And just in case I'm not being abundantly clear on this point, evolution is a fact. It happens. We've seen it.
Ok, I'll agree with that. That's easy to prove. Olympic marmots, for example. I even have pictures. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the theory that all life came from some hydrocarbons floating around in the primordial stew has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perpetual motion has been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have a clue what the Time Cube guy is talking about. Regarding cold fusion, here's an interesting article from a few years ago on Wired. Free energy is generally considered to be in the same boat with perpetual motion, so we can fairly say that's been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt as well.
Contrary to this, creationism has not been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor has evolution/big bang been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as I mentioned in a reply to the other poster who replied to me, I see no problem with a brief mention that there are people who believe the universe was created. Like you said, the classroom is for real science. And real science teaches us to not disregard any idea until it has been disproven, or until another idea has been proven. And until evolution is proven, real science tells us not to teach it at the expense of all other ideas.
It isn't censorship when you don't teach that the Earth is the centre of the universe, because research says that's not true.
The geocentric view of the universe has been DISproven beyond a reasonable doubt. Creationism has not, nor has evolution or the big bang been proven beyond a resonable doubt. Teaching evolution as if it's a proven fact, at the expense of all other possible ideas, is almost as dangerous as teaching creationism as if it's a proven fact.
by giving preference to the Judeo-Christian view of creation
There are other theories of creationism than the Judeo-Christian view. Various Native American tribes have creation stories, for example. I said nothing about teaching the Book of Genesis story, because I have obvious problems with that (re: separation of church and state, as you said). But I see no problem with noting that there are a variety of people that believe the universe was created by something, be it a deity or a magic crow or whatever. (In reality, how much more can you say about creationism? It's not like it's a complex idea.)
Then again, all the librarians I know wouldn't have let the state school board mandate the teaching of Creationism, either.
Personally, as an atheist, I have absolutely no problem with the teaching of Creationism, as long as it's not the only theory that's taught. No one knows for sure how we got here, and until we do know, it seems fair to discuss the various theories that have been proposed.
And, back to the original topic, if you don't allow the teaching of Creationism, how is that not censorship?
I understand the symbolism perfectly. The average 10 year old, however, has NO CONCEPT of symbolism. Just like the average six year old cannot understand the concept of negative numbers. Their minds are just not that advanced at that age. Hell, the average 20 year old doesn't understand the meaning behind most of the words they're singing along to. To most people they're just words, and they don't stop and think about what they mean. I bet a lot of people actually think "Bullet in Your Head" is about killing someone. Or they just think the "you got a fucking bullet in your head" line is "cool".
Further, I'm well aware of the meaning of Killing in the Name. I'm also well aware that the vast majority of parents would find it objectionable if their kid chanted over and over again "Fuck you I won't do what they tell me". The meaning in this case isn't necessarily the problem, it's the explicit words used to convey the meaning.
So is it censorship if the individual library decides not to carry porn? More disturbingly, is it censorship if the individual library chooses not to carry the latest beheading video from Iraq? Of course it's censorship, by the strict dictionary definition. Just like it was discrimination when I decided to start dating a white girl instead of a black girl.
People need to understand that words such as "censorship" and "discrimination" have incredibly negative connotations, so people recoil in fear and loathing anytime they hear one of these words. But most of the censorship and discrimination that goes on is not objectionable to anyone.
Further, the article basically states that the attorney general did what the individual libraries would have done anyway. So what's the big deal with the fact that the AG did it? Is it less censorship when the individual libraries do it, rather than the AG? If so, why?
Perhaps not, but where do you draw the line? The slippery slope principle works the other way too -- if the libraries can't decide they don't want music containing lyrics such as "shoot up my ho wid my.45", can they decide that they don't want porn videos/magazines either? I don't think anyone would object to libraries not carrying copies of Hustler or Annie's First Anal.
If there's "no way" that libraries can say what they want, it's a flaw in the organization of the libraries of Kansas, not a license for someone else to dictate their content for them.
Uh, that's not at all what I got from that quote. I took it to mean that the attorney general can call bullshit on those CDs and send them back to the recording industry for different ones, since he was (presumably) involved in the settlement to begin with. The individual libraries, on the other hand, would have a much harder time doing so, and would just have to settle for getting shortchanged.
