Are 90% of the audience of Beavis and Butthead intelligence? A real breakthrough appears in 3D technology, and most of the comments are stupid remarks regarding Star Wars, 3D in real life (DUH!) and how this would be great in the porn industry! If you don't have anything to say, that is on topic, STFU! J.
I hate it when some teensies are eating popcorn from loud paperbags. I hate the candy in the sellofan plastic. I hate the friggin breaks. And the cell phones (Get some jammers!). And lousy projectors. (Brighter in the middle, uneven focus) And the bad sound. The newest cinemas are better, but they still suffer from the paperbag problem.
Boohoo, your pixel-perfect layout is ruined. SFW? Use a PDF if you want you precious layot to survive. This "I designed this web to be 643pixels wide and use all kinds of shitty 1pixels imagaes to layout it exactly this way in IE, so screw other browsers". Please grow up. As a designer your job is to make the web look good in any browser. Not pixel by pixel. This attitude is starting to piss me off! J.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick! What kind of FUD is this? The Canon D60 costs around $2000. And since it has smaller image area, you can get away with shorter (and therefore cheaper) telephoto lenses. A 400mm lens on a 35mm film camera works like a 600mm lens on the D60. Since you are sports photographer, let me set up a example: Canon D60 + 400mm/f4 = $7400 Canon EOS 3 + 600mm/f4 = $8800 Now tell me, which one is a better deal? The price of the camera is the smallest part, as you can see. (Of course, if you are into wide-angle landscapes, then you are officially screwed!):)
People here seem to have a bad case of the old if-it-isn't-suitable-for-me-then-it-is-useless-for -everybody syndrome. Digital is good enough for majority of photography. Can you imagine a newspaper that still uses film? No, it would be just plain stupid. Digital cameras today are "good enough" for majority of uses. I guess that the people who count pixels are the same that overclock newest and greatest CPUs. But congratulation Canon and Kodak. Now we can use our $1000 wideangles again.:)
Obviously you don't take many photos, so I assume (slashdot style) that you don't know what you are talking about. Try shooting 200 images in a day for a 0$ on a film camera. Oh, you can't? Ask your newspaper photographer what he is using. Image quality is already good enough for 2 page spread in a magazine. That is the 'good enough' threshold. Every professonal photographer speaking on dpreview.com is saying that their Nikon D1's and Canon 1D's are paying for themself in a matter of months. Digital cameras are still 3-4 times more expensive than their film brothers, but chemical processing costs (in time and money) are quick to add up.
Check the Foveon images on dpreview.com. They are amazing! The Bayer based images just look "flat" in comparision. I can't tell you what it is, but the 3MP Foveon images just look so much better.
I could have dreamt it, but I do recall reading on dpreview.com that some high-end camera came with fingerprint firmware. That would solve some of this problems.
Sure it is wrong but the correct analogy would be: Suppose you own a really nice bicycle, but you only ride it from 5-6pm. Now suppose someone from down the street comes with his nano copier and "copies" your bicycle and returns it in pristine condition...you can't tell it's been copied. Their copying of the bicycle without your permission is still WRONG. May it is, but since copying bycycle only costs, say 20 bucks, why would bicyclemakers still demand $800 for them? Sorry, CD's are still way too exspensive. Use emusic or something. The only CD's I have bought for the past 4 years are 3 from a independent band called Devics. (Try them). So much for the Spears and Timberlakes of the music world! J.
If I were going on a few weeks expedition over the Sahara, I would be very hesitating taking digital camera. These babies eat batteries like there is no tomorrow. I wouldn't leave civilzation with one. I think every photographer who ventures in a remote location of the earth will be nervous without at least one camera that works on musclepower only. (My Olympus OM-1 still works, I haven't put battery in it for years)
You can crack open the box on the side of the house, play with the filter elements and allow the cable signal to pass through.
But you don't crack anything open when you use wireless network. Better analogy would be if the cable socket would be wide open for the next inhabitant. (Physically and... well what's the word, accessally?:)
Well, I'm actually glad that I didn't watch it. And how do they know that there is a secret chamber there? Did they use some sort of radar? My guess is that this is just a simple ventalation, looking at the angle and length of the tunnel. But we all know that the holy grail of archealogy is to find somthing ancient that changes the way we look at the world:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I wish that I could use my moderator points on stories...
I know a lot of people who seem to have pig genes in their brains & hearts.
Are 90% of the audience of Beavis and Butthead intelligence? A real breakthrough appears in 3D technology, and most of the comments are stupid remarks regarding Star Wars, 3D in real life (DUH!) and how this would be great in the porn industry!
If you don't have anything to say, that is on topic, STFU!
J.
