"... the 35mm film used for movies, and then the duplication of the same for projection, really isn't that high of resolution. It could be that one of the reasons the new HD formats don't show the promised advantage is simply because the source material doesn't have much more additional information."
I would like to respond to this comment, because there are some people, who don't know any better, that may light on what you've said and develop incorrect understanding.
The fact is, 35 mm film is a very high resolution medium. I'm speaking of original camera negative (OCN) here. Yes, by the time you get to distribution prints the resolution has been reduced--moreso for optical workflows, less so for digital intermediate (DI) workflows--but this isn't really relevant to, for instance, home video production, since both standard definition (SD) and high definition (HD) video masters won't typically be derived from distribution prints (or at least they shouldn't be, IMO). Such masters are typically derived through a telecine process from first-generation color-timed prints made from the cut OCN (this is assuming the producer cares about quality at all). Digital intermediate workflows can, in theory, produce video masters as a by-product of the main theatrical release print production process, or at least derive the master from a first-generation inter-negative that avoids inter-positives and inter-negatives associated with optical workflows. This has the potential to greatly increase end product resolution.
A high-end DI workflow using a film scanner such as a Northlight might involve scanning at 6K resolution, then downconverting to either 4K or 2K, depending on the producer's needs. 4K has typically been used for demanding effects shots, while 2K has usually been deemed sufficient for non-effects work. (4K may be used more as DCI comes online--see below.) As you may know, 2K is 2048x1556, which is more or less equivalent to 1080 resolution, so you can see that the film itself actually offers much higher intrinsic resolution.
Now, of course, there are other factors. First, as hinted at, there may be compromises that result in suboptimal workflows (to save money) that result in reduced-quality end product. Also, the condition of the film plays a large role. What I've been talking about relates to modern emulsions that have been handled carefully. Obviously, poorly-handled film from days of yore won't offer the same results.
There is one other factor to consider here. For recent work like the two films cited in this article, and given a serious effort, there's no real reason the HD product shouldn't look very good. Using a high-quality telecine master, they should be able to produce good looking HD. (That said, clearly different qualities exist in the SD DVD mastering world owing to various compromises, both intentional and unintentional, so this is likely to continue into the HD realm.) But for older content, where rescanning is not deemed worthwhile or where original media is unavailable, then what I'm guessing might happen is they will upconvert SD content to HD. Frankly, I don't know if this would be better than a good quality SD version, but marketing concerns might drive folks down this path, for better or for worse. For instance, five years from now, will anyone want to buy SD DVDs, even for shows that were shot in SD? I don't know. If not, then if owners of profitable catalogs want to cash in on their holdings, they'll need to decide how to get to HD from their original assets. Upconverting SD to HD can be done with reasonable quality, but it will never be a good basis for judging HD quality. In this situation, though, I wouldn't blame the film.
Finally, I'd like to comment just a little on the promise of HD. I'm not at all sure that most people really understand what HD's promise really is. I think most people think (as I once thought) that the purpose of HD is to look "sharper" or "clearer," in general. This isn't really quite true. The real purpose of HD is to allow
Thanks, guys. You definitely put a smile on my face with this little sub-thread.
FWIW, I followed the above-provided link and viewed the guy's video, which I'd never actually seen before(!). Pretty gay. What is somewhat interesting, though, is that someone else had roto'd some light onto this kid's double-edged sabre in another video, and seeing that version made the whole thing look considerably less gay. Still gay, but less gay. If there had been decent sound effects added in, it would've "worked" even more (though still being pretty gay).
I guess my point is that roto and sound fx make a HUGE difference in how these sorts of shots come off... more so than I would've thought, actually. (I bet Ewan McGregor or Hayden Christensen would've looked pretty lame, too, without the accompanying fx... though not that lame, of course.)
Oh, well. It still must be pretty hard to live this down.
Re:Hurray for Movie Technology!
on
ILM's Datacenter
·
· Score: 1
Did you pick your sig for this post? If not, it's interesting that it sorta applies, if you know what I mean.:)
Dude, that was pretty funny. But just as important (to me anyway), it reminded me of how much I enjoy that particular portion of ROTJ. The segment to do with Luke, Vader, and the Emperor really is the main reason that movie is still worth watching again and again.
Yours is an outstanding post: It should be required reading! Thank you. Now, if only folks like you and me had some real influence on the rest of the world. Oh, well.
You made an interesting post, so I'd like to respond a little, just to make conversation. Most all of what I'll say is probably off topic.
