You aught to already know that, unless you've been living under a rock. Why the hell would they be showing that in this slide? Who the fuck are you?
We are in Afghanistan because that's where the people who attacked us live (the real people behind it, not the peons who did the grunt work). It's a damn shame that the Iraq war took the focus off of Afghanistan, but it's pretty obvious why Bush did it - he had political capitol to burn and probably wouldn't get a second chance.
What we need to do is focus on one at a time - finish up in Iraq, train the locals so they can defend themselves, and leave them be. We've been working on that, but only half-heartedly. The Iraqis should be doing most of the work by now, it's their damn country. There will probably be a civil war and it will suck, but the people of every country have to man up at some point or they will continually be pushed around by other countries (including ours). Once that is done we need to focus all of our attention on Afghanistan. Pull troops out of foreign stations that have been our allies for decades, send them into Afghanistan and root out the Taliban and Al Qaeda and get it done, then leave the people there be. There will probably be another civil war there too, but again, it's their country, not ours, they need to fight for it, not us.
We have been taking imperialistic actions without the intent to be imperialistic. If that were our intent, we probably could have finished both wars years ago. If we are not willing to be imperialistic (and I don't think any large number of people in the US really is), then we need to punish those who hurt us and leave the countries be when we are finished. Make it clear there will be hell to pay if you attack us, and then leave everyone alone.
They spent days making projector slides, or days designing and printing large-format poster presentations.
The problem hasn't changed, programs like PowerPoint just make us more efficient at wasting the time. It also makes it more accessible - now the threshold for the meetings that require visual presentations has been lowered dramatically, and the complexity of those presentations has increased dramatically.
Pfft, you can get.50's for $2 a pop (though special use.50's can be up to $10 per round). In military quantities it's more like $0.40 to $0.60 per round for.223 ammo.
There are a lot more costs involved though, a fair assessment would be to take Taliban killed in a given period and divide that by the total military campaign costs for the same period. That will give you a good rough-estimate for the cost per Taliban.
I'm sure you could find better prices elsewhere, but any of those would work. The 3g/4g is carried over the cell signal, so all you need to do is boost the signal.
I don't know if you know this, but 2 1/4" film is the same size as 120 film. The 120 refers to its length - 120mm. The film itself is 6cm wide.
A drum scanner also won't get you 400mp, the theoretical resolution limits of 120 film vary by film type, but it's generally 176mp. The practical limit is closer to 20mp unless you are a master of every step of the film printing process. For digital, you don't have to be a master of anything, just understand composition and hold the camera steady and you've got a fantastic picture.
You could probably get 400mp out of 4"x6" large format film, that's the one area that digital has yet to take over, because it really would take 300-400mp to match the resolution those cameras get.
The other problem is bigger - price. For $14K you could get several medium format film cameras and lenses (e.g Hasselblad/Zeiss, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, etc), a very good film scanner (e.g Hasselblad Flextight X5 [hasselblad.com]), a big server to store your scans on, plus a fridge full of film.
You cannot get an equivalent Hasselblad at that price, and replacing all your lenses will cost you a fortune (lenses run $2,000-$7,000 each).
Remember this is for people who already have a Hasselblad film camera and want to go digital.
The Hasselblad H4D-40, which has the same sized image sensor, is $20,000 and is their "entry level" camera at that resolution.
As for film, look at the max DPI listed for that Flextight X5. 2,000 DPI at 6x5 (a standard 120 frame size) is significantly less than you'll get with a 40mp camera. To get 40mp level resolution out of film you need a drum scanner, and those start at $35,000.
Theoretically 120 film is the same as about 176mp digital. In practice though, you really only get 16-20mp out of it unless you're willing to shell out the cash for a drum scanner (at which point, why bother?), or you work exclusively in non-digital prints. Good luck with that, since non-digital print shops are going the way of the dodo.
Other than a lower entry point (which is only true because film cameras are not in demand), film doesn't offer any advantages over digital any more.
Do you realize how many nasty chemicals are used in film processing, in much, much greater volumes than in a DSLR?
