Condensation tends to happen on the inside, when i scrape of the ice & get inside, the windshield tends to be covered with condensation (and when the air is very humid even ice), but that's nothing a scraper & cloth can't take care of
Or you could just wipe the windshield with a cloth & drive on, the car'll get warm fast enough, but i guess that requires some (how ever small) effort.
I don't get the councelling bit neighter, the kid was clearly a bright student, and i don't see anything that could warrent councelling for creating something usefull like a motion detector
A real scientist would get that post-grad student to taste the urine of the whole staff, to see if there is a difference between gender, age, race and diet. Oh, and he'd get more then one post-grad to do that, or else your pool of results would be to insignificant
This is why point & shoot cameras, even Canon's "bridge" models, all result in complaints about noise, noise, noise when used for dark indoor environments. You might say use a flash, but if at, for example, an art gallery or museum, play, or a concert, flashes are usually forbidden, or you may simply be too far away from the subject to reach with an internal flash.
Whatever you do, don't use a flash during a concert, the only thing you'll end up doing is lighten all the dust & smoke in the air & annoy people arround you.
I tend to take a lot of pictures during concerts i never use a flash and i tend to get good quality pictures, the trick is to know your camera (yes, that means actually reading it's manual:P), i usually use a shutter speed of 1/80 seconds and ISO 800, helps to have a steady hand of course, the light show has to be good from the front of the band, there's nothing more annoying then light shows that shine light on the band from behind (from a photographer's viewpoint).
This brings up a point that I have wondered about. The "shutterspeed" on a digital camera.
I always assumed that this was just another word for "how much motion blur do you want?" or "how many sensor refreshes do you want to average together?" and not that the sensor actually has a shutter preventing light from hitting the sensor at any time. So at that point there isn't any difference between the "live-view light costantly flood[ing] the sensor" and when the actual picture is taken.
DSLR's still use mechanical shutters, the compacts probably use an electronic shutter, it varies per model, but the shutter is in integral part of taking pictures.
Same for the "iso speed". It seems like a very artificial analogy back to film for what is really a software brightness setting.
Whoa there buddy:) Actually, the ISO setting changes the sensitivity of the sensor by boosting the signal, but that introduces noise in the image, it's not some fake setting at all.
In fact, given that both of these probably change multiple things to achieve the effect of shutterspeed or film-speed, I wonder if it might be easier to control and more accurate if the cameras presented the real digital variables to be changed (or something more representative of what is actually happening in the digital camera.)
Shutterspeed, aperture & ISO settings aren't some software effect, aperture & shutter are an integral part of picture taking, these define how the light hits the sensor & how long, ISO tells the sensor how sensitive it should be.
However, I admit that I don't know if any of this is true. It is a speculation and a request for clairification from anybody out there who is actually programming/designing digital cameras.
While i'm not programming them nor designing them, i use them quite extensively;)
Knowing abit about camera's i know that what you see on the LCD isn't exactly what you would get from just piping out the output of the sensor to the screen, there is alot of proccessing involved to give you that 'live view' picture on the screen.
Two Things that need to be compensated for (at a minimum):
- Shutterspeed: While using live-view light constantly floods the sensor, however, when you take the actual picture, the sensor will only receive light for the set speed, this can be anything between for instance 1/4000 of a second to 30 seconds or more, you need to process the live-view 'feed' from the sensor to show you how the actual picture would look
- ISO sensitivity: Your sensor can operate on multiple sensitivity settings, depending on the setting the sensor will be more or less sensitive to light
The above had to be done in real time, digital camera's 10 years ago didn't have the horse power to do that in software alone, nor do they have that kind of horse power now, that's why you have hardware assisted designs & chips, like for instance the EXPEED chip
... What a heap of drivel by a bunch of cry-babies.
I have virtually unlimited access to media through piracy, be it books, music or movies & series, yet i own hunderds of cd's & dvd's, and a bunch of books too, if i like it, guess what? I frekking buy the thing! And i'm not talking about mp3's, avi's or ebooks (whatever those are stored in), but fysical hard copies on CD/LP, DVD & dead trees.
I refuse to pay money to download a stupid file though, the only one getting a dime from me for downloads is my ISP, because i need to get online.
