I don't think either of you are exactly right. Obviously the manufacturer wants you to buy more lenses, because that means more money for them. But they also don't want you to have to throw away all your old lenses, because that would require a huge initial investment on your part (new camera + all new lenses) which would certainly deter a lot of people.
The happy medium? Cameras with an APS sensor size, which allow the use of the old lenses, but with a different effective focal length than when used with 35mm. You don't have to throw out all your old lenses, but because of the different performance characteristics they'll have when used with D-SLRs, you'll probably want to upgrade them in the future. You're happy because you can still use all your old lenses, and the manufacturer is happy because you'll probably buy new ones in the not-so-distant future, not to mention the fact that you also bought the camera.
Do I think this is the primary reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm? No, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
I can do some 16x12s... Which one(s) do you want? I'm not going to re-scale all of them again:-)
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
And quality did matter. If APS film was BETTER than 35 mm it would have been a rage with pros and journalists and wedding professionals.
His point was that for the person to whom APS was targeted, quality DID NOT matter. Believe me, if these people shoot a bad photo, it's because their finger is over the lens, not because the quality of the film isn't there.
Pros already understand how to load 35mm film into a camera. I know of a lot of people who have no clue, however, and these people were the target audience of APS. I would guess that there are far more people who can't load film into a camera than there are professional photographers (who buys more film as a group is another matter entirely, however).
(And no, I'm not rabidly pro-Kodak. Perhaps their lenses are of inferior quality; if this is the case, it is certainly not from lack of experience. Further, I own a Canon digital camera and am very satisfied with it, to the point that I will probably buy a Canon digital SLR soon.)
More of the sun's visible light emitted is in the yellow-green wavelengths than any other wavelength. Also a reason why plants tend to be green to green yellow.
Plants appear green because they REFLECT green light, not because they absorb it.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have a 3 megapixel camera, and I've gotten pictures from it blown up to as large as 16x20. In fact, I have 2 of them on the wall of the room I'm sitting in right now. If I look at them from 6 inches away, I can tell there isn't as much detail as I would get from film. But when I'm sitting 6 feet away as I am right now (and 99% of the time), you could never tell the difference. Same with the dozen 11x14s I have around my apartment.
In fact, when I brought the prints to a store to get them dry mounted and I told them they were digital, the response was "THESE are DIGITAL?" The fact that the enlargements were done with a photographic process vs. a printing process certainly helps. The 4x6 prints I get look just as good as anything I've gotten from film, but, as another poster stated, you can't get that kind of quality from your $99 inkjet.
You can always tell a good liberal by their love of labels like ultra-conservative religious right. Make sure you say it like a swear word.
And you can always tell a good conservative by their use of "liberal" like a swear word. Note the current attempt by the Bush administration to paint John Kerry as, simply, a "liberal". Fortunately I don't have such disdain for the word "conservative", nor would I consider myself even close to "liberal". In fact, I would consider myself about equidistant from "ultra-conservative religious right" and "ultra-liberal commie pinko", neither of which are particularly worthwhile in my estimation.
False. ClearChannel temporarily suspended Stern before the fines; they officially dropped him for good in immediate response to the fines.
As an aside, the local CC station here in Rochester (NY) that used to carry Stern is FAR more vulgar in their 5-second station promos than Stern ever was.
What public outrage? I heard of NO public outrage whatsoever, except for everyone saying it was a pathetic stunt. Now mind you, I don't hang out with the ultra-conservative religious right, but I hardly consider that group a bellwether of the opinion of the public at large.
though their stations are a small slice of a market, they are often the most popular (i.e. they serve the listeners).
Which is EXACTLY why you can't go strictly by the number of stations they own when determining the control they have over a market. They could easily own 10 or 20% of the stations, but have 75% of the listeners.
However, a HS kid might not want a difficult job at $6/hr, maybe they want an easy job at $4/hr. However, minimum wage makes that illegal.
I would bet that if there were no minimum wage laws, he'd have just as hard a time finding that easy job for $4 an hour, because the employer would only be willing to pay $2 an hour.