Film does not win the environmentally friendly award, my friend. Not by a long shot.
I don't get viral infections from film.
You also don't get them from digital pictures, what kind of dumbass makes this claim while posting from a computer?
My camera will also work after an EMP - I doubt yours will, and I also doubt your digital pictures will remain intact after such an event.
And exactly how many EMPs do you experience in your lifetime? And so long as the DSLR is turned off, it will survive an EMP just fine. EMPs only kill things that are powered up - and I don't know what kind of pictures you'll be taking during a nuclear blast but your camera will be toast if it's in range of the EMP anyway.
All you need to do with film to keep it safe for a couple hundred years is stick it in a box.
That would be awesome if it were true. It's not though. Film is sensitive to humidity, moisture, and heat. If your box is stored in the wrong place, that film could be worthless after a year or less.
Technically speaking, a flash drive is just as good for long term storage as a roll of film, maybe even better. If you aren't actively using the drive, there is nothing to wear on the internals and nothing to break down. The copper and silicon would have to break down significantly to make the data irretrievable, and that's not going to happen in a hundred years. Add the fact that you can store a whole box worth of film on a drive the size of your finger, and there really is no beating digital.
Not when your camera is storing those shots as JPG.
We are talking about professional cameras here right? I don't know of any pro cameras that store data as a JPG - even the low end DSLRs all store pictures in RAW format, which is lossless.
You can't compare a pro camera of any type to a cheap consumer grade camera of any type. That's just insanity.
Do you really, really think that somebody who owns a Hasselblad is going to drop $14k on it just because digital is the new hotness?
I think you are confused, digital is not the new hotness, it's the latest leap in technology. It's better than film in almost every way (film does blow up smoother than digital, but that's about all it's better for, and if you plan ahead you can achieve the same with digital). All things being equal, the 39 megapixel backing has almost twice the usable resolution of high-end 120 film developed at a professional shop. If you were going to spend insane amounts of money to get your prints done, then yeah, you could beat digital with 120 film, but if you are doing that then you are doing something highly specialized anyway.
Most photographers who are anti-digital are either uninformed about what digital can do, are luddites who don't want to learn the new technology (since they know the old so well), or are simply "purists" similar to vinyl record lovers - the like it because that's what they like, not for any real merits of the medium.
Average seems to be around $15-$20 per roll, so you're looking at $20-$25 per roll of film total. If you're only counting raw materials costs that's 560 rolls. Given that most professional photographers and high-quality photography enthusiasts like to take a dozen or more shots of the same event and pick the best one, 560 rolls is not a very big number, depending on the exact type of film it's either 6,700 or 123,000 final shots. That might last a prolific photographer a year or so. If you factor in the significant time savings of digital vs film, including the fact that a lot of the shots will need to become digital anyway (which means scanning - a lossy process), and the number of shots you can get out of $14,000 starts to drop significantly. If you figure a couple hours wasted time vs the digital, and only pay yourself $10 an hour, that cuts in half the number of photographs you can get out of $14,000. It probably wouldn't last a pro a year.
An amatures could get a lifetime out of that much film, but what amature is using a friggin Hasselblad?
It's not just the lenses, the image sensors are much smaller in cellphones and cheap cameras. High end cameras use larger image sensors, which allow more photons per-pixel. More photons means more accurate light sensing.
In other words, a high end camera with no lens will have significantly better color and contrast, and as a result better detail and clarity, than a cellphone camera even if they have the same number of megapixels. Add in the lenses, and high end cameras are better in every way. Because of this, a professional grade 5mp camera is almost always better than even a consumer grade 10mp camera. It all comes down to physics.
Note that that's also why professional grade cameras tend to be very large - bigger image sensors means everything connected to the image sensor needs to be bigger as well, and the feature-sets of these cameras only add to that size.
No there shouldn't, because you still have to put pilots in the situation of flying the planes you've "willingly agreed to"
Nobody is forcing them to. Pilots can easily refuse a potentially dangerous flight, just like a customer can. No doubt they'd receive danger pay and all that.