Did you watch Howard Stern on the David Letterman show last week (or whenever it was... TiVo user here)? I like Howard Stern... I really do... but I'm not sure he helped his public opinion situation much with that interview. David Letterman did a good job of representing the side of reason on several of Howard's rants, for instance, IMO making Howard come off like a low-grade lunatic (which he does like to do for laughs from time to time). Not so good, in my view. But, it will be interesting to see how that all plays out. Hopefully, Howard has a good lawyer.
I won't argue the Dan Rather comment, because I am ignorant of the facts. Regarding the radio-related comments, however, I do have a couple responses. First, regarding Adam Carolla, David Lee Roth, and so on: These guys have a helluva pair of shoes to fill, as I'm pretty sure you're aware. No one should expect them to instantly garner the ratings Howard commanded after twenty years of broadcasting--it just isn't realistic at all. (Note that I'm not saying you have such expectations.) Anyone backfilling Howard Stern would most likely need YEARS of airplay to build anything near the same audience. My guess is that network executives (or whoever makes these sorts of decisions) won't give them that much time; if they don't deliver on a short timeline they'll be out. I'm guessing a year or two max, but who knows. This just seems to be the way media works these days. It's very unfortunate, IMO, but there it is.
Regardless of all that, it is my understanding that Howard's departure is mostly a function of the spate of FCC sanctions that rained down on him (and other edgy shows) and the resulting clamp-downs stations made in self defense. So, yes, radio execs play a part in this, but it's just as much (or moreso) Howard's desire to push the envelope that led to his departure. At least, that's how I see it. Maybe you see it differently?
Finally, on the "Jack FM" format item: I don't think this is such a bad thing. Frankly, I didn't know "Jack FM" was a CBS invention; it only recently (a year ago) came into my market (Los Angeles). Here, it replaced a well-liked station (Arrow 93.1), which catered to the classis rock crowd. Yes, "Jack FM" more or less does away with DJs (there is the voiceover "virtual DJ"), but IMO this isn't such a bad thing. I can understand missing the human element if you happen to have good human element in your area, but I find most of the DJs in L.A. to be annoying as hell, so their elimination is no big loss to me. I listen to music stations to hear music; "Jack FM" plays a much better selection of music I like to listen to, with MUCH better fidelity than ANY other station in L.A. (or anywhere else I've listened to FM radio). I don't know if it's significantly less compression, or more transparent electronics, or both, but they seem to me to be near "audiophile quality," if you'll pardon the use of that term.
Anyway, this's all just my opinion. Thanks, slashdot, for letting me express my thoughts....
Your post is considered insightful by someone? Geez.
You know, as soon as I read your post, my immediate reaction was "Man, what an asshole." Then I read your sreen name and recognized you as the one guy on Slashdot who has declared me a "foe", even after my best efforts to smooth things over with you. I guess it's just how you are at this point in your life.
So, you pay for your schooling. Good for you. Really, I mean that. But did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you might be able to learn things beyond what _you_ think you need to learn? That maybe those things are worth learning? And that maybe, must maybe, you ought to respect the wishes of your professors, even if they seem to go against what you want?
Thanks for this post. It is unfortunate, I think, that so many folks today are so driven by bottom-line concerns that they lose sight of (or at least strongly deprioritize) many of the non-financial goals with which most businesses are started. Further--and I think this is more or less the point of the original post--it is a sad thing anytime someone who creates something from nothing is later told to leave by folks who come later. Perhaps this man had it coming based on performance issues--the company has not been performing well financially for some time--but it is a sad thing nonetheless. I think anyone who doesn't immediately see that ought to consider what it would be like if it were to happen to them!
You're obviously on the right track, but allow me to provide a little modification to your thinking. The text "these truths" does not, in fact, limit the scope of rights being discussed; "these truths" refers to the list of statements that follow in the sentence, each starting with "that", that establish the baseline understanding upon which the rest of the document builds (e.g., _that_ all men are created equal, _that_ they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, _that_ those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.).
As I try to state in a post a little further down, it is my view that it is the specific reference to "certain" unalienable rights that limits the scope of the rights that are asserted to be unalienable.
Anyway, have a nice holiday.
P.S.: So this isn't viewed as totally off-topic, I'm 40 years old and I program at work. It isn't my job, though... I do it to get work done. (I'm an aerospace engineer.) In my opinion, the primary "problem" is the drift towards management. At least that's what I see where I work.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Based on what they show when you follow the "Congress's Draft" link, it appears as though your text is from an earlier version.
Anyway, the key difference that is relevant here is the deliberate and presumably careful use of the word "certain" to restrict the scope of rights--among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--that are deemed (explicitly and implicitly, and by their statement) unalienable.