Or possibly it had something to do with "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" repeated 16 times, followed by "Motherfucker!" in Killing in the Name, or any of the lyrics of Bullet in the Head ("You got a bullet in your fuckin' head!", for example), etc. Not everything's a friggin conspiracy.
But if the library decides it won't allow those CDs, it's not censorship?
If you answered 'yes', then why is the library making the decision not censorship but the attorney general making the decision is censorship? From reading the article, the Kansas Library Assocation had no problem with the AG's decision, and it sounds like the AG was just doing the same thing that each individual library would have done anyways. So what's the big deal? Might as well expedite the process.
We're not at war with terrorists. Terror is only the means that Islamic fundamentalists use towards their end. We are no more at war with terrorists than we were with bomber pilots, riflemen, and U-boat crew during WWII. Painting with the broad brush of "terrorist" simply allows us to use the new-found law enforcement tactics granted by the patriot act on anyone John Ashcroft chooses.
the bad guys started it
Would SOMEONE please acknowledge the fact that these people don't just hate us for the sake of hating us? Could it not have something to do with the fact that for the past 75 years we have exploited their region for its oil reserves, propping up evil dictatorships only because they were friendly to us, while enriching the 1% of the population that owns the oil wells while the rest of the population lives in abject poverty? And because they live in poverty and have nothing to do all day, they sit around all day and come up with ways to hate us more! No, they hate us solely because we're rich. Bullshit. If that's the reason, then those hundreds of billions of dollars we are putting towards Iraq would serve us much better if we scatter them from an airplane over the entire Middle East in order to share the wealth.
it's only going to get worse unless we start fighting back
If you mean fighting back in the guns and bullets sense, then you are dead wrong. Hasn't Israel proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that attempting to wipe out Hezbollah, et al has done absolutely nothing but recruit more terrorists? Has the number of suicide bombings in Israel decreased since Israel starting going after these organizations en masse? I didn't think so. We need to fight an IDEOLOGICAL war, not a guns and bullets one. The guns and bullets war will be unsuccessful because for every one you kill, you piss another 10 off enough to want to kill us. Iraq has been one big Al Qaeda recruiting field day. Only by convincing these people that we ARE a great nation can we win (hint: beating the shit out of Iraqi prisoners is not a step in the right direction). We need to revise our foreign policy so as to treat Arabs as REAL PEOPLE, rather than just those poor brown people who happen to ride their camels on top of the largest oil reserves on the planet. We need to stop supporting terrible regimes like Saudi Arabia. We need to give these people SECULAR educations. We need to give them jobs and opportunities. Bush always says that fighting so-called terrorists is harder then fighting the Soviets was, because at least the Soviets didn't want to die. Well, why don't we give Arabs something to live for, and then maybe it wouldn't be such a simple choice for them. Am I the only one that finds this so obvious? Or is it the neo-typical "it's everyone else's fault, let's sue 'em!" American mindset?
Oh yeah, and reducing our fossil fuel dependence wouldn't be a bad start either. Turn off your damn computer at night. Yes I know you look 3733t when you have an uptime of 6 months, but who cares. Turn off the lights when you leave the room. Buy an automobile that gets more than 10 miles to the gallon. Oh, you need an SUV for those two times a year when you carry big stuff? Bullshit. Go rent a U-Haul, it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper. Support serious investments in alternative energy sources. Hint: drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does not count as an alternative energy source, no matter what Dick Cheney whispers in your ear at night.
so we're fighting in Iraq
I would be willing to bet that 90% of the so-called terrorists that are currently in Iraq were not there before we showed up. Like I said, one big Al Qaeda recruiting picnic.
Kerry thinks we should wait for them to attack, and then get the U.N. to arrest them and try them in the World Court
At least that's an indication that Kerry acknowledges that there are other nations on this planet other than our own. Bush said it himself, you're either with us or against us. Well, it's turning out that more and more of the world is against us, and quite frankly, that doesn't make me feel more comfortable in our security.
Actually, the scab games suffered quite a bit because they were using very simple playbooks and schemes, and the players were much slower/smaller/etc. Similar to college football, which is inferior to NFL play in almost every respect.
But no less interesting to watch, which was the parent's point. More interesting at times, in fact. College rivalries can be far more intense than pro rivalries.