Yes, I know you're a troll, but I'll bite. So what you're saying is, if an average user has two computers in his house, and a printer attached to only one of them, he shouldn't be allowed to use CUPS to share the print services to the other computer? With Windows he can share the printer on the network with ease. Why shouldn't he be able to do that with Linux as well, just because he's not some super-savvy admin? It's this "you're too stupid to use Linux" attitude that, as ESR says, keeps Microsoft in business.
I don't see where they used to have $40 billion in cash, looking at their annual reports going back to 1995. Maybe you're considering "short-term investments" as cash, which I was not. Cash + short term investments currently is $49 billion (which is still much more than for any other year since 1995).
I hope you're kidding. The ability to forge DNS replies, which has massive security implications, is completely implementation-INdependent (granted BIND's implementation makes (made?) it much easier, but it's still possible, and very easy with access to the victim's network).
You don't need the roar of a diesel engine to tell you a bus is coming; the plentiful tire/pavement noise is sufficient.
If you've ever been walking near a hybrid vehicle that's running solely on its electric motor, you would know this is not true. I've been walking through a parking lot before and been startled when I turned around and right behind me was a car that had snuck up behind me since it was running solely on electric. It was also quite a surprise to drive a hybrid for the first time. When I turned the car on, I thought I had just turned it to "Accessories" because there was no engine noise. Plus the gas engine doesn't kick in until you're going more than a couple mph, so you wonder at first if you're really moving.
I suppose one could argue that we all know that money is paid for those ads. But microsoft categorizes their results. They are broken up into sections like "featured sites" and "sponsored sites", etc... and they give definitions for this.
I'm going to have to call bullshit here. I never noticed the little "Featured sites" and "Web directory sites" headings until they were pointed out in a comment I just read. They're the same size and the same color as the URLs listed for each entry, and blend in to the point where they're almost unnoticeable. Further, not all sites withing "Web directory sites" are paid, which makes it even more difficult to find real results (yes I realize MS claims they don't prioritize the paid sites within that category, but should I trust them?). Now granted, I don't use MSN 99% of the time, but sponsored links should stand out instantly in my opinion.
It used to be huge station wagons sucking up the gas. Then it was vans. Now it's SUV's. It will change again.
[All figures from fueleconomy.gov] A 2003 V6 Dodge Caravan gets 18/25 mpg. A 2003 V6 Ford Explorer gets 14/19. A V6 Dodge Durango gets 14/18. The Ford puts out almost 30% more greenhouse gases than the Caravan - 2.5 more tons per year, for a total of 11.6 tons per year. The Durango puts out 11.1, and the Caravan 9.1. Now, you seem to say that vans were gas guzzlers in the past. Well, a 1989 V6 Caravan got 18/23 mpg and put out 9.4 tons of gases per year. Seems like the SUVs are far worse than vans not just today, but also from 15 years ago. How about before that, with the huge station wagons? A 1985 V8 Chevy Caprice (the worst wagon I could find in 5 minutes of searching) wagon got 15/22 and put out 10.7 tons, which is still better than both the Explorer and Durango, 18 years ago!
For comparison, my 2003 Corolla gets 29/38 mpg, and puts out 5.9 tons per year, almost a 50% reduction compared to the Explorer. Granted, the tree-hugger in the Corolla you were stuck behind should fix his car, but given the good emissions of its youth, I would have to say his car would have to belch a whole lot of crap before it caught up with the average SUV.
it's still a heck of a lot better then a Honda Civic when you have four soccer playing children and labrador retriever.
Until you throw in the dog, I see no problem with the civic. My Corolla has lots of trunk space for all the soccer equipment, and there's plenty of room in the vehicle for 5 people, especially when 4 of them are kids. If you want more room, get a van, it still beats an SUV for gas mileage. And with a good pair of snow tires, it'll perform quite well in the winter. Or, better yet, invest in some contraceptives and keep the population down. 6 billion people is enough.
I've fit furniture in a Sequoia that wouldn't even come close to fitting in an outback or a forester.
