First, I don't think that the general employee base at NASA is any intelligent than at any other large government organization.
Second, I work at an organization that has many very smart people - from very bright grad students to PhD's at the top of their field. And they are the ones that need the most hand holding when it comes to IT.
Of course, the level of support required will also depend on the type and scale of your organization's IT infrastructure. In addition, Google and Bing simply won't help if you're dealing with vendors who don't have a large installed base or online documentation.
What I'm trying to say is that NASA is such a unique environment, they shouldn't be suggesting that what works for them will work for the rest of the world.
Think of the type of people who work at NASA. Now think of the type of people who work around you.
Realize that NASA's people are somewhere between slightly more intelligent then the people you work with, to massively more intelligent then the people you work with. Realize that NASA's people are probably smarter then most of the people reading this comment. Realize what works in NASA's environment likely won't work in the vast majority of the world, not to mention America.
Typically, when one claims "It's the end of..." or "It's the death of..." they're insinuating that the product in question is going to kill the art or high-class renditions of, in this case, photography. Either that or it's the end of the "proper" way of doing things.Snapshots, while being the most taken type of photograph, are not either high-class or art in the photographic vernacular.
Good photography is still the same, even with this unblur tool that *may* come out in a future version of photoshop. A lousy sharp photo is still a lousy photo. The best tools in the world don't make a photographer great. As the saying goes "It's the Indian, not the arrow".
The Lumix has an f2.8 lens, not bad but still a touch slow. Hopefully the Pentax has faster glass. You can usually get around with an f2.2 or f2.0 lens indoors, unless you've got low lighting as well. Investing in the Lumapro LP160 Flash would do your pictures a world of good. Doesn't even need to be mounted to the camera, it'll fire off of your pop-up flash.
Although, a word of caution: Do some research about your camera's hotshoe and the flash, and the voltages involved. It's not a concern unless you mount the flash on the hotshoe though, and freehanding a flash tends to get better results anyway.
That would allow you shutter speeds that would freeze even the fastest children.
You clearly don't have enough experience in trying to capture good shots of busy children;)
I actually get paid for capturing good shots of busy children =D. The only thing more important then having the right equipment, is knowing how to use it, and my nephew's boundless energy allows me many opportunities to practice. The only piece of equipment that you would need besides a camera as described before (doesn't have to be that EXACT camera) is a flash unit for overcoming low lighting. The strobist blog has a lighting 101 tutorial that hits all the bases on "off camera flash", and you could even get a camera that doesn't have a hot-shoe as long as the flash is capable of reacting to the flash of the camera, like the Lumapro LP160, which I use when shooting indoors.
I suspect similar software's already in use at Ft. Meade and Langley.
I certainly hope not.
This will make things LOOK pretty. It won't make missing data suddenly appear. At best it will make something ugly LOOK a little better. But that's just a computer-generated illusion, not a reflection of reality.
So what you're saying is Apple isn't the only company with a reality distortion field?
I hereby challenge them. Their software versus my fast moving kids who often show up in photos as blurs. I think kids have built in sensors to let them know precisely when a camera is going off, thus enabling them to move at the exact moment to blur and/or ruin the photo.
Or... you could just buy a camera with a wide aperture and fantastic noise reduction at high ISO. That would allow you shutter speeds that would freeze even the fastest children. I guarantee the camera will be cheaper then Photoshop.
Case in point: Canon's G12 is at least $100 USD cheaper then Photoshop.
no, it's not just about getting an unblurry image. But to get one you have to know a little how to get such picture. thats why pictures which are not digitally processed with Photoshop (or Gimp, whatever) are the best. Thats my opinion, maybe yours different because you shot many blurred photos, then yeah.. why not. Have fun.
Spoken like one who takes a few shots here and there, and declares himself a photographer, capable of determining what is best for the entire field. A person who makes such sweeping comments about a field as diverse as photography, is at best ignorant.
