My hope is by using Silverlight (or Flash), I can send a message to the W3C and friends to get their damn act together and make my life easier. It seems the W3C guys think we developers want yet another pile of semantic tags (like anybody uses the existing ones...). They'd be better severed by generously ripping off XAML and adding useful things like stylesheets. HTML should be more layout oriented, not "semantic" oriented.
Semantic languages work fine for a describing the contents of a book (or creating a PDF file), but are horrible for the web. With books or PDF files you can semanticly describe your content and since you know exactly what device you are targeting, you can make a stylesheet that looks good for that device. With the web, you have no clue what your output device is, so you need a very robust language for layout to make sure things arrange themselves properly.
Bottom line is Silverlight and Flash both make it easy to control the layout and functionality of your application. HTML + Javascript + CSS can do the same thing, yeah, but only in a very brittle non-robust way (though jQuery helps a lot).
Point to a good mutli-file uploader that supports a mod_perl2 backend, not either PHP or ASP.NET? Make sure the said uploaded can be customized to make it easy to send meta-data along with the file upload. Make sure it is free and doesn't suck too.
Like the parent, I too was able to crank out a (rather ghetto) multi-file uploader that bolted right into the same backend hooks as the original form based one. In fact, the upload widget was my first dive into Silverlight because honestly, that is where improving things can yeild major returns in user-experience.
Those who can't support Silverlight can use the old form based one. Those can don't have it but whose platform can handle it will get a cute "hey man, install Silverlight2 and enjoy the sweetness" message they can choose to ignore.
Dont knock Silverlight. It makes it pretty damn simple to kick out widgets that can vastly improve the user experience for a good swath of your userbase. Life is great as you make sure that non-Silverlight visitors can do the same thing, even if it isn't as easy.
But understand that they are probably using Silverlight because one or more of the following:
a) Their staff was familiar with C#/WPF and not Flash b) They could have had licenses for all that Windows Streaming stuff. c) The tech guys handling the streaming stuff knew the Microsoft stuff, not the Adobe stuff. d) Something else.
Bottom line is follow the money. For whatever reason it was cheaper to use a Microsoft stack over an Adobe stack. My hunch is most of their visitors can install Silverlight. I would imagine they didn't take the decision to go Silverlight lightly either.
free ideals
Oh goodie! A flamewar is what you want, isn't it!? I'll toss in a log:
Silverlight is a free download for end-users. Oh wait, you mean RMS "Free as in Freedom". Sorry, that won't happen. If it did, it wouldn't be an RMS approved deal either.
I'm glad the administration isn't trying to favor something like GPL. GPL is a very political, ideological license . If the government ever releases stuff under the common definition of open-source, I'd prefer it to be either BSD licensed, or under a homebrew GPL-like license.
There is a reason companies create their own GPL-like license--they like the concept, but dont want to be associated with "the movement". Does it create confusion? You bet. But it is because companies, for whatever reasons, wish to not be perceived as being associated with the FSF/RMS/"Free Software(tm)" movement.
PS: I wouldn't be surprised to see them releasing documents under some Creative Commons license. I have nothing to back this up, just a hunch.
I respect your choice, but since the 95% of my traffic has a OS/Browser that can install Silverlight, I'll use Silverlight over Flash whenever possible. Why? I already own Visual Studio and I've invested a lot of time and energy to learn.NET and WPF. My bet is that this holds true for a lot of shops--it is easier to find programmers who can speak.NET/C# then can speak ActionScript.
That doesn't mean I wont try to degrade nicely for you. Just don't expect the wiz-bang, more usable stuff to work:-)
Silverlight 2 is nothing like Silverlight 1. I dont even know what Silverlight 1 was, but I gather it wasn't much. Silverlight 2 is basically a stripped down, altered version of.NET 3.5. You can actually make useful things in Silverlight 2. Best, if you already know and use.NET and especially WPF, you can start building Silverlight 2 stuff almost right away. Even better, it is pretty trivial to hook into your existing AJAX layer--you can pretty much call the same server-side goo as your old, brittle javascript code.
Speaking of Moonlight, I've just looked over the website you linked to. I can't seem to find anything about compatibility with Silverlight. For example, will Moonlight be "plug and play" and not require our Silverlight detection javascript to know anything about it? A lot of people, including myself, use Microsoft provided javascript to detect if you are even able to install Silverlight on your platform. I wonder how Moonlight will factor into that?