And how often do you need to put this furniture into your SUV to transport it? Once? Twice? Unless you're doing it every week, pay to have it delivered and you'll still be saving a few thousands dollars upfront and a few more over the life of the vehicle.
Many cities already have cameras on traffic lights to catch people running the red light. I know, Baltimore sent me a nice picture of my car heading through the red light 0.3 seconds after it turned, complete with a close-up of my license plate. In return, I sent them $75. As much as I was annoyed at the time, it's a damn good idea, given the number of people that run the stupid things. Especially those in the left turn lane that keep turning 10 seconds after the light's changed. I got in an accident that way, a guy just turned right into me without even looking to see if I was there.
People demand hybrid cars, but don't drive them because they don't have enough power to excessively speed in city.
I've got to say that the reason I didn't buy the toyota hybrid had nothing to do with its performance, which I found to be adequate when I test-drove it a few weeks ago. It was the fact that the rear seats didn't fold down, so I couldn't fit my bike or skis. (Yes, I already have a roof rack, and I can't stand driving with the bike on top - I might as well put a parachute behind the car for how well it affects my gas mileage).
The added cost was also a factor. Given current gas prices, I'd have to drive half a million miles before the added mileage paid for the added initial cost, even with the $2000 tax deduction. Further, I was told that at some point after 100,000 miles, I'd have to replace the electrical unit, which would cost me another $2000. So instead I bought a Corolla for $5000 less and only 10 mpg less.
unfortunately, that line disqualifies about 99.999999% of the working public...
Not those that were intelligent enough to save up for a situation exactly like that. Or, if you're married, does your S.O. have a job? If you have SOME income coming in, you're probably not at as much mercy as you might think. Do you REALLY need your high-speed online and digital cable? Turn your computer off at night, don't run the dishwasher/clothes washer till they're full, etc to save money on your utilities. Don't eat out. Do you really need that LOTR DVD? Etc etc etc. In other words, stretch the available cash you have as much as you can.
If you just graduated, live by yourself, and don't have much savings, you're probably in pretty bad shape. I don't think, however, that the number of people that cannot under any circumstance quit their job is far less than 99.9999999% of the working public.
Especially about the fact that if he does well at this job, even though it may be tough, managment will see that he did well. And in 1 year or so when the economy picks up, they'll still remember and he will be rewarded with a promotion or raise.
Bullshit. Have you ever worked a day in your life before? You obviously have no experience with management. Besides, money is certainly not everything in this world. You'd have to pay me more than 10 times my current salary before I would even CONSIDER working 12 hours a day every day for a month and a half. Further, the chances of anyone doing "well" while working 12 hours a day are pretty slim. After 3 or 4 days in a row, I'd be useless. Further still, I have never seen anyone receive a promotion based solely on putting up with management's bullshit.
The contractors, even though they get overtime now, won't get any sort of promotion in a year.
You clearly do not understand the word "contractor".
Whereas if he quits, and a year later he's still looking for a job, and his potential employer asks why he quit his last job, it won't look good to say, "Oh, it was too hard there, and I'm too lazy to put in the extra effort when the going gets tough, so I just quit."
I don't know of any company that would not hire someone because they quit a previous employer under those circumstances. "Oh it was too hard there" is VASTLY different from "oh they wanted me to work 6 90-hour weeks in a row with no compensation." Get a job then maybe you'd understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. You can fit more APS sized sensors on a wafer as compared to a 35mm frame. It' simple economics.
Perhaps you should go re-read the last line of my post. I'll quote it here for your convenience:
"Do I think this is the primary reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm? No, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it."
I don't think either of you are exactly right. Obviously the manufacturer wants you to buy more lenses, because that means more money for them. But they also don't want you to have to throw away all your old lenses, because that would require a huge initial investment on your part (new camera + all new lenses) which would certainly deter a lot of people.