In other words, in my opinion it is overreaching to assert that the Declaration of Independence declares all possible rights to be unalienable to all men, and so forth, as you have suggested.
Thank you, sir, for setting me straight. I'm glad I don't know you.
I apologize for my outburst; I should have thought twice before issuing it. I do not wish to have you consider me a "foe."
After further reflection on this topic, I have come to the conclusion that it is largely a philosophical debate. You are obviously very intelligent and I see your point; I am not dense. Clearly, if a man-made diamond or pearl is physically identical to a natural one, they are, in a certain way, the same thing. However, my view is that there is more to them than meets the eye; I believe there is significance in how things come to be. I believe all instances of this sort of significance need to be understood, remembered, and considered by people so they don't run afoul in cases where the implications are more serious (hence my slippery slope comment).
I do believe the differences in how man-made and natural diamonds and pearls come to be leads people to make different value judgements (i.e., the two things would be valued differently). Humans make value judgments on seemingly identical things all the time. Consider this somewhat vulgar case: If a stripper gives you a kiss, she is most likely doing it to extract financial reward. If your wife gives you a kiss, it is probably motivated by love. The kisses may both feel the same to you, but I would imagine one has more value than the other.
Perhaps more on point: Consider a situation where one man offers to sell you a 2 billion year old 3 carat diamond from a kimberlite pipe for $50,000. Another man offers to sell you a physically identical diamond, man-made in Virginia that morning, also for $50,000. Assume that you want this sort of diamond and you have the $50,000 to spend. Also assume that no one was harmed, etc., in the production of the natural diamond. In other words, all other factors are equal. Which would you choose? If you tell me that you'd choose the man-made diamond, I'd say that you were saying this to make your point, or you lack the sort of romantic (in the classical sense) inclination that I have (and I hope many others still have).
In the end, perhaps comparisons such as these all come down to some sort of stoicism vs. romanticism argument. Really, the whole purpose of my original post was just to bring these sorts of thoughts to the forefront for people to consider. Ultimately, people will do what they will do.
I'm not sure I fully get what you're saying, but it seems as though you are arguing that bigger is not necessarily better if newer technology, which is presumably smaller, comes along to displace older, larger in-place technology. I don't think anyone would argue against that.
I think the original poster's thinking was that there are many missions that require complex payloads, high transmit powers, extensive stationkeeping and/or orbit adjusts, etc., that all require power and fuel systems that are inherently relatively large-scale as compared with these nano-satellites. Such systems are probably not threatened by the emergence of these new capabilities, just as a Hummer is not threatened by a motorcycle; different missions require different solutions.
All of that said, I think that it is possible that small satellites networked together may eventually be able to replace larger designs for certain classes of mission. GPS is a well-known example of this already deployed; more are likely to be developed.
You point out a lot of interesting ideas here; I'd like to comment on the autonomy aspect. If, at some point, nano-satellites can actually form a reasonable in-space network, then the autonomy can exist at the constellation level. Assuming a sufficient number of satellites in a constellation to allow continuous mission control communications with the network, there could be a continuous stream of messages with various purposes beamed and relayed throughout the network. This, in combination with advanced ground software, could reduce the human interaction factor to an acceptable level. I guess my point is this: in systems such as these, the ground segment architecture (especially control software) may be as important an element of success as the satellites themselves. (This is actually becoming more and more the case in conventional satellite systems, too, especially for the DoD. [I work in the satellite industry.])
I work in the satellite industry. Assuming quality design and manufacture, the primary determinants of a conventional satellite's life (I'm speaking of geosynchronous satellites here) are power and fuel. Non-geosynchronous satellites also have these considerations but have other considerations as well, such as their environment. Because these so-called "nanosatellites" are so small, it would appear that they would not be suitable to geo use since they have such limited space for batteries, solar arrays, and fuel; they are probably intended for LEO/MEO use. In LEO/MEO scenarios, stationkeeping is most likely not as significant an issue as precise position determination, which the GPS system can provide. In essence, I'm thinking they can be allowed to "wander" a little, so long as we know where they are at any given time. I'm not sure how the formation flying aspect plays into this, though.
On the subject of attitude control, there is mention made of both nano reaction wheels and magnetic stabilization. I'm assuming nano reaction wheels are similar in concept to conventional reaction wheels, which allow control of spacecraft attitude through momentum transfer from body to wheel (which, in turn, must periodically be "dumped" using thruster ops). Magnetic stabilization is a new concept for me, but I suppose it might have to do with using current loops to create local magnetic fields that interact with the Earth's magnetic field in a manner that torques the body as desired. This would probably only be practical for very small bodies, since large satellites would probably require overly massive devices to create sufficient torque for adequate control. Interesting stuff, if this is what it really is.
