 46 hours of operation, they traveled about 1/3 of the way around the planet in the 240 km/hour zonal winds.
After the end of signal, the balloons probably overheated and burst, somewhere on the daylight side of Venus.
So there is a first generation. Many are ignorant of this and the rest of the Venera program (linked site is recommended). This ignorance has probably been "helped" by Soviet scientific successes not being considered the hottest stuff to tell people about.
These were night-side aerostats though - the dayside is still out of reach, and a "global" longer-lived aerostat could be the goal for the next generation of missions.
The amount of places with Elizabeth II as their head of state is simply amazing. I had never before heard of this one, for instance!
The word "slightly" is a gross overstatement. The half-life of Bismuth is on the order of hundreds of billions of years (and Bismuth-209 has a half-life of 1.9*10^19 years).
Still not enough for the absolute of "not radioactive". Meaning grandparent was completely right, and MiKM linking the Wikipedia article as proof of it being a stable element is proof of low reading comprehension, not to mention that it shows a lack of appreciating the joke he/she replied to.
My inbox now seems to be filling up with lobster thermidor aux crevettes instead.
Thank God you didn't say 'Lobster Porn'. Don't want to hear about it. Wait, oops...
Your shutter speed will be maxed so the sensor's exposure to the bright focused sun will be minimal anyway, don't worry about it. Shoot it.
Apart from the other fault pointed out by another poster, you're missing the important fact that not only the imaging sensor is a sensitive component.
The autofocus sensors, the metering sensors, the mirror and *the shutter itself* are all sensitive components. The manual of my Olympus dSLR says not to do it, and I doubt it's in any way unique.
The only responsible advice is to get a filter built for this very purpose before shooting.
Kudos to you sir, for reducing the time it takes to type congratulations by instead using grats!
Using 'grats' is pretty amateurish though: real Slash-users lubricate their keyboards with GRITS for optimum performance.
With the amount of webcomics available, there has to be one with an internet stabbing device, and that comic is Achewood. I'm guessing it gets additional points for featuring outsourcing of the design to India, although no GRITS are involved.
http://m.assetbar.com/achewood/uua7ZTxW4
http://m.assetbar.com/achewood/uua2sNcSQ
http://m.assetbar.com/achewood/uua7HgdpB
http://m.assetbar.com/achewood/uuabCS8Bq
Now imagine what it's like being a real Nigerian prince on the Internet.
A couple of ideas spring to mind:
1. Ask a photographer. A pro will probably be too expensive (might not be, I of course don't know your circumstances). A photo nerd friend would be ideal - being a photographer myself, I could easily imagine someone photographing all the comics if he could get the necessary extra equipment "for free". Oh and I have no experience doing stuff like this, all I know is that a SLR with a prime lens will probably be best.
2. If you only find a slow way of doing it, consider digitizing a selection. If you have a nice collection like that, you probably know a thing or two about which parts are the good stuff. This should enable you to contribute lots of valuable things to the world without having to go through thousands of pages.
Indeed, one isn't reminded often enough that Christopher Walken is, in fact, übermensch.
If this is good design, then I do *not* want to see bad.
They seem to be thinking ahead, almost like it was their job or something. : )
I'm not completely following you anymore here. I apparently haven't read your posts as thoroughly as I should have. I'll just concede this point in order to make another.
No problems? I went through all my posts in this discussion to check this, and saw what I expected: I mentioned downsides of nuclear in every post, often using the word 'nasty'. At no point have I said that nuclear is problem-free, only expressed my belief that the problems of coal are greater (the only mention of other energy sources I have made is that they don't provice enough energy, meaning I've essentially ignored them for good or bad).
I admitted I didn't read your posts thoroughly enough. I hope you do the same in return.
Please mod the parent up, since he actually knows what the word 'racism' means.
I see no way for 40 000 people to die from uranium every year, even under the worst conditions. Also: Remember the radon scare? Now just imagine going to work every day where there is a lot of radon present and your boss doesn't give you an air-tank to avoid it. That's not the fault of uranium, nor is it the fault of nuclear power. It is the fault of the boss who should be punished. He's clearly at the same level as the "village elders" in the BBC article I linked who conveniently don't live in their polluted home. Even with air tanks there's still room for improvement: uranium is so valuable that mechanized mining is very viable - the costs of nuclear are in personnel and safety anyway, not in the fuel.
To sum up: nuclear has some nasty side-effects, as you showed clearly. They pale in comparison to the effects of the current coal use though, which was and still is my point.