But seriously, don't discount Silverlight 2. It is one of the cooler technologies Microsoft is pushing these days. Sorry it doesn't run on your platform of choice, but they had to release something. Hopefully they will support more platforms in future releases (I'm looking at you X-Box and whateverPhone).
That choice was made using philosophy, which is what underpins science.
This statement: "regardless of whether there's any Universal Truth or Falsehood to general relativity" is a philosophical statement. The fact that you believe there is no universal truth is a philosophical statement. In fact, pretty much your entire post asks all kinds of deep, very important philosophical questions.
The only reason for Big Box is to give you an illusion of savings and some kind of "comfort" (i.e. you don't have to venture into scary new shops). Big Box stores are almost always big in size but incredibly weak in depth and selection. I have no idea how the "Mom & Pop" store manage to give much better service, a broader range of products and are located in much smaller stores.
To diverge, I dont see how this shakeout of electronics retailers would ever pan out to Target or something. Target is "Big Box" and there isn't really anything "Mom & Pop" that competes (at least in our area).
I'm not worried about them, I just think it reflects on their corporate culture. I wouldn't rely on them for specific models of anything though. They are good for "I need a new hard drive and I dont really care about the specs"
Looks like crap. Shelves are in a state of chaos. Sales staff chewing yelling at each other in the isle next to you. Even though it is huge and in theory should stock lots of niche items, most of the niche stuff is out of stock.
That said, if you need something quick and it isn't highly specific, Fry's is a good bet. If you need something *exact*, Newegg can't be beat.
The only reason I can think of for going to Best Buy or Circuit Shitty was for something heavy like a TV or Stereo. But even then, the Seattle area has a local vendor that is way better.
Because it is a historic moment in our time. That might be, oh, a *small* part of it, you think?
Back when I was in high school, they stopped classes to show the OJ verdict live on every TV in the school. I'd say in terms of importance, this is a bit more important and historic.
CPAN has feeds in Windows Media and Real. Dunno how this maps to anything or how you can suck down either feed and "rebroadcast it" over your network. My guess is both Microsoft and Real have some gadget that would support this.
1) Buy a USB capture card that has known drivers for whatever windows server version is in use 2) Assume Windows Media Services can use this capture card and stream it to windows clients on your network. 3) ??? 4) ???
My other thought would be to use like MythTV and then use it's streaming stuff. I'm pretty sure they have a web based client.
This is actually a pretty tricky question to be honest. Especially considering you have less than a week to set it up and test it!
Personally, I doubt you are going to be able to take a stream from the internet and "rebroadcast" it over your network. The only thing that would get you half way is CSPAN, who offers a stream using windows media player or real player. I somehow doubt you'll be able to stream from the big-boys like MSNBC, CNN or (shudder) FOX.
My hunch is you will be more happy with a capture card and streaming that.
Either way, this is a pretty large project. Good luck.
Tiff works too. As long as whatever format you use for archival purposes isn't taking any information away. For any quality camera and any picture shot as "RAW", a JPEG is taking a hell of a lot of information away. Ditto with PNG. TIFF works fine, as does PSD (though TIFF is more standard).
And if you think that we're somehow going to forget how to decode TIFFs any time soon, you're fooling yourself.
Great point! You just made a good case against my suggestion archiving using the RAW. Will something be around to decode whatever "RAW" means for your camera in 20 years?
Once I get a camera that has RAW, without your comment, I'd probably archive with RAW. Now I'll TIFF those bitches instead. Thanks for the tip!
What you seek isn't "not a lot of features" but "has a good UI". You can have a lot of features as long as the UI doesn't suck. Pedantic? Yes. But a lot of software nerds seem to equate "More Features" = "Harder to Use".