I really don't understand your reasoning behind your argument, it's as though you think pilots are robots.
Volcanic ash in the air can be as course as 1.5", or as fine as 60 microns.
Got news for you, 1.5" grains of "ash" (we generally call stuff that big "rocks") fall out of the sky really fast - almost everything that is held suspended in the air is closer to the 60 micron range. Particles small enough to float in the air are nowhere near large enough to sandblast anything. Think smoke from a fire, the particles that are floating in the air are about that size, maybe slightly bigger. It would take a hell of a lot of flying in that stuff to see any kind of marked difference from flying in clean air. If anything happens to your windscreen at all, it will be polished by the ash, not obscured.
Also, if it's small enough to stay in the air without significant winds keeping it there (like a dust storm, for example), then more than likely it will be directed away from the skin of the aircraft due to turbulence on the skin's surface. That same nasty resistance that creates drag is also going to push small particles away from the aircraft.
You'll get more wear than clean air, but I doubt you'd notice it. Wearing through the skin of the aircraft is one thing that nobody has been concerned about, nobody is that stupid. Well, nobody who knows anything about volcanic ash, anyway.
We have a long history of airlines ignoring common sense and basic safety to put butts in the seats. They need regulation to keep them from getting stupid.
I suppose that's why flying is still considered the safest form of travel, and by a large margin, huh? Because airlines have a history of ignoring common sense and basic safety? Don't be daft man.
Fluoride is the cation of fluorine (F-), the entire focus of the report was the fluoride content in the air due to the volcanic eruption. If there was fluoride in the air (and there was) then there was fluorine in the air, they are the same thing. If that wasn't enough, the gas report had HF (hydrogen-flourine molecule) all over the place.
A volcano near Anchorage Alaska blew a few months ago and completely shut down air traffic between Alaska and Seattle, and any other traffic heading in to Anchorage, for almost a week. It was a giant ash-spewer, just like the Iceland volcano.
What it did not do, however, is cut off all traffic for the entire state, or shut down air traffic for the west coast.
The EU's reaction over this was akin to shutting down the entire western half of the US for the Alaska volcano, which did not happen, and would have been pretty ridiculous.
I think there is some merit to the argument that shutting down all traffic was an overreaction. Definitely shut down Iceland, and maybe parts of Britain if the prevailing winds send enough ash that way, but all of Europe is a bit much.
I think it's more of "I really want it, but you're a total dick, so I'll just steal it."
It's certainly not right, but it's also not un-justifiable. Given that a pirateer generally has a better gaming experience than a legitimate gamer should be illuminating.
Really, the more obtrusive these DRM schemes get the bigger the market will be for pirated copies. That's the crux of their problem.
You know a much more effective way to limit piracy? Make it more convenient to buy it than to pirate it. Valve has shown how effective this can be with Steam - they don't get nearly as much piracy on their games because it's just a lot easier to use Steam than it is to deal with cracking scheme X. Add to that the abundance of viruses disguised as game cracks, and a service like Steam becomes very attractive. Plus, with Steam Valve can react to changes in the market instantly, instead of having to wait. They can even do live testing en-mass, reducing the cost of market research. An example of that was when Valve reduced their prices on Steam and saw their revenues shoot up.
Valve pretty much has it figured out, I don't understand why nobody else seems to be catching on.
Slashdot Mirror
You aught to already know that, unless you've been living under a rock. Why the hell would they be showing that in this slide? Who the fuck are you?
We are in Afghanistan because that's where the people who attacked us live (the real people behind it, not the peons who did the grunt work). It's a damn shame that the Iraq war took the focus off of Afghanistan, but it's pretty obvious why Bush did it - he had political capitol to burn and probably wouldn't get a second chance.
What we need to do is focus on one at a time - finish up in Iraq, train the locals so they can defend themselves, and leave them be. We've been working on that, but only half-heartedly. The Iraqis should be doing most of the work by now, it's their damn country. There will probably be a civil war and it will suck, but the people of every country have to man up at some point or they will continually be pushed around by other countries (including ours). Once that is done we need to focus all of our attention on Afghanistan. Pull troops out of foreign stations that have been our allies for decades, send them into Afghanistan and root out the Taliban and Al Qaeda and get it done, then leave the people there be. There will probably be another civil war there too, but again, it's their country, not ours, they need to fight for it, not us.