The happy medium? Cameras with an APS sensor size, which allow the use of the old lenses, but with a different effective focal length than when used with 35mm. You don't have to throw out all your old lenses, but because of the different performance characteristics they'll have when used with D-SLRs, you'll probably want to upgrade them in the future. You're happy because you can still use all your old lenses, and the manufacturer is happy because you'll probably buy new ones in the not-so-distant future, not to mention the fact that you also bought the camera.
Do I think this is the primary reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm? No, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it.
I can do some 16x12s... Which one(s) do you want? I'm not going to re-scale all of them again :-)
And quality did matter. If APS film was BETTER than 35 mm it would have been a rage with pros and journalists and wedding professionals.
His point was that for the person to whom APS was targeted, quality DID NOT matter. Believe me, if these people shoot a bad photo, it's because their finger is over the lens, not because the quality of the film isn't there.
Pros already understand how to load 35mm film into a camera. I know of a lot of people who have no clue, however, and these people were the target audience of APS. I would guess that there are far more people who can't load film into a camera than there are professional photographers (who buys more film as a group is another matter entirely, however).
Manufacterers like kodak and hp don't have a lot of experience in camera design
Being from Rochester, NY (the headquarters of Kodak), I'm going to have to call bullshit here. The first Kodak camera hit the market in 1888. No, that's not 1988. That's 1888, one hundred and sixteen years ago. And they've been making them ever since, which would give Kodak 49 more years of experience than Canon and 29 more years than Nikon.
(And no, I'm not rabidly pro-Kodak. Perhaps their lenses are of inferior quality; if this is the case, it is certainly not from lack of experience. Further, I own a Canon digital camera and am very satisfied with it, to the point that I will probably buy a Canon digital SLR soon.)
More of the sun's visible light emitted is in the yellow-green wavelengths than any other wavelength. Also a reason why plants tend to be green to green yellow.
Plants appear green because they REFLECT green light, not because they absorb it.
I have a 3 megapixel camera, and I've gotten pictures from it blown up to as large as 16x20. In fact, I have 2 of them on the wall of the room I'm sitting in right now. If I look at them from 6 inches away, I can tell there isn't as much detail as I would get from film. But when I'm sitting 6 feet away as I am right now (and 99% of the time), you could never tell the difference. Same with the dozen 11x14s I have around my apartment.
In fact, when I brought the prints to a store to get them dry mounted and I told them they were digital, the response was "THESE are DIGITAL?" The fact that the enlargements were done with a photographic process vs. a printing process certainly helps. The 4x6 prints I get look just as good as anything I've gotten from film, but, as another poster stated, you can't get that kind of quality from your $99 inkjet.
Check out http://www.adirondack-park.net/trip2003/ if you want to see the pictures I've gotten blown up (and a lot of others); they're all from a 13,000-mile trip around the U.S. last summer. The ones I've gotten at 16x20 are Bryce Canyon, Crater Lake, the mountain next to Mt. Dana in Yosemite N.P., and the Grand Tetons.
You can always tell a good liberal by their love of labels like ultra-conservative religious right. Make sure you say it like a swear word.
And you can always tell a good conservative by their use of "liberal" like a swear word. Note the current attempt by the Bush administration to paint John Kerry as, simply, a "liberal". Fortunately I don't have such disdain for the word "conservative", nor would I consider myself even close to "liberal". In fact, I would consider myself about equidistant from "ultra-conservative religious right" and "ultra-liberal commie pinko", neither of which are particularly worthwhile in my estimation.
False. ClearChannel temporarily suspended Stern before the fines; they officially dropped him for good in immediate response to the fines.
As an aside, the local CC station here in Rochester (NY) that used to carry Stern is FAR more vulgar in their 5-second station promos than Stern ever was.
What public outrage? I heard of NO public outrage whatsoever, except for everyone saying it was a pathetic stunt. Now mind you, I don't hang out with the ultra-conservative religious right, but I hardly consider that group a bellwether of the opinion of the public at large.
though their stations are a small slice of a market, they are often the most popular (i.e. they serve the listeners).
Which is EXACTLY why you can't go strictly by the number of stations they own when determining the control they have over a market. They could easily own 10 or 20% of the stations, but have 75% of the listeners.