You'll also find that most professional photographers (as in, it's their profession and they get paid to do it) agree that there is a level of processing that is acceptable in photoshop, even for newsprint where the standard is very high. Writing off Photoshop entirely is like a carpenter who refuses to use a nailgun because "real men drive nails in with a hammer".
I'm looking to increase my backup times to an external USB3 drive. My PC only supports USB2, but I'm looking to drop in a card to support USB3. Last I checked, all the on-board USB controllers on new motherboards are still somewhat dicey (crap). Does anyone here have a good recommendation as to what USB3 controller based card I should get (2 to 4 port is ok)? The goal is for direct drop-in (no fancy drivers) for Server 2008 and Win7, and the least hardware bug prone. Cost is not an issue.
Why are you looking to increase your backup times?
You're probably aware of this but your retelling of the story makes it sound like the seismologists were directly involved, while apparently only one of them was even at the press conference, which was held before the scientific meeting.
It sounds to me like a pretty clear-cut case against De Bernardinis, but as I read it the seismologists were unwitting (and unwilling) accomplices.
FTFA:
The press conference and interviews, prosecutors argue, carried special weight because they were the only public comments to emerge immediately after the meeting.
There were comments made before AND after the meeting. As well, I did not intend to "make it sound like the seismologists were directly involved", but the meeting strayed from the norm in many ways. The prosecutors would be negligent if they were to ignore this. My retelling intended to show why there was good reason for suspicion. At the very least, the scientist at the press conference could have spoken out, but he did not.
I know almost nothing about Italian law, but you might need to show that such warnings would have saved lives, but rather that such warnings could have saved lives. If the seismologists had a legal duty to care in issuing the warnings, and failed to do so. I could see some culpability for that.
The case isn't about a missed warning that could have saved lives, it's about the commission issuing a statement of "no danger" that cost lives. From TFA:
Maurizio Cora... told prosecutors that after the 30 March shock, he and his family retreated to the grounds of L'Aquila's sixteenth-century castle; after the 11 p.m. foreshock on 5 April, he said his family "rationally" discussed the situation and, recalling the reassurances of government officials that the tremors would not exceed those already experienced, decided to remain at home, "changing our usual habit of leaving the house when we felt a shock". Cora's wife and two daughters died when their house collapsed.
The scientists and those who delivered the press conference are pointing fingers at each other, and in the meantime people are dead. It would seem the Italian perspective is "throw the whole lot on trial, and let the court figure it out".
What is interesting is that the seismologists on trial appear to have called a special open session to basically discredit Giuliani (a laboratory tech) and calm the public. There wasn't a hesitation to report an impending earthquake, there was a statement of "many small tremors = no big earthquake = nothing to worry about" followed by an urging to go drink some wine. This caused many to ignore their routine (if a small tremor happens, the family sleeps outside or in a car). The break from routine (prompted by the statement of safety) cost many their families and/or lives as they slept inside "medieval" buildings that were not "anti-seismic".
There appears to be quite a bit of he said/she said between the scientists and those who took part in the press conference, and it's notable that the "commission did not issue its usual formal statement, and the minutes of the meeting were not even prepared, says Boschi, until after the earthquake had occurred."
Either way it's a real mess and many people died, and if the Nature article is correct, the press conference led people to believe it was safe when it was not. This caused more people to die then if a statement hadn't been issued. It's a difficult situation, and I wouldn't want to be the magistrate overseeing this.
The unfortunate facts are that self defense is only warranted when fleeing is unlikely. If your son retaliated when he had the ability to retreat, the self defense plea doesn't hold ground. This even goes for serious acts of violence.
Funny, when I was in school, the general guidance from parents and school staff was "They can't chase you if you don't run". It is a total 180, and in so many years it will flip-flop again...
I do wish they would stop changing the streaming / not streaming status of movies, however. It's frustrating when a movie that has been out for ten years, and was streamable last week, suddenly is not streamable. Can't say I understand the reasoning behind that, other than that their licensing just makes no damn sense.