We have been taking imperialistic actions without the intent to be imperialistic. If that were our intent, we probably could have finished both wars years ago. If we are not willing to be imperialistic (and I don't think any large number of people in the US really is), then we need to punish those who hurt us and leave the countries be when we are finished. Make it clear there will be hell to pay if you attack us, and then leave everyone alone.
I'll take Anal Bum-cover for $400, Trebec.
You're Mother's a whore!
And do you know what they did before that?
They spent days making projector slides, or days designing and printing large-format poster presentations.
The problem hasn't changed, programs like PowerPoint just make us more efficient at wasting the time. It also makes it more accessible - now the threshold for the meetings that require visual presentations has been lowered dramatically, and the complexity of those presentations has increased dramatically.
Pfft, you can get .50's for $2 a pop (though special use .50's can be up to $10 per round). In military quantities it's more like $0.40 to $0.60 per round for .223 ammo.
There are a lot more costs involved though, a fair assessment would be to take Taliban killed in a given period and divide that by the total military campaign costs for the same period. That will give you a good rough-estimate for the cost per Taliban.
That's great, but the plural of "axis" is "axes", you illiterate fuck. (I mean that with all due respect)
http://www.quantum-wireless.com/store/index.php/cellular-signal-boosters-by-application/antennas/indoor.html
I'm sure you could find better prices elsewhere, but any of those would work. The 3g/4g is carried over the cell signal, so all you need to do is boost the signal.
Is it stealing if you return a lost item to the owner before said owner reports it stolen?
Because that's exactly what happened here.
What kind of asshole reports a lost item as stolen after he gets it back?
If Apple can get a warrant
If Apple can get a search warrant, the justice system is fucked.
If you mean police investigating a theft charge, that's completely different. If they are basically the same thing, then the system is still fucked.
This is why most pawn shops have to hold any items they buy for at least 30 days while the police verify they aren't stolen.
I don't know if you know this, but 2 1/4" film is the same size as 120 film. The 120 refers to its length - 120mm. The film itself is 6cm wide.
A drum scanner also won't get you 400mp, the theoretical resolution limits of 120 film vary by film type, but it's generally 176mp. The practical limit is closer to 20mp unless you are a master of every step of the film printing process. For digital, you don't have to be a master of anything, just understand composition and hold the camera steady and you've got a fantastic picture.
You could probably get 400mp out of 4"x6" large format film, that's the one area that digital has yet to take over, because it really would take 300-400mp to match the resolution those cameras get.
The other problem is bigger - price. For $14K you could get several medium format film cameras and lenses (e.g Hasselblad/Zeiss, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, etc), a very good film scanner (e.g Hasselblad Flextight X5 [hasselblad.com]), a big server to store your scans on, plus a fridge full of film.
You cannot get an equivalent Hasselblad at that price, and replacing all your lenses will cost you a fortune (lenses run $2,000-$7,000 each).
Remember this is for people who already have a Hasselblad film camera and want to go digital.
The Hasselblad H4D-40, which has the same sized image sensor, is $20,000 and is their "entry level" camera at that resolution.
As for film, look at the max DPI listed for that Flextight X5. 2,000 DPI at 6x5 (a standard 120 frame size) is significantly less than you'll get with a 40mp camera. To get 40mp level resolution out of film you need a drum scanner, and those start at $35,000.
Theoretically 120 film is the same as about 176mp digital. In practice though, you really only get 16-20mp out of it unless you're willing to shell out the cash for a drum scanner (at which point, why bother?), or you work exclusively in non-digital prints. Good luck with that, since non-digital print shops are going the way of the dodo.
Other than a lower entry point (which is only true because film cameras are not in demand), film doesn't offer any advantages over digital any more.