However, a HS kid might not want a difficult job at $6/hr, maybe they want an easy job at $4/hr. However, minimum wage makes that illegal.
I would bet that if there were no minimum wage laws, he'd have just as hard a time finding that easy job for $4 an hour, because the employer would only be willing to pay $2 an hour.
Yes, I know you're a troll, but I'll bite. So what you're saying is, if an average user has two computers in his house, and a printer attached to only one of them, he shouldn't be allowed to use CUPS to share the print services to the other computer? With Windows he can share the printer on the network with ease. Why shouldn't he be able to do that with Linux as well, just because he's not some super-savvy admin? It's this "you're too stupid to use Linux" attitude that, as ESR says, keeps Microsoft in business.
I don't see where they used to have $40 billion in cash, looking at their annual reports going back to 1995. Maybe you're considering "short-term investments" as cash, which I was not. Cash + short term investments currently is $49 billion (which is still much more than for any other year since 1995).
I actually wanted to qualify the nail a bit better. Perhaps the next nail, or the first BIG nail. But I think it is a nail.
Microsoft has 6 BILLION dollars in CASH.
Do you have any idea how many nails that is?
You're kidding, right? Score: -1: Troll.
I hope you're kidding. The ability to forge DNS replies, which has massive security implications, is completely implementation-INdependent (granted BIND's implementation makes (made?) it much easier, but it's still possible, and very easy with access to the victim's network).
You don't need the roar of a diesel engine to tell you a bus is coming; the plentiful tire/pavement noise is sufficient.
If you've ever been walking near a hybrid vehicle that's running solely on its electric motor, you would know this is not true. I've been walking through a parking lot before and been startled when I turned around and right behind me was a car that had snuck up behind me since it was running solely on electric. It was also quite a surprise to drive a hybrid for the first time. When I turned the car on, I thought I had just turned it to "Accessories" because there was no engine noise. Plus the gas engine doesn't kick in until you're going more than a couple mph, so you wonder at first if you're really moving.
I suppose one could argue that we all know that money is paid for those ads. But microsoft categorizes their results. They are broken up into sections like "featured sites" and "sponsored sites", etc... and they give definitions for this.
I'm going to have to call bullshit here. I never noticed the little "Featured sites" and "Web directory sites" headings until they were pointed out in a comment I just read. They're the same size and the same color as the URLs listed for each entry, and blend in to the point where they're almost unnoticeable. Further, not all sites withing "Web directory sites" are paid, which makes it even more difficult to find real results (yes I realize MS claims they don't prioritize the paid sites within that category, but should I trust them?). Now granted, I don't use MSN 99% of the time, but sponsored links should stand out instantly in my opinion.
Or you could just buy a set of snow tires.
It used to be huge station wagons sucking up the gas. Then it was vans. Now it's SUV's. It will change again.
[All figures from fueleconomy.gov] A 2003 V6 Dodge Caravan gets 18/25 mpg. A 2003 V6 Ford Explorer gets 14/19. A V6 Dodge Durango gets 14/18. The Ford puts out almost 30% more greenhouse gases than the Caravan - 2.5 more tons per year, for a total of 11.6 tons per year. The Durango puts out 11.1, and the Caravan 9.1. Now, you seem to say that vans were gas guzzlers in the past. Well, a 1989 V6 Caravan got 18/23 mpg and put out 9.4 tons of gases per year. Seems like the SUVs are far worse than vans not just today, but also from 15 years ago. How about before that, with the huge station wagons? A 1985 V8 Chevy Caprice (the worst wagon I could find in 5 minutes of searching) wagon got 15/22 and put out 10.7 tons, which is still better than both the Explorer and Durango, 18 years ago!
For comparison, my 2003 Corolla gets 29/38 mpg, and puts out 5.9 tons per year, almost a 50% reduction compared to the Explorer. Granted, the tree-hugger in the Corolla you were stuck behind should fix his car, but given the good emissions of its youth, I would have to say his car would have to belch a whole lot of crap before it caught up with the average SUV.
it's still a heck of a lot better then a Honda Civic when you have four soccer playing children and labrador retriever.
