Mike Meyers did a skit on Saturday Night Live when he was a cast member called "Coffee Talk." He played a middle-aged woman. In every skit, he would say, "discuss amongst yourselves," and then something to the effect of: "talk about the Partrige Family while talking neither about partriges or famlies. Discuss!"
"In that case, the article should have made that point."
It does. Read the last sentence: Congress shall make no law. Those are the first five words of the First Amendment, which is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you think his mention of it was too subtle, consider that it was probably done for effect. Sometimes the best-understood points are made like that.
...there is always a class of people (i.e. professionals) who will always need _real_ film.
While some may not consider photojournalists "real" professionals, that is where I see professionals going completely to digital.
I was visiting family a couple of summers ago un rural Dawson, Minnesota (a town of about 1000). Their newspaper photographer used a digital camera because it's cheaper and faster than film. But, also big city newspapers use digital now. The National Press Photographers Association's journal that features winning photographs from newspapers around the nation has more ads for digital cameras than film ones, and quite a few of the winning photojournalists take their photos with high-end digital cameras; and the pictures look very good.
Some people here have said that an advantage film SLRs have over digital cameras is all of the f-stop, focus, etc. options available.... but it's not hard to put that into digital cameras. I also seem to remember a company that was developing a device that can be put in any 35mm SLR (any 35mm for that matter) that's just a CCD and a roll that fits inside the film compartment. Digital will be king for photography sooner than we may think, and film will be deprecated eventually.
I live in Norman, Oklahoma and my parents subscribe to The Norman Transcript, a local newspaper that has pithy stories on high school sports, honor rolls, police reports, and dozens of AP and Reuters articles. This is the standard fare of local newspapers today, and the reason I don't consider them even worth reading. We also get The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma City's biggest paper. It's owned by the Gaylord family and the paper is as a result consistently very conservative in the editorials. Until recently, the layout and typography was reminiscent of something from the 1950s and the writing was speckled with errors. There were very seldom any feature articles or clever and creative local columnists. (They have tried, recently, to revamp their image, bringing in renound columnist Jay Grelen, etc., though their efforts have been mostly in vain as I see it.) Of course, I am in Oklahoma, ranked 48th in the nation in teacher pay and in that range for most other rankings.
Anyway, I think that what few useful elements of newspapers there are are easily found online in a much more accessible form. When I get a PalmPilot in a couple of months, I'll just get something like AvantGo and I will never touch a newspaper again.
If the truth be known, journalists all too often paraphrase quotes. The practice is especially common in local newspapers whose reporters have to interview people with nothing more than a pen and paper in hand. How often do you think a reporter asks someone to repeat themself so that they may accurately quote them? They generally don't, since it breaks the flow of the conversation. Here, though, there is an important difference that these (electronic) quotes can be retrieved. But assuming Katz gets several hundred e-mails every day, I can't blame him for not wading through them to find the flamer-in-question's exact words.
As long as a paraphrased quote does not change the meaning of the actual quote and represents the spirit of the original, I don't think any harm has been done. Here, I believe this is the case. Katz was justified in paraphrasing, since the meaning was not changed.
Luciferase is an enzyme (enzymes end in "-ase"). luciferins, another ingredient mentioned on their page, is probably a substrate for that enzyme, meaning that luciferase breaks down luciferins to produce a glowing effect. Calcium is probably a cofactor for the enzyme.
If you don't support animal rights, that leads easily to not supporting gay rights, woman rights or minority rights either. I mean, why should you give a shit about anyone who is not exactly the same as you?
Are you saying there's some connection between animals and the collective group of gays, women, and minorities? I'm confused.
BioToy's page says: BioToys all contain proteins called luciferases and a chemical called a luciferin. When the luciferin and luciferase are mixed together, light is produced. There are many different kinds of luciferases and luciferins. It sounds like luciferin and luciferase are a substrate/enzyme pair, meaning that luciferase is an enzyme that breaks down luciferin, releasing light. Since calcium is required for a glowing effect, calcium must be a cofactor for the enzyme. I haven't researched this yet. Molecular biologists out there: does this sound right?
Slashdot Mirror
Mike Meyers did a skit on Saturday Night Live when he was a cast member called "Coffee Talk." He played a middle-aged woman. In every skit, he would say, "discuss amongst yourselves," and then something to the effect of: "talk about the Partrige Family while talking neither about partriges or famlies. Discuss!"
It does. Read the last sentence: Congress shall make no law. Those are the first five words of the First Amendment, which is as follows:
If you think his mention of it was too subtle, consider that it was probably done for effect. Sometimes the best-understood points are made like that.
While some may not consider photojournalists "real" professionals, that is where I see professionals going completely to digital.
I was visiting family a couple of summers ago un rural Dawson, Minnesota (a town of about 1000). Their newspaper photographer used a digital camera because it's cheaper and faster than film. But, also big city newspapers use digital now. The National Press Photographers Association's journal that features winning photographs from newspapers around the nation has more ads for digital cameras than film ones, and quite a few of the winning photojournalists take their photos with high-end digital cameras; and the pictures look very good.
Some people here have said that an advantage film SLRs have over digital cameras is all of the f-stop, focus, etc. options available.... but it's not hard to put that into digital cameras. I also seem to remember a company that was developing a device that can be put in any 35mm SLR (any 35mm for that matter) that's just a CCD and a roll that fits inside the film compartment. Digital will be king for photography sooner than we may think, and film will be deprecated eventually.
So what would that make the RIAA? Some sort of international copyright police force?
Just asking.
uuencode the text. problem fixed.
Anyway, I think that what few useful elements of newspapers there are are easily found online in a much more accessible form. When I get a PalmPilot in a couple of months, I'll just get something like AvantGo and I will never touch a newspaper again.
Good riddance.
As long as a paraphrased quote does not change the meaning of the actual quote and represents the spirit of the original, I don't think any harm has been done. Here, I believe this is the case. Katz was justified in paraphrasing, since the meaning was not changed.
Luciferase is an enzyme (enzymes end in "-ase"). luciferins, another ingredient mentioned on their page, is probably a substrate for that enzyme, meaning that luciferase breaks down luciferins to produce a glowing effect. Calcium is probably a cofactor for the enzyme.
Are you saying there's some connection between animals and the collective group of gays, women, and minorities? I'm confused.
BioToy's page says: BioToys all contain proteins called luciferases and a chemical called a luciferin. When the luciferin and luciferase are mixed together, light is produced. There are many different kinds of luciferases and luciferins. It sounds like luciferin and luciferase are a substrate/enzyme pair, meaning that luciferase is an enzyme that breaks down luciferin, releasing light. Since calcium is required for a glowing effect, calcium must be a cofactor for the enzyme. I haven't researched this yet. Molecular biologists out there: does this sound right?