He's also bad at math, 2gb CF cards can hold about 43 images. A 128gb CF card will hold almost 3,000 images.
I doubt any of these will apply to the type of photographers who use medium format cameras.
Especially a Hasselblad. Their digitals + an 80mm lense run close to $30,000. Lenses are between $2,000 and $7,000 each.
This is very far from low-end shit here. Spending $14,000 in order to keep using 30+ thousand dollars worth of gear is a serious no brainer.
Lossless is about 50mb each, so a 16gb memory card can store 320 pictures, 32gb 640. Hook a hard drive to it and 1.5tb will get you 30,000 shots.
Do you realize how many nasty chemicals are used in film processing, in much, much greater volumes than in a DSLR?
Film does not win the environmentally friendly award, my friend. Not by a long shot.
I don't get viral infections from film.
You also don't get them from digital pictures, what kind of dumbass makes this claim while posting from a computer?
My camera will also work after an EMP - I doubt yours will, and I also doubt your digital pictures will remain intact after such an event.
And exactly how many EMPs do you experience in your lifetime? And so long as the DSLR is turned off, it will survive an EMP just fine. EMPs only kill things that are powered up - and I don't know what kind of pictures you'll be taking during a nuclear blast but your camera will be toast if it's in range of the EMP anyway.
All you need to do with film to keep it safe for a couple hundred years is stick it in a box.
That would be awesome if it were true. It's not though. Film is sensitive to humidity, moisture, and heat. If your box is stored in the wrong place, that film could be worthless after a year or less.
Technically speaking, a flash drive is just as good for long term storage as a roll of film, maybe even better. If you aren't actively using the drive, there is nothing to wear on the internals and nothing to break down. The copper and silicon would have to break down significantly to make the data irretrievable, and that's not going to happen in a hundred years. Add the fact that you can store a whole box worth of film on a drive the size of your finger, and there really is no beating digital.
Not when your camera is storing those shots as JPG.
We are talking about professional cameras here right? I don't know of any pro cameras that store data as a JPG - even the low end DSLRs all store pictures in RAW format, which is lossless.
You can't compare a pro camera of any type to a cheap consumer grade camera of any type. That's just insanity.
Do you really, really think that somebody who owns a Hasselblad is going to drop $14k on it just because digital is the new hotness?
I think you are confused, digital is not the new hotness, it's the latest leap in technology. It's better than film in almost every way (film does blow up smoother than digital, but that's about all it's better for, and if you plan ahead you can achieve the same with digital). All things being equal, the 39 megapixel backing has almost twice the usable resolution of high-end 120 film developed at a professional shop. If you were going to spend insane amounts of money to get your prints done, then yeah, you could beat digital with 120 film, but if you are doing that then you are doing something highly specialized anyway.
Most photographers who are anti-digital are either uninformed about what digital can do, are luddites who don't want to learn the new technology (since they know the old so well), or are simply "purists" similar to vinyl record lovers - the like it because that's what they like, not for any real merits of the medium.
Average seems to be around $15-$20 per roll, so you're looking at $20-$25 per roll of film total. If you're only counting raw materials costs that's 560 rolls. Given that most professional photographers and high-quality photography enthusiasts like to take a dozen or more shots of the same event and pick the best one, 560 rolls is not a very big number, depending on the exact type of film it's either 6,700 or 123,000 final shots. That might last a prolific photographer a year or so. If you factor in the significant time savings of digital vs film, including the fact that a lot of the shots will need to become digital anyway (which means scanning - a lossy process), and the number of shots you can get out of $14,000 starts to drop significantly. If you figure a couple hours wasted time vs the digital, and only pay yourself $10 an hour, that cuts in half the number of photographs you can get out of $14,000. It probably wouldn't last a pro a year.
An amatures could get a lifetime out of that much film, but what amature is using a friggin Hasselblad?
It's not just the lenses, the image sensors are much smaller in cellphones and cheap cameras. High end cameras use larger image sensors, which allow more photons per-pixel. More photons means more accurate light sensing.