Until you throw in the dog, I see no problem with the civic. My Corolla has lots of trunk space for all the soccer equipment, and there's plenty of room in the vehicle for 5 people, especially when 4 of them are kids. If you want more room, get a van, it still beats an SUV for gas mileage. And with a good pair of snow tires, it'll perform quite well in the winter. Or, better yet, invest in some contraceptives and keep the population down. 6 billion people is enough.
I've fit furniture in a Sequoia that wouldn't even come close to fitting in an outback or a forester.
And how often do you need to put this furniture into your SUV to transport it? Once? Twice? Unless you're doing it every week, pay to have it delivered and you'll still be saving a few thousands dollars upfront and a few more over the life of the vehicle.
Many cities already have cameras on traffic lights to catch people running the red light. I know, Baltimore sent me a nice picture of my car heading through the red light 0.3 seconds after it turned, complete with a close-up of my license plate. In return, I sent them $75. As much as I was annoyed at the time, it's a damn good idea, given the number of people that run the stupid things. Especially those in the left turn lane that keep turning 10 seconds after the light's changed. I got in an accident that way, a guy just turned right into me without even looking to see if I was there.
People demand hybrid cars, but don't drive them because they don't have enough power to excessively speed in city.
I've got to say that the reason I didn't buy the toyota hybrid had nothing to do with its performance, which I found to be adequate when I test-drove it a few weeks ago. It was the fact that the rear seats didn't fold down, so I couldn't fit my bike or skis. (Yes, I already have a roof rack, and I can't stand driving with the bike on top - I might as well put a parachute behind the car for how well it affects my gas mileage).
The added cost was also a factor. Given current gas prices, I'd have to drive half a million miles before the added mileage paid for the added initial cost, even with the $2000 tax deduction. Further, I was told that at some point after 100,000 miles, I'd have to replace the electrical unit, which would cost me another $2000. So instead I bought a Corolla for $5000 less and only 10 mpg less.
unfortunately, that line disqualifies about 99.999999% of the working public...
Not those that were intelligent enough to save up for a situation exactly like that. Or, if you're married, does your S.O. have a job? If you have SOME income coming in, you're probably not at as much mercy as you might think. Do you REALLY need your high-speed online and digital cable? Turn your computer off at night, don't run the dishwasher/clothes washer till they're full, etc to save money on your utilities. Don't eat out. Do you really need that LOTR DVD? Etc etc etc. In other words, stretch the available cash you have as much as you can.
If you just graduated, live by yourself, and don't have much savings, you're probably in pretty bad shape. I don't think, however, that the number of people that cannot under any circumstance quit their job is far less than 99.9999999% of the working public.
Especially about the fact that if he does well at this job, even though it may be tough, managment will see that he did well. And in 1 year or so when the economy picks up, they'll still remember and he will be rewarded with a promotion or raise.
Bullshit. Have you ever worked a day in your life before? You obviously have no experience with management. Besides, money is certainly not everything in this world. You'd have to pay me more than 10 times my current salary before I would even CONSIDER working 12 hours a day every day for a month and a half. Further, the chances of anyone doing "well" while working 12 hours a day are pretty slim. After 3 or 4 days in a row, I'd be useless. Further still, I have never seen anyone receive a promotion based solely on putting up with management's bullshit.
The contractors, even though they get overtime now, won't get any sort of promotion in a year.
You clearly do not understand the word "contractor".
Whereas if he quits, and a year later he's still looking for a job, and his potential employer asks why he quit his last job, it won't look good to say, "Oh, it was too hard there, and I'm too lazy to put in the extra effort when the going gets tough, so I just quit."
I don't know of any company that would not hire someone because they quit a previous employer under those circumstances. "Oh it was too hard there" is VASTLY different from "oh they wanted me to work 6 90-hour weeks in a row with no compensation." Get a job then maybe you'd understand.