Off Topic:
Since 1 Januari we in Belgium also have to pay a tax on digital storage media such as external hard drives, usb sticks, sd cards & whatnot that serve to 'compensate piracy', and the money is devided amonst the most 'popular' artists of that period, and you don't want to know what i think about those 'popular artists', trust me on that one,
In the financial sector, mis-selling and misleading statements has made it one of the most tightly regulated sectors in the world. Breaches of the laws, even with regards to disclosure of data to competent authorities, are punished with heavy fines and prison.
Much like people rely on financial advisors for their choices, so do they rely on scientists for their choices.
To me, it looks like scientists have had it far too good for far too long. Enforced transparency, ultra-tight regulation and prison sentences for misleading statements would serve them extremely well.
Well, that'll take care of alot of the creationists aswell i guess...
The politics are completely besides the point if you ask me, regardless of what you believe reducing pollution is a goal to strife for, denying that pollution is bad is completely irrationally stupid.
Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?
Based on the knowledge we have, there isglobal warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.
However, these are conclusions based on our limited knowledge of the world & how it's climate works completely, it's possible that global warming is part of a normal cycle, it's possible it's due to sun output (although very unlikely, we should've detected that already), and yes, it's possible that mankind is contributing to the problem.
Given that we have measured & observed temperature rise, and given that we know pollution & CO2 emissions have a negative effect on the climate, why shouldn't we do our best to limit both pollution & emissions? Regardless of the question if we are solely to blame for the problem?
Hell, it's the air we breathe in, the water we drink, and the food we eat, why do we as a species insist on 'peeing in the pool we drink from'?
Why do people refuse to understand that you can not possibly test for every frecking hardware combo out there with the budget canonical has?
Fact of the matter is, shit happens, all thing considered Canonical does a good job.
Want a flawless running linux system? Get a distro that has certified hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Condensation tends to happen on the inside, when i scrape of the ice & get inside, the windshield tends to be covered with condensation (and when the air is very humid even ice), but that's nothing a scraper & cloth can't take care of
Or you could just wipe the windshield with a cloth & drive on, the car'll get warm fast enough, but i guess that requires some (how ever small) effort.
Insightful? Really?
I don't get the councelling bit neighter, the kid was clearly a bright student, and i don't see anything that could warrent councelling for creating something usefull like a motion detector
What school policies could be violated by making a motion detector for a science fair?!
The one that says 'Don't make us adults look like complete morons'?
Never been much of an Apple fan, and ever since they patented "multi touch" then can go crawl under a rock & die for all i care.
Go Nokia Go!
PS: Isn't ACTA pushing for global software patents?
Why would i want to watch A New Hope?!
A real scientist would get that post-grad student to taste the urine of the whole staff, to see if there is a difference between gender, age, race and diet. Oh, and he'd get more then one post-grad to do that, or else your pool of results would be to insignificant
Was he the guy who sued Napster on Metallica's behest?
This is why point & shoot cameras, even Canon's "bridge" models, all result in complaints about noise, noise, noise when used for dark indoor environments. You might say use a flash, but if at, for example, an art gallery or museum, play, or a concert, flashes are usually forbidden, or you may simply be too far away from the subject to reach with an internal flash.
Whatever you do, don't use a flash during a concert, the only thing you'll end up doing is lighten all the dust & smoke in the air & annoy people arround you.
:P), i usually use a shutter speed of 1/80 seconds and ISO 800, helps to have a steady hand of course, the light show has to be good from the front of the band, there's nothing more annoying then light shows that shine light on the band from behind (from a photographer's viewpoint).
I tend to take a lot of pictures during concerts i never use a flash and i tend to get good quality pictures, the trick is to know your camera (yes, that means actually reading it's manual
This brings up a point that I have wondered about. The "shutterspeed" on a digital camera.
I always assumed that this was just another word for "how much motion blur do you want?" or "how many sensor refreshes do you want to average together?" and not that the sensor actually has a shutter preventing light from hitting the sensor at any time. So at that point there isn't any difference between the "live-view light costantly flood[ing] the sensor" and when the actual picture is taken.
DSLR's still use mechanical shutters, the compacts probably use an electronic shutter, it varies per model, but the shutter is in integral part of taking pictures.
Same for the "iso speed". It seems like a very artificial analogy back to film for what is really a software brightness setting.
Whoa there buddy :) Actually, the ISO setting changes the sensitivity of the sensor by boosting the signal, but that introduces noise in the image, it's not some fake setting at all.