Thank you for that incredibly insightful post. We weren't talking about all other things being equal. We were talking about the average cl00bie walking into a computer store and picking out the machine with the highest clock speed, memory/video card/everything else be damned.
Ever worked in a computer store? I did several years ago, and we used to see this ALL the time.
Are you kidding? Do a google search for "megahertz myth". Here, I'll do one for you.
And if you don't want to click the link, I'll spell it out for you. The following is quoted from this page on AMD's site:
Simply put, the Megahertz Myth is the belief that clock frequency (MHz/GHz) is the only true measure of real processor performance. In reality, processor performance should be measured by how quickly an application completes an assigned task.
As for lens quality, it ought to be obvious that a better lens will provide better image quality. If it's not, go here, click on a couple lenses, and look at their MTF chart. If you're not familiar with how to read an MTF chart, here's the low-down: a better lens has all the lines closer to the top of the chart (for a more detailed explanation, check out Canon's glossary). Pick a couple lenses of comparable focal length, look at their MTF chart, and then compare the price. For instance, look at the 80-200mm f/4-5.6 compared with the 70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L. The 80-200mm is currently going for $120. The 70-200mm f/2.8L is currently going for a little over $1100. FYI, lenses with an "L" in the name are their pro series. There's a lot more to a lens than just its ability to resolve detail and show contrast, of course -- look here for more info on why pro lenses are so much more expensive (and better) than consumer-grade lenses. And by "consumer grade" I'm not even getting close to the level of a camera phone lens.
Maximum aperture, for one thing. A pro telephoto lens might have a max aperture of f/2 or f/2.8. A consumer-grade might have a max of f/4 or f/5.6 (f/2 lets in twice as much light as f/2.8, so you can use half the shutter speed. f/2.8 lets in twice as much as f/4, f/4 twice as much as f/5.6). Takeaway -- you can shoot in lower light with a pro lens. This is useful, of course, because many wild things are most active in mornings or evenings.
Second, resolution. Consumer lenses are "softer" compared to pro lenses, which are much sharper. A pro lens can resolve a series of closely-spaced thin lines from farther away than a consumer lens can. Also, pro lenses are sharper through the entire frame, whereas consumers are often soft at the edges of the frame.
Less chromatic aberration. Less spherical aberration. Better contrast. Better coated glass, to reduce lens flare (when light from outside the photographed scene reflects off one of the inner components and into the picture). Faster and quiter focusing. Focusing turns rear elements rather than the front element, so that polarizing filters are easier to use.
Canon (and presumably others) has started putting image stabilization in higher-end lenses. Little gyros in the lens steady the image, letting you shoot in lower light. Not really an optics thing (they have it on some of their consumer lenses as well), but it's useful and is a several hundred dollar premium.
There is such a thing as megapixels (and megahertz)
Thank you. I was referring to the fact that more megapixels does not necessarily equate to better quality. Just like more megahertz does not necessarily equate to a better computer.
you're just arguing about the QUALITY of the sensor.
There's a whole lot more to it than just the quality of the sensor. The quality of the lens plays a huge role, arguably a more important role than the quality of the sensor. Ever wonder why pro lenses start at $1000?
This is true, most people couldn't care less. But the article makes it sound as if the camera market is going to get swallowed up completely by camera phones. And I'm just pointing out that that's a load of crap.
Unless, of course, someone like Canon start making those integrated cameras which come with the phones.
It doesn't matter who makes it. There are physical limitations of optics at work here. Correcting for aberrations takes a lot of glass, and glass isn't particularly light. There are currently limitations in the sensors such that larger sensors give better quality than smaller sensors. This will probably always be true to some degree or another (large format film camera give better results than 35mm, but for most of the market, who cares?). Sure, phone cams could potentially someday be enough for a lot of people, but they will NEVER take over the camera market as a whole. Just imagine holding a phone w/ attached 5 pound telephoto lens up to your ear.
Sorry dude, they have 3M pixel cameras with optical zooms in cell phones here in Japan NOW.
I've already said it, but I'll say it again. Megapixels are a myth, just like megahertz. Your 3MP phone camera isn't going to get nearly the image quality as a 3MP dedicated digital camera. Read my other comment for more info.
the digital camera I get with a cellphone doesn't get the resolutions of a digicam I can buy separately (yet)
Repeat after me folks: megapixels are just as much of a myth as megahertz.