And on good cameras, most of the features are actually useful and not bullshit (i.e. "change the sound of the shutter to Bird Chirp" or "add a frame to the picture"). The features you want are the ability to fuck with the white balance, ISO speed, auto-focus mode, self-timer length, bracketing, etc. The reason you are having such a hard time is because there is actually a lot of knobs that are really useful to turn. The better the camera, the more the camera lets you override. And to learn photography, you want to turn off the auto-anything and do it yourself. You gotta have a menu to do that:-)
At least on my old digital, while I can stretch the shutter to 15 seconds, there is a *lot* of noise from the CCD. My guess is this has improved somewhat in new stuff, but I doubt you'll be able to hold the shutter open on all but the most expensive dSLR's for more then 30 seconds.
Because the digital sensor does not experience reciprocity failure, exposure lengths are considerably shorter than with film; always under 4 minutes at f5.6. Just as well, because this camera's sensor overheats and suffers from unacceptable noise at about 5 minutes.
None of that is archival until it stores the RAW data from the camera. 8-bit color isn't archival when your camera is 14-bit (like the Mark II).
But now I'm being a pedant. Still, neither JPEG nor PNG is a good format to store anything but quick copies for email and web. Always store the RAW, copy it and work from a copy.
Also, neither Picassa or iPhoto does more than 8-bit color.
You can fake those auto-focus modes in even cheap cameras. As long as you know what auto-focus is trying to do, give this a shot:
0) I think even the cheapest models have a "focus on the center" mode--you might want to use that. If it doesn't, that is okay. 1) Get the camera to auto-focus on what you want by pressing the shutter button down half-way. 2) Keep holding the button down (but dont press it all the way so it takes a shot). Holding it down will lock the focus, apature and shutter. 3) Slightly move the camera side to side until you compose your shot. Moving forward or back from the subject will probably blur it. 4) Take the shot. 5) ??? 6) Profit.
Obviously this method isn't perfect and depends on a lot of things like your distance to the subject. But if you know your camera, you can usually use this technique to fake the different auto-focus modes in higher end cameras. For those who haven't played with higher end stuff, they will usually let you specify exactly what position in the scene the camera should try to auto-focus on. My camera, for example, shows a square bracket that I can move around on the screen to tell it where to focus.
Dont forget they'll have shutter priority too so you can at least blur the waves or take decent night shots.
I think you and dittobox are confusing what "P&S" mean. When I think of "Point and Shoot", I'm thinking of basically the ones that are shaped like square boxes. You can get mid-level cameras that have quite a bit of the functionality of a real SLR--manual focus, full control over your shutter/apature, probably even RAW modes. I wouldn't call these models point & shoot, but they aren't SLR's either.
What you won't see on anything without an interchangeable lens is quality optics. Good optics make a huge difference in your final result--giving it a level of crispness and focus that just can't be had in the cheaper stuff.
That said, if you've never touched anything besides your camera phone, you'd be pissing a way good money buying a real SLR. Better to get a cheaper camera with at least the ability to manually set your shutter and aperture and learn on that. Eventually you'll either abandon the hobby or hopefully enjoy it so much you get pissed at the limitations of what you bought. It is no different then anything else, really--would you buy the most expensive snowboard and best gear if you've never gone snowboarding? Would you buy custom golf clubs if you've never played? Same deal.
1) Get a tripod and use it, even if you dont think you need to! Even the cheapest POS camera can take okay stuff if you have a tripod. 2) For got your tripod? Use a rock, a stick, a mailbox. Use something besides your body to stabilize your camera. 3) *Learn The Rule of Thirds*!! Most. Important. Thing. Ever. 4) Visualize what the picture will look like before you take it. Move yourself and your camera until you like what will show up in the final result. 5) Move! Get that damn kid out of the way. Move until an annoying shadow is out of your shot. Look out for that wire that will show up in the middle of the mountain shot. This is #4 restated. Think about what you compose. 6) Dont use Photoshop. At least until you take good stuff without using it.
A good camera isn't important. Knowing how to compose a shot is the most important.
They don't even seem to care which way the vote goes.
That is because they already know who is voting for what. For the most part, the vote is just making things formal. All the wheeling and dealing goes on before.
Slashdot Mirror
My hope is by using Silverlight (or Flash), I can send a message to the W3C and friends to get their damn act together and make my life easier. It seems the W3C guys think we developers want yet another pile of semantic tags (like anybody uses the existing ones...). They'd be better severed by generously ripping off XAML and adding useful things like stylesheets. HTML should be more layout oriented, not "semantic" oriented.