In other words, a high end camera with no lens will have significantly better color and contrast, and as a result better detail and clarity, than a cellphone camera even if they have the same number of megapixels. Add in the lenses, and high end cameras are better in every way. Because of this, a professional grade 5mp camera is almost always better than even a consumer grade 10mp camera. It all comes down to physics.
Note that that's also why professional grade cameras tend to be very large - bigger image sensors means everything connected to the image sensor needs to be bigger as well, and the feature-sets of these cameras only add to that size.
Damn, that really deserves a +1 funny.
No there shouldn't, because you still have to put pilots in the situation of flying the planes you've "willingly agreed to"
Nobody is forcing them to. Pilots can easily refuse a potentially dangerous flight, just like a customer can. No doubt they'd receive danger pay and all that.
I really don't understand your reasoning behind your argument, it's as though you think pilots are robots.
Volcanic ash in the air can be as course as 1.5", or as fine as 60 microns.
Got news for you, 1.5" grains of "ash" (we generally call stuff that big "rocks") fall out of the sky really fast - almost everything that is held suspended in the air is closer to the 60 micron range. Particles small enough to float in the air are nowhere near large enough to sandblast anything. Think smoke from a fire, the particles that are floating in the air are about that size, maybe slightly bigger. It would take a hell of a lot of flying in that stuff to see any kind of marked difference from flying in clean air. If anything happens to your windscreen at all, it will be polished by the ash, not obscured.
Also, if it's small enough to stay in the air without significant winds keeping it there (like a dust storm, for example), then more than likely it will be directed away from the skin of the aircraft due to turbulence on the skin's surface. That same nasty resistance that creates drag is also going to push small particles away from the aircraft.
You'll get more wear than clean air, but I doubt you'd notice it. Wearing through the skin of the aircraft is one thing that nobody has been concerned about, nobody is that stupid. Well, nobody who knows anything about volcanic ash, anyway.
We have a long history of airlines ignoring common sense and basic safety to put butts in the seats. They need regulation to keep them from getting stupid.
I suppose that's why flying is still considered the safest form of travel, and by a large margin, huh? Because airlines have a history of ignoring common sense and basic safety? Don't be daft man.
Fluoride is the cation of fluorine (F-), the entire focus of the report was the fluoride content in the air due to the volcanic eruption. If there was fluoride in the air (and there was) then there was fluorine in the air, they are the same thing. If that wasn't enough, the gas report had HF (hydrogen-flourine molecule) all over the place.
Are you being stupid intentionally?
A volcano near Anchorage Alaska blew a few months ago and completely shut down air traffic between Alaska and Seattle, and any other traffic heading in to Anchorage, for almost a week. It was a giant ash-spewer, just like the Iceland volcano.
What it did not do, however, is cut off all traffic for the entire state, or shut down air traffic for the west coast.
The EU's reaction over this was akin to shutting down the entire western half of the US for the Alaska volcano, which did not happen, and would have been pretty ridiculous.
I think there is some merit to the argument that shutting down all traffic was an overreaction. Definitely shut down Iceland, and maybe parts of Britain if the prevailing winds send enough ash that way, but all of Europe is a bit much.
I think it's more of "I really want it, but you're a total dick, so I'll just steal it."
It's certainly not right, but it's also not un-justifiable. Given that a pirateer generally has a better gaming experience than a legitimate gamer should be illuminating.
Really, the more obtrusive these DRM schemes get the bigger the market will be for pirated copies. That's the crux of their problem.
You know a much more effective way to limit piracy? Make it more convenient to buy it than to pirate it. Valve has shown how effective this can be with Steam - they don't get nearly as much piracy on their games because it's just a lot easier to use Steam than it is to deal with cracking scheme X. Add to that the abundance of viruses disguised as game cracks, and a service like Steam becomes very attractive. Plus, with Steam Valve can react to changes in the market instantly, instead of having to wait. They can even do live testing en-mass, reducing the cost of market research. An example of that was when Valve reduced their prices on Steam and saw their revenues shoot up.
Valve pretty much has it figured out, I don't understand why nobody else seems to be catching on.