There are plenty of cases where a manufacturer has slapped a 5 megapixel sensor into a camera that was originally designed for a 3MP sensor, and the picture quality actually decreased.
Lenses, sensor pixel size (a 35mm full frame sensor at 6MP will deliver far better quality than the tiny 8MP sensors found on point-and-shoots), image processing, etc are all far more important to image quality than megapixels. And there's just not enough room in your pocket for a phone that has a decent lens and a big sensor.
I welcome this trend towards ONE peice of equipment to do everything. This will allow me to carry one peice instead of a camera (and it's respective bag, accessories etc.), a phone, a pda, a computer, a music player, a note taking device etc...
I don't. As the saying goes, "jack of all trades, master of none." When I see people taking pictures with their phone, I laugh. The quality you can get out of those things doesn't come close to what you can get out of a dedicated digital camera, let alone what I can get out of the digital SLR I just bought. And sure, phone cameras may someday be able to get comparable resolution, but megapixels are just as much of a myth as megahertz. Nobody will want to carry around a phone that's big enough to have a sensor big enough to be capable of taking a good picture.
As I mentioned in another post, the song, set to the tune of American Pie, is largely about Star Wars, and has absolutely nothing to do with the original song by Don McLean.
Please explain to me how "The Saga Begins" is parodying anything but Star Wars. The song may have the same tune and structure as "American Pie", but that's where the similarity ends.
have you even listened to any of his songs?
Yes I have. Entire albums, even, though admittedly I can only take a couple songs at a time. Thank you, but I'm not the typical/. reader who posts about things he has no clue about.
Huh? I'm much more inclined to believe that the definition of satire applies.
One entry found for satire.
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
Yup, it's ridiculing the low intellectual level of the presidential debate thus far.
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
I'd say it's exposing the folly that is this presidential election.
Main Entry: parody
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
Yes, the tune is imitated, but what I get from this definition is that the point of the imitation is to make fun of the author or work. This is clearly not the case here.
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation
Same as above.
Either way, it's hard to say that the definition of satire clearly does not apply, as you did.
Slashdot Mirror
And just in case I'm not being abundantly clear on this point, evolution is a fact. It happens. We've seen it.
Ok, I'll agree with that. That's easy to prove. Olympic marmots, for example. I even have pictures. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the theory that all life came from some hydrocarbons floating around in the primordial stew has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perpetual motion has been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have a clue what the Time Cube guy is talking about. Regarding cold fusion, here's an interesting article from a few years ago on Wired. Free energy is generally considered to be in the same boat with perpetual motion, so we can fairly say that's been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt as well.
Contrary to this, creationism has not been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor has evolution/big bang been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as I mentioned in a reply to the other poster who replied to me, I see no problem with a brief mention that there are people who believe the universe was created. Like you said, the classroom is for real science. And real science teaches us to not disregard any idea until it has been disproven, or until another idea has been proven. And until evolution is proven, real science tells us not to teach it at the expense of all other ideas.
I agree with most of your post, except...
It isn't censorship when you don't teach that the Earth is the centre of the universe, because research says that's not true.
The geocentric view of the universe has been DISproven beyond a reasonable doubt. Creationism has not, nor has evolution or the big bang been proven beyond a resonable doubt. Teaching evolution as if it's a proven fact, at the expense of all other possible ideas, is almost as dangerous as teaching creationism as if it's a proven fact.
by giving preference to the Judeo-Christian view of creation
There are other theories of creationism than the Judeo-Christian view. Various Native American tribes have creation stories, for example. I said nothing about teaching the Book of Genesis story, because I have obvious problems with that (re: separation of church and state, as you said). But I see no problem with noting that there are a variety of people that believe the universe was created by something, be it a deity or a magic crow or whatever. (In reality, how much more can you say about creationism? It's not like it's a complex idea.)
Then again, all the librarians I know wouldn't have let the state school board mandate the teaching of Creationism, either.
Personally, as an atheist, I have absolutely no problem with the teaching of Creationism, as long as it's not the only theory that's taught. No one knows for sure how we got here, and until we do know, it seems fair to discuss the various theories that have been proposed.
And, back to the original topic, if you don't allow the teaching of Creationism, how is that not censorship?