In fact, given that both of these probably change multiple things to achieve the effect of shutterspeed or film-speed, I wonder if it might be easier to control and more accurate if the cameras presented the real digital variables to be changed (or something more representative of what is actually happening in the digital camera.)
Shutterspeed, aperture & ISO settings aren't some software effect, aperture & shutter are an integral part of picture taking, these define how the light hits the sensor & how long, ISO tells the sensor how sensitive it should be.
However, I admit that I don't know if any of this is true. It is a speculation and a request for clairification from anybody out there who is actually programming/designing digital cameras.
While i'm not programming them nor designing them, i use them quite extensively ;)
Why is this modded flamebait?!
Well atleast he has good taste in music \m/
Knowing abit about camera's i know that what you see on the LCD isn't exactly what you would get from just piping out the output of the sensor to the screen, there is alot of proccessing involved to give you that 'live view' picture on the screen.
Two Things that need to be compensated for (at a minimum):
- Shutterspeed: While using live-view light constantly floods the sensor, however, when you take the actual picture, the sensor will only receive light for the set speed, this can be anything between for instance 1/4000 of a second to 30 seconds or more, you need to process the live-view 'feed' from the sensor to show you how the actual picture would look
- ISO sensitivity: Your sensor can operate on multiple sensitivity settings, depending on the setting the sensor will be more or less sensitive to light
The above had to be done in real time, digital camera's 10 years ago didn't have the horse power to do that in software alone, nor do they have that kind of horse power now, that's why you have hardware assisted designs & chips, like for instance the EXPEED chip
Or more precisely, it's mother company, Commodore
... What a heap of drivel by a bunch of cry-babies.
I have virtually unlimited access to media through piracy, be it books, music or movies & series, yet i own hunderds of cd's & dvd's, and a bunch of books too, if i like it, guess what? I frekking buy the thing! And i'm not talking about mp3's, avi's or ebooks (whatever those are stored in), but fysical hard copies on CD/LP, DVD & dead trees.
I refuse to pay money to download a stupid file though, the only one getting a dime from me for downloads is my ISP, because i need to get online.
Off Topic:
Since 1 Januari we in Belgium also have to pay a tax on digital storage media such as external hard drives, usb sticks, sd cards & whatnot that serve to 'compensate piracy', and the money is devided amonst the most 'popular' artists of that period, and you don't want to know what i think about those 'popular artists', trust me on that one,
Weird Al: Genius ... let's not go there
Rihanna:
Here in Belgium at least, there have been several raids on lan-parties
And well deserved it would be.
In the financial sector, mis-selling and misleading statements has made it one of the most tightly regulated sectors in the world. Breaches of the laws, even with regards to disclosure of data to competent authorities, are punished with heavy fines and prison.
Much like people rely on financial advisors for their choices, so do they rely on scientists for their choices.
To me, it looks like scientists have had it far too good for far too long. Enforced transparency, ultra-tight regulation and prison sentences for misleading statements would serve them extremely well.
Well, that'll take care of alot of the creationists aswell i guess...
The politics are completely besides the point if you ask me, regardless of what you believe reducing pollution is a goal to strife for, denying that pollution is bad is completely irrationally stupid.
First thing i hear about this too, without any factual data i'm going to ignore that though
Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?
Based on the knowledge we have, there isglobal warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.
However, these are conclusions based on our limited knowledge of the world & how it's climate works completely, it's possible that global warming is part of a normal cycle, it's possible it's due to sun output (although very unlikely, we should've detected that already), and yes, it's possible that mankind is contributing to the problem.
Given that we have measured & observed temperature rise, and given that we know pollution & CO2 emissions have a negative effect on the climate, why shouldn't we do our best to limit both pollution & emissions? Regardless of the question if we are solely to blame for the problem?
Hell, it's the air we breathe in, the water we drink, and the food we eat, why do we as a species insist on 'peeing in the pool we drink from'?
All i can say is "LOL" :D
Why do people refuse to understand that you can not possibly test for every frecking hardware combo out there with the budget canonical has? Fact of the matter is, shit happens, all thing considered Canonical does a good job.
Want a flawless running linux system? Get a distro that has certified hardware.
But the final was a smooth ride for me, everything works flawlessy (as far as i can tell), even pulseaudio. I'm not going back.