Semantic languages work fine for a describing the contents of a book (or creating a PDF file), but are horrible for the web. With books or PDF files you can semanticly describe your content and since you know exactly what device you are targeting, you can make a stylesheet that looks good for that device. With the web, you have no clue what your output device is, so you need a very robust language for layout to make sure things arrange themselves properly.
Bottom line is Silverlight and Flash both make it easy to control the layout and functionality of your application. HTML + Javascript + CSS can do the same thing, yeah, but only in a very brittle non-robust way (though jQuery helps a lot).
Point to a good mutli-file uploader that supports a mod_perl2 backend, not either PHP or ASP.NET? Make sure the said uploaded can be customized to make it easy to send meta-data along with the file upload. Make sure it is free and doesn't suck too.
Like the parent, I too was able to crank out a (rather ghetto) multi-file uploader that bolted right into the same backend hooks as the original form based one. In fact, the upload widget was my first dive into Silverlight because honestly, that is where improving things can yeild major returns in user-experience.
Those who can't support Silverlight can use the old form based one. Those can don't have it but whose platform can handle it will get a cute "hey man, install Silverlight2 and enjoy the sweetness" message they can choose to ignore.
Dont knock Silverlight. It makes it pretty damn simple to kick out widgets that can vastly improve the user experience for a good swath of your userbase. Life is great as you make sure that non-Silverlight visitors can do the same thing, even if it isn't as easy.
But understand that they are probably using Silverlight because one or more of the following:
a) Their staff was familiar with C#/WPF and not Flash
b) They could have had licenses for all that Windows Streaming stuff.
c) The tech guys handling the streaming stuff knew the Microsoft stuff, not the Adobe stuff.
d) Something else.
Bottom line is follow the money. For whatever reason it was cheaper to use a Microsoft stack over an Adobe stack. My hunch is most of their visitors can install Silverlight. I would imagine they didn't take the decision to go Silverlight lightly either.
Oh goodie! A flamewar is what you want, isn't it!? I'll toss in a log:
Silverlight is a free download for end-users. Oh wait, you mean RMS "Free as in Freedom". Sorry, that won't happen. If it did, it wouldn't be an RMS approved deal either.
I'm glad the administration isn't trying to favor something like GPL. GPL is a very political, ideological license . If the government ever releases stuff under the common definition of open-source, I'd prefer it to be either BSD licensed, or under a homebrew GPL-like license.
There is a reason companies create their own GPL-like license--they like the concept, but dont want to be associated with "the movement". Does it create confusion? You bet. But it is because companies, for whatever reasons, wish to not be perceived as being associated with the FSF/RMS/"Free Software(tm)" movement.
PS: I wouldn't be surprised to see them releasing documents under some Creative Commons license. I have nothing to back this up, just a hunch.
I respect your choice, but since the 95% of my traffic has a OS/Browser that can install Silverlight, I'll use Silverlight over Flash whenever possible. Why? I already own Visual Studio and I've invested a lot of time and energy to learn .NET and WPF. My bet is that this holds true for a lot of shops--it is easier to find programmers who can speak .NET/C# then can speak ActionScript.
That doesn't mean I wont try to degrade nicely for you. Just don't expect the wiz-bang, more usable stuff to work :-)
Silverlight 2 is nothing like Silverlight 1. I dont even know what Silverlight 1 was, but I gather it wasn't much. Silverlight 2 is basically a stripped down, altered version of .NET 3.5. You can actually make useful things in Silverlight 2. Best, if you already know and use .NET and especially WPF, you can start building Silverlight 2 stuff almost right away. Even better, it is pretty trivial to hook into your existing AJAX layer--you can pretty much call the same server-side goo as your old, brittle javascript code.
Speaking of Moonlight, I've just looked over the website you linked to. I can't seem to find anything about compatibility with Silverlight. For example, will Moonlight be "plug and play" and not require our Silverlight detection javascript to know anything about it? A lot of people, including myself, use Microsoft provided javascript to detect if you are even able to install Silverlight on your platform. I wonder how Moonlight will factor into that?
But seriously, don't discount Silverlight 2. It is one of the cooler technologies Microsoft is pushing these days. Sorry it doesn't run on your platform of choice, but they had to release something. Hopefully they will support more platforms in future releases (I'm looking at you X-Box and whateverPhone).