Netflix has to deal with the movie studios and big content. Since when has anything they've done made sense?
Let's dissect this:
I haven't seen any news about a sudden hike in the cost of mail in the U.S. Yes, it's gone up over the last 20 years, but not since Netflix's last price increase about 7 months ago.
Netflix is the postal service's life support. Without Netflix, the USPS isn't financially viable because so much written communication now takes place online, so the USPS is going to do whatever it takes to ensure Netflix doesn't send fewer DVDs through the mail.
Pure conjecture.
I consider this part of the argument debunked -- the cost of mailing DVDs did not force this price increase.
Congratulations, you can pat yourself on the back AND be wrong at the same time. You should run for office!
Netflix has progressively tried to steer customers away from the mail service, presumably because they don't have to maintain distribution centers around the country to stream videos, and they're worried someone else will beat them to the on-demand streaming party first.
This has no merit unless the first half of your argument was true. Oops!
They want to own that party before the space gets crowded, and the easiest way for them to do that is to "convert" their huge base of snail mail customers to streaming. They started out by bundling it for free with your subscription, then offering it by itself, then disabling the ability to manage your DVD queue through the Netflix mobile apps...
The problem is that their streaming library is a fraction of the size of their DVD library. To fill in the gaps, they have to go back to the content owners and negotiate fees, and the content owners smell an opportunity to make a lot of money. Rather than use its size to convince the content owners that receiving a reasonable licensing fee for the content is better than receiving nothing at all and being left out, Netflix has decided it wants the content even if it has to overpay for it... Because it will just pass on the cost of its decision to the users. I'm sure someone at some high level meeting said, "wait, what if our customers realize this and flee?" and that's why they're providing the option to opt out of streaming altogether now. The customers who don't want to pay the increase can just opt out of streaming. The customers who are willing to pay the price for streaming will pad the pockets of the content owners.
You must have insider information to make all these statements. You know how much Netflix pays for each license? You know how much they *should* pay?
You also presume that Netflix has the size to stand up to the content managers. Without content, Netflix is nothing. Without Netflix, content managers will take their money from Amazon, Blockbuster, and the Cable Companies. You really think Netflix can just say no and "big content" will come whimpering back at a low price? If Netflix started dropping streaming content stating "we are sticking up for the customers", how long do you really think people would stick around for?
How do you think they're going to get licensing for more movies (especially new releases) without raising more money to pay increased licensing fees?
By paying license fees per view, and not per program. If netflix expands their selection, I'm not watching any more than I ever did. What sense does it make for me to pay more to have access to programs I don't watch?
This theory really falls apart under scrutiny. Charging on a "per view" basis would open Netflix up to all measures of financial uncertainty, and would likely bankrupt them in short order. In order for Netflix to license on a "per view" basis, they would have to have to alter their plans to charge per view to counter the license fees. Imagine the uproar they would get over that.
Continuing on, if Netflix expands their selection, you're not watching any *more* then you ever did, you're simply watching the new stuff that they expanded their streaming catalog to include. The same as you have been as long as you've been a Netflix customer.
Discussing the price hike on streaming is really a moot point anyway, as Netflix's streaming only plan didn't change in price, they changed the price for DVDs by mail.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I don't think that the general employee base at NASA is any intelligent than at any other large government organization.
Second, I work at an organization that has many very smart people - from very bright grad students to PhD's at the top of their field. And they are the ones that need the most hand holding when it comes to IT.
Of course, the level of support required will also depend on the type and scale of your organization's IT infrastructure. In addition, Google and Bing simply won't help if you're dealing with vendors who don't have a large installed base or online documentation.
What I'm trying to say is that NASA is such a unique environment, they shouldn't be suggesting that what works for them will work for the rest of the world.
Think of the type of people who work at NASA. Now think of the type of people who work around you.
Realize that NASA's people are somewhere between slightly more intelligent then the people you work with, to massively more intelligent then the people you work with. Realize that NASA's people are probably smarter then most of the people reading this comment.