I understand the symbolism perfectly. The average 10 year old, however, has NO CONCEPT of symbolism. Just like the average six year old cannot understand the concept of negative numbers. Their minds are just not that advanced at that age. Hell, the average 20 year old doesn't understand the meaning behind most of the words they're singing along to. To most people they're just words, and they don't stop and think about what they mean. I bet a lot of people actually think "Bullet in Your Head" is about killing someone. Or they just think the "you got a fucking bullet in your head" line is "cool".
Further, I'm well aware of the meaning of Killing in the Name. I'm also well aware that the vast majority of parents would find it objectionable if their kid chanted over and over again "Fuck you I won't do what they tell me". The meaning in this case isn't necessarily the problem, it's the explicit words used to convey the meaning.
So is it censorship if the individual library decides not to carry porn? More disturbingly, is it censorship if the individual library chooses not to carry the latest beheading video from Iraq? Of course it's censorship, by the strict dictionary definition. Just like it was discrimination when I decided to start dating a white girl instead of a black girl.
People need to understand that words such as "censorship" and "discrimination" have incredibly negative connotations, so people recoil in fear and loathing anytime they hear one of these words. But most of the censorship and discrimination that goes on is not objectionable to anyone.
Further, the article basically states that the attorney general did what the individual libraries would have done anyway. So what's the big deal with the fact that the AG did it? Is it less censorship when the individual libraries do it, rather than the AG? If so, why?
That doesn't make it right.
.45", can they decide that they don't want porn videos/magazines either? I don't think anyone would object to libraries not carrying copies of Hustler or Annie's First Anal.
Perhaps not, but where do you draw the line? The slippery slope principle works the other way too -- if the libraries can't decide they don't want music containing lyrics such as "shoot up my ho wid my
If there's "no way" that libraries can say what they want, it's a flaw in the organization of the libraries of Kansas, not a license for someone else to dictate their content for them.
Uh, that's not at all what I got from that quote. I took it to mean that the attorney general can call bullshit on those CDs and send them back to the recording industry for different ones, since he was (presumably) involved in the settlement to begin with. The individual libraries, on the other hand, would have a much harder time doing so, and would just have to settle for getting shortchanged.
Or possibly it had something to do with "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" repeated 16 times, followed by "Motherfucker!" in Killing in the Name, or any of the lyrics of Bullet in the Head ("You got a bullet in your fuckin' head!", for example), etc. Not everything's a friggin conspiracy.
But if the library decides it won't allow those CDs, it's not censorship?
If you answered 'yes', then why is the library making the decision not censorship but the attorney general making the decision is censorship? From reading the article, the Kansas Library Assocation had no problem with the AG's decision, and it sounds like the AG was just doing the same thing that each individual library would have done anyways. So what's the big deal? Might as well expedite the process.
Finally, there's the war on terror.
We're not at war with terrorists. Terror is only the means that Islamic fundamentalists use towards their end. We are no more at war with terrorists than we were with bomber pilots, riflemen, and U-boat crew during WWII. Painting with the broad brush of "terrorist" simply allows us to use the new-found law enforcement tactics granted by the patriot act on anyone John Ashcroft chooses.
the bad guys started it
Would SOMEONE please acknowledge the fact that these people don't just hate us for the sake of hating us? Could it not have something to do with the fact that for the past 75 years we have exploited their region for its oil reserves, propping up evil dictatorships only because they were friendly to us, while enriching the 1% of the population that owns the oil wells while the rest of the population lives in abject poverty? And because they live in poverty and have nothing to do all day, they sit around all day and come up with ways to hate us more! No, they hate us solely because we're rich. Bullshit. If that's the reason, then those hundreds of billions of dollars we are putting towards Iraq would serve us much better if we scatter them from an airplane over the entire Middle East in order to share the wealth.