I hate it when some teensies are eating popcorn from loud paperbags. I hate the candy in the sellofan plastic. I hate the friggin breaks. And the cell phones (Get some jammers!). And lousy projectors. (Brighter in the middle, uneven focus) And the bad sound.
The newest cinemas are better, but they still suffer from the paperbag problem.
Boohoo, your pixel-perfect layout is ruined. SFW? Use a PDF if you want you precious layot to survive. This "I designed this web to be 643pixels wide and use all kinds of shitty 1pixels imagaes to layout it exactly this way in IE, so screw other browsers". Please grow up. As a designer your job is to make the web look good in any browser. Not pixel by pixel.
This attitude is starting to piss me off!
J.
Is that the best you could come up with?
Recycling flamebaits, are we?
It is lifetime PLUS 70 years... pretty silly, huh?
I'll give you $100 for it. :)
These beasts costs $450 over here.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick! :)
What kind of FUD is this? The Canon D60 costs around $2000. And since it has smaller image area, you can get away with shorter (and therefore cheaper) telephoto lenses. A 400mm lens on a 35mm film camera works like a 600mm lens on the D60. Since you are sports photographer, let me set up a example:
Canon D60 + 400mm/f4 = $7400
Canon EOS 3 + 600mm/f4 = $8800
Now tell me, which one is a better deal?
The price of the camera is the smallest part, as you can see.
(Of course, if you are into wide-angle landscapes, then you are officially screwed!)
People here seem to have a bad case of the old if-it-isn't-suitable-for-me-then-it-is-useless-for -everybody syndrome. Digital is good enough for majority of photography. Can you imagine a newspaper that still uses film? No, it would be just plain stupid. :)
Digital cameras today are "good enough" for majority of uses. I guess that the people who count pixels are the same that overclock newest and greatest CPUs.
But congratulation Canon and Kodak. Now we can use our $1000 wideangles again.
Obviously you don't take many photos, so I assume (slashdot style) that you don't know what you are talking about.
Try shooting 200 images in a day for a 0$ on a film camera. Oh, you can't? Ask your newspaper photographer what he is using. Image quality is already good enough for 2 page spread in a magazine. That is the 'good enough' threshold. Every professonal photographer speaking on dpreview.com is saying that their Nikon D1's and Canon 1D's are paying for themself in a matter of months. Digital cameras are still 3-4 times more expensive than their film brothers, but chemical processing costs (in time and money) are quick to add up.
Check the Foveon images on dpreview.com. They are amazing! The Bayer based images just look "flat" in comparision. I can't tell you what it is, but the 3MP Foveon images just look so much better.
I could have dreamt it, but I do recall reading on dpreview.com that some high-end camera came with fingerprint firmware. That would solve some of this problems.
Now he will sue you and Slashdot! And Rob and his dog! Shame on you! :
Sure it is wrong but the correct analogy would be:
Suppose you own a really nice bicycle, but you only ride it from 5-6pm. Now suppose someone from down the street comes with his nano copier and "copies" your bicycle and returns it in pristine condition...you can't tell it's been copied. Their copying of the bicycle without your permission is still WRONG.
May it is, but since copying bycycle only costs, say 20 bucks, why would bicyclemakers still demand $800 for them?
Sorry, CD's are still way too exspensive. Use emusic or something. The only CD's I have bought for the past 4 years are 3 from a independent band called Devics. (Try them). So much for the Spears and Timberlakes of the music world!
J.
http://www.guymichel.com/Test-Sigma.html
Pretty darn good, (as most digicams are these days, anyway) considering the circumstances.
J.
If I were going on a few weeks expedition over the Sahara, I would be very hesitating taking digital camera. These babies eat batteries like there is no tomorrow. I wouldn't leave civilzation with one. I think every photographer who ventures in a remote location of the earth will be nervous without at least one camera that works on musclepower only. (My Olympus OM-1 still works, I haven't put battery in it for years)
N80 or F80. Obviously, Nikon is saving it's high-end bodies for it self. :)
Would it be possible to localize it more? Right now it is -1, Too US-Centric. This could be my startup page. :)
You can crack open the box on the side of the house, play with the filter elements and allow the cable signal to pass through.
:)
But you don't crack anything open when you use wireless network. Better analogy would be if the cable socket would be wide open for the next inhabitant. (Physically and... well what's the word, accessally?
And people wonder why mac users are considered stupid? (-1, Flamebait) :)
I just wish to get BeFS back. It was the best FS I've ever seen. Journaled, live queries, and FAST! Palm, it's useless to you, open it up! :)
Well, I'm actually glad that I didn't watch it. And how do they know that there is a secret chamber there? Did they use some sort of radar? My guess is that this is just a simple ventalation, looking at the angle and length of the tunnel. :)
But we all know that the holy grail of archealogy is to find somthing ancient that changes the way we look at the world
What next? "This CD will self-destruct in 70 Minutes".