That choice was made using philosophy, which is what underpins science.
This statement: "regardless of whether there's any Universal Truth or Falsehood to general relativity" is a philosophical statement. The fact that you believe there is no universal truth is a philosophical statement. In fact, pretty much your entire post asks all kinds of deep, very important philosophical questions.
Me thinks you dont know what philosophy means.
I'd argue, yes. THey are a chain, but they aren't national. Neither Mom nor Pop owns it, but it fits the definition of "small scale outfit".
Here in Seattle, we have Dicks Burgers, also what I'd call "Mom & Pop", though not owned by mom and pop.
And to answer your question directly, using my definition of "Mom & Pop", these guys kick the ass of Best Buy or Circuit Shitty.
The only reason for Big Box is to give you an illusion of savings and some kind of "comfort" (i.e. you don't have to venture into scary new shops). Big Box stores are almost always big in size but incredibly weak in depth and selection. I have no idea how the "Mom & Pop" store manage to give much better service, a broader range of products and are located in much smaller stores.
To diverge, I dont see how this shakeout of electronics retailers would ever pan out to Target or something. Target is "Big Box" and there isn't really anything "Mom & Pop" that competes (at least in our area).
I'm not worried about them, I just think it reflects on their corporate culture. I wouldn't rely on them for specific models of anything though. They are good for "I need a new hard drive and I dont really care about the specs"
Looks like crap. Shelves are in a state of chaos. Sales staff chewing yelling at each other in the isle next to you. Even though it is huge and in theory should stock lots of niche items, most of the niche stuff is out of stock.
That said, if you need something quick and it isn't highly specific, Fry's is a good bet. If you need something *exact*, Newegg can't be beat.
The only reason I can think of for going to Best Buy or Circuit Shitty was for something heavy like a TV or Stereo. But even then, the Seattle area has a local vendor that is way better.
No other programming language has that kind of streaming video coverage. LOL.
I pity you if this is a legitimate question and not a troll.
I'm sorry to hear that.
And the janitor had to come into every classroom and fiddle with our antique black and white televisions to watch that.
Because it is a historic moment in our time. That might be, oh, a *small* part of it, you think?
Back when I was in high school, they stopped classes to show the OJ verdict live on every TV in the school. I'd say in terms of importance, this is a bit more important and historic.
CPAN has feeds in Windows Media and Real. Dunno how this maps to anything or how you can suck down either feed and "rebroadcast it" over your network. My guess is both Microsoft and Real have some gadget that would support this.
Here is how I'd do it:
1) Buy a USB capture card that has known drivers for whatever windows server version is in use
2) Assume Windows Media Services can use this capture card and stream it to windows clients on your network.
3) ???
4) ???
My other thought would be to use like MythTV and then use it's streaming stuff. I'm pretty sure they have a web based client.
This is actually a pretty tricky question to be honest. Especially considering you have less than a week to set it up and test it!
Personally, I doubt you are going to be able to take a stream from the internet and "rebroadcast" it over your network. The only thing that would get you half way is CSPAN, who offers a stream using windows media player or real player. I somehow doubt you'll be able to stream from the big-boys like MSNBC, CNN or (shudder) FOX.
My hunch is you will be more happy with a capture card and streaming that.
Either way, this is a pretty large project. Good luck.
Tiff works too. As long as whatever format you use for archival purposes isn't taking any information away. For any quality camera and any picture shot as "RAW", a JPEG is taking a hell of a lot of information away. Ditto with PNG. TIFF works fine, as does PSD (though TIFF is more standard).
Great point! You just made a good case against my suggestion archiving using the RAW. Will something be around to decode whatever "RAW" means for your camera in 20 years?
Once I get a camera that has RAW, without your comment, I'd probably archive with RAW. Now I'll TIFF those bitches instead. Thanks for the tip!
What you seek isn't "not a lot of features" but "has a good UI". You can have a lot of features as long as the UI doesn't suck. Pedantic? Yes. But a lot of software nerds seem to equate "More Features" = "Harder to Use".