it's only going to get worse unless we start fighting back
If you mean fighting back in the guns and bullets sense, then you are dead wrong. Hasn't Israel proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that attempting to wipe out Hezbollah, et al has done absolutely nothing but recruit more terrorists? Has the number of suicide bombings in Israel decreased since Israel starting going after these organizations en masse? I didn't think so. We need to fight an IDEOLOGICAL war, not a guns and bullets one. The guns and bullets war will be unsuccessful because for every one you kill, you piss another 10 off enough to want to kill us. Iraq has been one big Al Qaeda recruiting field day. Only by convincing these people that we ARE a great nation can we win (hint: beating the shit out of Iraqi prisoners is not a step in the right direction). We need to revise our foreign policy so as to treat Arabs as REAL PEOPLE, rather than just those poor brown people who happen to ride their camels on top of the largest oil reserves on the planet. We need to stop supporting terrible regimes like Saudi Arabia. We need to give these people SECULAR educations. We need to give them jobs and opportunities. Bush always says that fighting so-called terrorists is harder then fighting the Soviets was, because at least the Soviets didn't want to die. Well, why don't we give Arabs something to live for, and then maybe it wouldn't be such a simple choice for them. Am I the only one that finds this so obvious? Or is it the neo-typical "it's everyone else's fault, let's sue 'em!" American mindset?
Oh yeah, and reducing our fossil fuel dependence wouldn't be a bad start either. Turn off your damn computer at night. Yes I know you look 3733t when you have an uptime of 6 months, but who cares. Turn off the lights when you leave the room. Buy an automobile that gets more than 10 miles to the gallon. Oh, you need an SUV for those two times a year when you carry big stuff? Bullshit. Go rent a U-Haul, it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper. Support serious investments in alternative energy sources. Hint: drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does not count as an alternative energy source, no matter what Dick Cheney whispers in your ear at night.
so we're fighting in Iraq
I would be willing to bet that 90% of the so-called terrorists that are currently in Iraq were not there before we showed up. Like I said, one big Al Qaeda recruiting picnic.
Kerry thinks we should wait for them to attack, and then get the U.N. to arrest them and try them in the World Court
At least that's an indication that Kerry acknowledges that there are other nations on this planet other than our own. Bush said it himself, you're either with us or against us. Well, it's turning out that more and more of the world is against us, and quite frankly, that doesn't make me feel more comfortable in our security.
Actually, the scab games suffered quite a bit because they were using very simple playbooks and schemes, and the players were much slower/smaller/etc. Similar to college football, which is inferior to NFL play in almost every respect.
But no less interesting to watch, which was the parent's point. More interesting at times, in fact. College rivalries can be far more intense than pro rivalries.
Thank you for that incredibly insightful post. We weren't talking about all other things being equal. We were talking about the average cl00bie walking into a computer store and picking out the machine with the highest clock speed, memory/video card/everything else be damned.
Ever worked in a computer store? I did several years ago, and we used to see this ALL the time.
Are you kidding? Do a google search for "megahertz myth". Here, I'll do one for you.
And if you don't want to click the link, I'll spell it out for you. The following is quoted from this page on AMD's site:
Some info from 3 reputable sites:/ 1 .shtml
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Pixel_Quality
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting
As for lens quality, it ought to be obvious that a better lens will provide better image quality. If it's not, go here, click on a couple lenses, and look at their MTF chart. If you're not familiar with how to read an MTF chart, here's the low-down: a better lens has all the lines closer to the top of the chart (for a more detailed explanation, check out Canon's glossary). Pick a couple lenses of comparable focal length, look at their MTF chart, and then compare the price. For instance, look at the 80-200mm f/4-5.6 compared with the 70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L. The 80-200mm is currently going for $120. The 70-200mm f/2.8L is currently going for a little over $1100. FYI, lenses with an "L" in the name are their pro series. There's a lot more to a lens than just its ability to resolve detail and show contrast, of course -- look here for more info on why pro lenses are so much more expensive (and better) than consumer-grade lenses. And by "consumer grade" I'm not even getting close to the level of a camera phone lens.
Maximum aperture, for one thing. A pro telephoto lens might have a max aperture of f/2 or f/2.8. A consumer-grade might have a max of f/4 or f/5.6 (f/2 lets in twice as much light as f/2.8, so you can use half the shutter speed. f/2.8 lets in twice as much as f/4, f/4 twice as much as f/5.6). Takeaway -- you can shoot in lower light with a pro lens. This is useful, of course, because many wild things are most active in mornings or evenings.
Second, resolution. Consumer lenses are "softer" compared to pro lenses, which are much sharper. A pro lens can resolve a series of closely-spaced thin lines from farther away than a consumer lens can. Also, pro lenses are sharper through the entire frame, whereas consumers are often soft at the edges of the frame.