Realize what works in NASA's environment likely won't work in the vast majority of the world, not to mention America.
Typically, when one claims "It's the end of ..." or "It's the death of ..." they're insinuating that the product in question is going to kill the art or high-class renditions of, in this case, photography. Either that or it's the end of the "proper" way of doing things.Snapshots, while being the most taken type of photograph, are not either high-class or art in the photographic vernacular.
Good photography is still the same, even with this unblur tool that *may* come out in a future version of photoshop. A lousy sharp photo is still a lousy photo. The best tools in the world don't make a photographer great. As the saying goes "It's the Indian, not the arrow".
The Lumix has an f2.8 lens, not bad but still a touch slow. Hopefully the Pentax has faster glass. You can usually get around with an f2.2 or f2.0 lens indoors, unless you've got low lighting as well. Investing in the Lumapro LP160 Flash would do your pictures a world of good. Doesn't even need to be mounted to the camera, it'll fire off of your pop-up flash.
Although, a word of caution: Do some research about your camera's hotshoe and the flash, and the voltages involved. It's not a concern unless you mount the flash on the hotshoe though, and freehanding a flash tends to get better results anyway.
...this presents no opportunities for abuse.
Uh, no. "Real men" simply buy an Estwing.
Real Men don't use hammers, they push the tree over and simply stack the logs until the cabin is done.
That would allow you shutter speeds that would freeze even the fastest children.
You clearly don't have enough experience in trying to capture good shots of busy children ;)
I actually get paid for capturing good shots of busy children =D. The only thing more important then having the right equipment, is knowing how to use it, and my nephew's boundless energy allows me many opportunities to practice. The only piece of equipment that you would need besides a camera as described before (doesn't have to be that EXACT camera) is a flash unit for overcoming low lighting. The strobist blog has a lighting 101 tutorial that hits all the bases on "off camera flash", and you could even get a camera that doesn't have a hot-shoe as long as the flash is capable of reacting to the flash of the camera, like the Lumapro LP160, which I use when shooting indoors.
Check my photostream for proof.
At best it will make something ugly LOOK a little better.
Or in the case of cosmetics ads, make something that looks good look a little uglier.
Remember, Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I suspect similar software's already in use at Ft. Meade and Langley.
I certainly hope not.
This will make things LOOK pretty. It won't make missing data suddenly appear. At best it will make something ugly LOOK a little better. But that's just a computer-generated illusion, not a reflection of reality.
So what you're saying is Apple isn't the only company with a reality distortion field?
I hereby challenge them. Their software versus my fast moving kids who often show up in photos as blurs. I think kids have built in sensors to let them know precisely when a camera is going off, thus enabling them to move at the exact moment to blur and/or ruin the photo.
Or... you could just buy a camera with a wide aperture and fantastic noise reduction at high ISO. That would allow you shutter speeds that would freeze even the fastest children. I guarantee the camera will be cheaper then Photoshop.
Case in point: Canon's G12 is at least $100 USD cheaper then Photoshop.
no, it's not just about getting an unblurry image. But to get one you have to know a little how to get such picture. thats why pictures which are not digitally processed with Photoshop (or Gimp, whatever) are the best. Thats my opinion, maybe yours different because you shot many blurred photos, then yeah.. why not. Have fun.
Spoken like one who takes a few shots here and there, and declares himself a photographer, capable of determining what is best for the entire field. A person who makes such sweeping comments about a field as diverse as photography, is at best ignorant.
You'll also find that most professional photographers (as in, it's their profession and they get paid to do it) agree that there is a level of processing that is acceptable in photoshop, even for newsprint where the standard is very high. Writing off Photoshop entirely is like a carpenter who refuses to use a nailgun because "real men drive nails in with a hammer".
simply the end of photography. bleh.
If you think photography is simply about getting an un-blurry image, you know nothing of photography.