And on good cameras, most of the features are actually useful and not bullshit (i.e. "change the sound of the shutter to Bird Chirp" or "add a frame to the picture"). The features you want are the ability to fuck with the white balance, ISO speed, auto-focus mode, self-timer length, bracketing, etc. The reason you are having such a hard time is because there is actually a lot of knobs that are really useful to turn. The better the camera, the more the camera lets you override. And to learn photography, you want to turn off the auto-anything and do it yourself. You gotta have a menu to do that :-)
At least on my old digital, while I can stretch the shutter to 15 seconds, there is a *lot* of noise from the CCD. My guess is this has improved somewhat in new stuff, but I doubt you'll be able to hold the shutter open on all but the most expensive dSLR's for more then 30 seconds.
And this is what I'm talking about for time-lapse. Interestingly, Troy (the guy behind Lost America) has been shooting most of his stuff digitally for a while now.
To quote:
In otherwords, I'm probably wrong :-)
None of that is archival until it stores the RAW data from the camera. 8-bit color isn't archival when your camera is 14-bit (like the Mark II).
But now I'm being a pedant. Still, neither JPEG nor PNG is a good format to store anything but quick copies for email and web. Always store the RAW, copy it and work from a copy.
Also, neither Picassa or iPhoto does more than 8-bit color.
They might want to crop it. If you cut out 3/4 of your 16mp image, you've only got 4mp to play with. And that ain't much if you plan to print.
That Leica looks like a really cool camera!
Dunno what you call that stuff (besides cool). It ain't P&S though.
You can fake those auto-focus modes in even cheap cameras. As long as you know what auto-focus is trying to do, give this a shot:
0) I think even the cheapest models have a "focus on the center" mode--you might want to use that. If it doesn't, that is okay.
1) Get the camera to auto-focus on what you want by pressing the shutter button down half-way.
2) Keep holding the button down (but dont press it all the way so it takes a shot). Holding it down will lock the focus, apature and shutter.
3) Slightly move the camera side to side until you compose your shot. Moving forward or back from the subject will probably blur it.
4) Take the shot.
5) ???
6) Profit.
Obviously this method isn't perfect and depends on a lot of things like your distance to the subject. But if you know your camera, you can usually use this technique to fake the different auto-focus modes in higher end cameras. For those who haven't played with higher end stuff, they will usually let you specify exactly what position in the scene the camera should try to auto-focus on. My camera, for example, shows a square bracket that I can move around on the screen to tell it where to focus.
Dont forget they'll have shutter priority too so you can at least blur the waves or take decent night shots.
I think you and dittobox are confusing what "P&S" mean. When I think of "Point and Shoot", I'm thinking of basically the ones that are shaped like square boxes. You can get mid-level cameras that have quite a bit of the functionality of a real SLR--manual focus, full control over your shutter/apature, probably even RAW modes. I wouldn't call these models point & shoot, but they aren't SLR's either.
What you won't see on anything without an interchangeable lens is quality optics. Good optics make a huge difference in your final result--giving it a level of crispness and focus that just can't be had in the cheaper stuff.
That said, if you've never touched anything besides your camera phone, you'd be pissing a way good money buying a real SLR. Better to get a cheaper camera with at least the ability to manually set your shutter and aperture and learn on that. Eventually you'll either abandon the hobby or hopefully enjoy it so much you get pissed at the limitations of what you bought. It is no different then anything else, really--would you buy the most expensive snowboard and best gear if you've never gone snowboarding? Would you buy custom golf clubs if you've never played? Same deal.
1) Get a tripod and use it, even if you dont think you need to! Even the cheapest POS camera can take okay stuff if you have a tripod.
2) For got your tripod? Use a rock, a stick, a mailbox. Use something besides your body to stabilize your camera.
3) *Learn The Rule of Thirds*!! Most. Important. Thing. Ever.
4) Visualize what the picture will look like before you take it. Move yourself and your camera until you like what will show up in the final result.
5) Move! Get that damn kid out of the way. Move until an annoying shadow is out of your shot. Look out for that wire that will show up in the middle of the mountain shot. This is #4 restated. Think about what you compose.
6) Dont use Photoshop. At least until you take good stuff without using it.
A good camera isn't important. Knowing how to compose a shot is the most important.
That is because they already know who is voting for what. For the most part, the vote is just making things formal. All the wheeling and dealing goes on before.