Less chromatic aberration. Less spherical aberration. Better contrast. Better coated glass, to reduce lens flare (when light from outside the photographed scene reflects off one of the inner components and into the picture). Faster and quiter focusing. Focusing turns rear elements rather than the front element, so that polarizing filters are easier to use.
Canon (and presumably others) has started putting image stabilization in higher-end lenses. Little gyros in the lens steady the image, letting you shoot in lower light. Not really an optics thing (they have it on some of their consumer lenses as well), but it's useful and is a several hundred dollar premium.
Etc etc etc.
There is such a thing as megapixels (and megahertz)
Thank you. I was referring to the fact that more megapixels does not necessarily equate to better quality. Just like more megahertz does not necessarily equate to a better computer.
you're just arguing about the QUALITY of the sensor.
There's a whole lot more to it than just the quality of the sensor. The quality of the lens plays a huge role, arguably a more important role than the quality of the sensor. Ever wonder why pro lenses start at $1000?
This is true, most people couldn't care less. But the article makes it sound as if the camera market is going to get swallowed up completely by camera phones. And I'm just pointing out that that's a load of crap.
I agree with you that that is an interesting application, but certainly not one I would want to trust with a $20 camera :-)
Unless, of course, someone like Canon start making those integrated cameras which come with the phones.
It doesn't matter who makes it. There are physical limitations of optics at work here. Correcting for aberrations takes a lot of glass, and glass isn't particularly light. There are currently limitations in the sensors such that larger sensors give better quality than smaller sensors. This will probably always be true to some degree or another (large format film camera give better results than 35mm, but for most of the market, who cares?). Sure, phone cams could potentially someday be enough for a lot of people, but they will NEVER take over the camera market as a whole. Just imagine holding a phone w/ attached 5 pound telephoto lens up to your ear.
Sorry dude, they have 3M pixel cameras with optical zooms in cell phones here in Japan NOW.
I've already said it, but I'll say it again. Megapixels are a myth, just like megahertz. Your 3MP phone camera isn't going to get nearly the image quality as a 3MP dedicated digital camera. Read my other comment for more info.
the digital camera I get with a cellphone doesn't get the resolutions of a digicam I can buy separately (yet)
Repeat after me folks: megapixels are just as much of a myth as megahertz.
There are plenty of cases where a manufacturer has slapped a 5 megapixel sensor into a camera that was originally designed for a 3MP sensor, and the picture quality actually decreased.
Lenses, sensor pixel size (a 35mm full frame sensor at 6MP will deliver far better quality than the tiny 8MP sensors found on point-and-shoots), image processing, etc are all far more important to image quality than megapixels. And there's just not enough room in your pocket for a phone that has a decent lens and a big sensor.
I welcome this trend towards ONE peice of equipment to do everything. This will allow me to carry one peice instead of a camera (and it's respective bag, accessories etc.), a phone, a pda, a computer, a music player, a note taking device etc...
I don't. As the saying goes, "jack of all trades, master of none." When I see people taking pictures with their phone, I laugh. The quality you can get out of those things doesn't come close to what you can get out of a dedicated digital camera, let alone what I can get out of the digital SLR I just bought. And sure, phone cameras may someday be able to get comparable resolution, but megapixels are just as much of a myth as megahertz. Nobody will want to carry around a phone that's big enough to have a sensor big enough to be capable of taking a good picture.
"The Saga Begins"
As I mentioned in another post, the song, set to the tune of American Pie, is largely about Star Wars, and has absolutely nothing to do with the original song by Don McLean.
Actually, they are
/. reader who posts about things he has no clue about.
Please explain to me how "The Saga Begins" is parodying anything but Star Wars. The song may have the same tune and structure as "American Pie", but that's where the similarity ends.
have you even listened to any of his songs?
Yes I have. Entire albums, even, though admittedly I can only take a couple songs at a time. Thank you, but I'm not the typical
Huh? I'm much more inclined to believe that the definition of satire applies.
One entry found for satire.
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
Yup, it's ridiculing the low intellectual level of the presidential debate thus far.
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
I'd say it's exposing the folly that is this presidential election.
Main Entry: parody
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
Yes, the tune is imitated, but what I get from this definition is that the point of the imitation is to make fun of the author or work. This is clearly not the case here.
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation
Same as above.
Either way, it's hard to say that the definition of satire clearly does not apply, as you did.