I'm looking to increase my backup times to an external USB3 drive. My PC only supports USB2, but I'm looking to drop in a card to support USB3. Last I checked, all the on-board USB controllers on new motherboards are still somewhat dicey (crap). Does anyone here have a good recommendation as to what USB3 controller based card I should get (2 to 4 port is ok)? The goal is for direct drop-in (no fancy drivers) for Server 2008 and Win7, and the least hardware bug prone. Cost is not an issue.
Why are you looking to increase your backup times?
You're probably aware of this but your retelling of the story makes it sound like the seismologists were directly involved, while apparently only one of them was even at the press conference, which was held before the scientific meeting.
It sounds to me like a pretty clear-cut case against De Bernardinis, but as I read it the seismologists were unwitting (and unwilling) accomplices.
FTFA:
The press conference and interviews, prosecutors argue, carried special weight because they were the only public comments to emerge immediately after the meeting.
There were comments made before AND after the meeting. As well, I did not intend to "make it sound like the seismologists were directly involved", but the meeting strayed from the norm in many ways. The prosecutors would be negligent if they were to ignore this. My retelling intended to show why there was good reason for suspicion. At the very least, the scientist at the press conference could have spoken out, but he did not.
It's not like Wal-Mart sends ninjas to burn down the local stores and kill the owners when they build a new superstore.
Of course they dont. Pirates are MUCH cheaper...
and provide 20 to 30 percent of each facility’s total electric needs.
The remainder of the store, as usual is powered by crushing up the hopes and dreams of it's employees and competitors.
The program was actually launched a while ago, for some reason websites felt the need to revisit it.
Perhaps because the program was launched only in certain areas? Perhaps because this is the "Nationwide" launch for those outside the pilot areas?
I know almost nothing about Italian law, but you might need to show that such warnings would have saved lives, but rather that such warnings could have saved lives. If the seismologists had a legal duty to care in issuing the warnings, and failed to do so. I could see some culpability for that.
The case isn't about a missed warning that could have saved lives, it's about the commission issuing a statement of "no danger" that cost lives. From TFA:
Maurizio Cora ... told prosecutors that after the 30 March shock, he and his family retreated to the grounds of L'Aquila's sixteenth-century castle; after the 11 p.m. foreshock on 5 April, he said his family "rationally" discussed the situation and, recalling the reassurances of government officials that the tremors would not exceed those already experienced, decided to remain at home, "changing our usual habit of leaving the house when we felt a shock". Cora's wife and two daughters died when their house collapsed.
The scientists and those who delivered the press conference are pointing fingers at each other, and in the meantime people are dead. It would seem the Italian perspective is "throw the whole lot on trial, and let the court figure it out".
When one seismologist is accused of being alarmist by the Director of the Civil Defense, forced to remove his findings from the Internet, and reported to police for "causing fear" when he predicts an earthquake, is it no wonder why other seismologists would hesitate to report an impending earthquake?
What is interesting is that the seismologists on trial appear to have called a special open session to basically discredit Giuliani (a laboratory tech) and calm the public. There wasn't a hesitation to report an impending earthquake, there was a statement of "many small tremors = no big earthquake = nothing to worry about" followed by an urging to go drink some wine. This caused many to ignore their routine (if a small tremor happens, the family sleeps outside or in a car). The break from routine (prompted by the statement of safety) cost many their families and/or lives as they slept inside "medieval" buildings that were not "anti-seismic".
There appears to be quite a bit of he said/she said between the scientists and those who took part in the press conference, and it's notable that the "commission did not issue its usual formal statement, and the minutes of the meeting were not even prepared, says Boschi, until after the earthquake had occurred."
Either way it's a real mess and many people died, and if the Nature article is correct, the press conference led people to believe it was safe when it was not. This caused more people to die then if a statement hadn't been issued. It's a difficult situation, and I wouldn't want to be the magistrate overseeing this.
The unfortunate facts are that self defense is only warranted when fleeing is unlikely. If your son retaliated when he had the ability to retreat, the self defense plea doesn't hold ground. This even goes for serious acts of violence.
Funny, when I was in school, the general guidance from parents and school staff was "They can't chase you if you don't run". It is a total 180, and in so many years it will flip-flop again...
HP has a software business? Besides bloatware on a new HP PC?
Seriously, name 5 software titles HP makes that a random computer user might know.
How does what a random computer user might know equal a "software business"?
Just as well, judging by the latest HP laptop I've seen, they weren't very good at it.
As a proud Envy owner, I respectfully submit how wrong (and envious) you are.
I do wish they would stop changing the streaming / not streaming status of movies, however. It's frustrating when a movie that has been out for ten years, and was streamable last week, suddenly is not streamable. Can't say I understand the reasoning behind that, other than that their licensing just makes no damn sense.
Netflix has to deal with the movie studios and big content. Since when has anything they've done made sense?
Let's dissect this:
I haven't seen any news about a sudden hike in the cost of mail in the U.S. Yes, it's gone up over the last 20 years, but not since Netflix's last price increase about 7 months ago.
You haven't seen, or you haven't looked?
Netflix is the postal service's life support. Without Netflix, the USPS isn't financially viable because so much written communication now takes place online, so the USPS is going to do whatever it takes to ensure Netflix doesn't send fewer DVDs through the mail.
Pure conjecture.
I consider this part of the argument debunked -- the cost of mailing DVDs did not force this price increase.
Congratulations, you can pat yourself on the back AND be wrong at the same time. You should run for office!
Netflix has progressively tried to steer customers away from the mail service, presumably because they don't have to maintain distribution centers around the country to stream videos, and they're worried someone else will beat them to the on-demand streaming party first.
This has no merit unless the first half of your argument was true. Oops!
They want to own that party before the space gets crowded, and the easiest way for them to do that is to "convert" their huge base of snail mail customers to streaming. They started out by bundling it for free with your subscription, then offering it by itself, then disabling the ability to manage your DVD queue through the Netflix mobile apps...
The problem is that their streaming library is a fraction of the size of their DVD library. To fill in the gaps, they have to go back to the content owners and negotiate fees, and the content owners smell an opportunity to make a lot of money. Rather than use its size to convince the content owners that receiving a reasonable licensing fee for the content is better than receiving nothing at all and being left out, Netflix has decided it wants the content even if it has to overpay for it... Because it will just pass on the cost of its decision to the users. I'm sure someone at some high level meeting said, "wait, what if our customers realize this and flee?" and that's why they're providing the option to opt out of streaming altogether now. The customers who don't want to pay the increase can just opt out of streaming. The customers who are willing to pay the price for streaming will pad the pockets of the content owners.
You must have insider information to make all these statements. You know how much Netflix pays for each license? You know how much they *should* pay?
You also presume that Netflix has the size to stand up to the content managers. Without content, Netflix is nothing. Without Netflix, content managers will take their money from Amazon, Blockbuster, and the Cable Companies. You really think Netflix can just say no and "big content" will come whimpering back at a low price? If Netflix started dropping streaming content stating "we are sticking up for the customers", how long do you really think people would stick around for?
How do you think they're going to get licensing for more movies (especially new releases) without raising more money to pay increased licensing fees?
By paying license fees per view, and not per program. If netflix expands their selection, I'm not watching any more than I ever did. What sense does it make for me to pay more to have access to programs I don't watch?
This theory really falls apart under scrutiny. Charging on a "per view" basis would open Netflix up to all measures of financial uncertainty, and would likely bankrupt them in short order. In order for Netflix to license on a "per view" basis, they would have to have to alter their plans to charge per view to counter the license fees. Imagine the uproar they would get over that.
Continuing on, if Netflix expands their selection, you're not watching any *more* then you ever did, you're simply watching the new stuff that they expanded their streaming catalog to include. The same as you have been as long as you've been a Netflix customer.
Discussing the price hike on streaming is really a moot point anyway, as Netflix's streaming only plan didn't change in price, they changed the price for DVDs by mail.