I responded to another poster's response to my post above; you might find some of what I said there to be relevant to your comments.
In general, my point was not aimed at establishing one or the other as better than the other. Rather, I was merely saying that I think the distinction between the two is important to recognize and maintain.
I will disagree with you on your assertion that "a diamond is nothing but carbon atoms arranged in tetrahedrons." Yes, scientifically, what you say is correct. However, it leaves out the fact that the process that creates them (natural diamonds) is wondrous, at least to some. You may not think it so, or you may think the synthesis process is physically identical and therefore equally wondrous, which might be true, but there is, in a manner of speaking, a sort of miracle that goes on inside the earth to make these things, as there is inside oysters to make pearls. Again, to you this might be unimportant but to others there is value in maintaining the distinction.
Regarding slippery slope arguments being logical fallacies, well, I suppose that may be true. I was not attempting to present a logical proof, which should have been evident. Though inappropriate for logic, slippery slopes do often adequately describe human psychological responses, at least in my experience.
Finally, I had hoped it would be clear but my Grand Canyon illustration was not meant to parallel the diamond question. It, like its colorful love doll sibling, was aimed at showing two examples of distinctions I think we all understand to be significant. The idea, whether it was worthwhile presenting or not, was that many differences between things in life are not so apparent and require discrimination to see. In my opinion, people's ability to discriminate these things should be developed--or at least maintained--but not diminished.
Thanks for your response... I found it enjoyable reading.
To clarify, in case my meaning was not clear, I was not suggesting that man-made things are, in general, inferior to natural things. I agree that most of the examples you cited suggest otherwise. What I find to be unfortunate is when two things that are fundamentally different--e.g., a natural thing and a man-made version of the same thing--are accepted as being the same thing. A man-made diamond is not the same thing as a synthetic diamond regardless of any structural equivalence; one comes from nature, the other from man. Perhaps the difference is subtle and of concern only to purists but I think there is significance to the difference, even if only in how we think of things.
There are many uses for man-made diamonds. In fact, a man-made diamond may be perfectly suitable for jewelry to someone who is not concerned about the difference. But the difference is there and I think it should be recognized and understood, not glossed over as unimportant.
Parenthetically, as the grandparent poster, to whom I wrote my original post in response, suggests in his follow-up to my post, there are unfortunate real-world issues surrounding the mining of natural diamonds. Whether or not man-made diamonds are the answer to these problems I cannot say. Regardless, these problems are not at the core of my point.
To summarize: Probably like you, I would most likely prefer a machine-sewn shirt made from machine-woven cloth made from machine-spun thread, for all the reasons you state. I would not like it, however, if it were advertised to me as "the same thing" as a hand-sewn haute couture shirt made from high-quality hand-woven cloth, even if they appeared to be virtually identical. The two products are very different. There would be reasons why I would select one over the other and reasons why I would pay different amounts for one or the other. This is fine to me. But I wouldn't want the two things to be considered "the same thing" or "of the same quality." (Please note that I am not suggesting that you were in any way making such an argument.)
Where natural things still usually beat out artificial ones is in directly satisfying the senses with the complexity and texture that human minds and spirits have evolved to enjoy.
This sums up very well an element of what I was aiming at, in general.
"A man made diamond is a diamond.... A pearl is a pearl."
I do not wish to rag on you, personally, but since your comment was moderated "Insightful," I felt a need to say something. It is my opinion that your view that a diamond is a diamond, a pearl is a pearl, is symptomatic of a problem I think underlies our society today. I am referring to the notion, which I believe is more widely-held than should be, that man-made things are "just as good" (in whatever ways matter) as their natural equivalents. Don't get me wrong: I don't lie awake at night lamenting the existence of synthetic diamonds and cultured pearls. I do, however, regret that, more and more every day, people seem to be willing to forego the authentic in favor of whatever is cheaper, more easily accessible, etc. There is a certain wonder in the creation of things such as diamonds and pearls. The fact that we can produce near equivalents is impressive, I suppose, but I think there is real danger in so readily substituting one for the other in our minds.
Seeing the Grand Canyon on TV, even a large screen HDTV, is no substitute for seeing it in real life. Fucking a love doll is no substitute for real pussy. These things we take more or less for granted. But there are many slippery slopes in life; we must beware them all.
While your post is informative, I believe the parent poster understands the nature of exclusive-or. I think his point was that this situation is probably not an exclusive-or sort of situation, i.e., the kid is probably quite smart AND the MSCP program may not be the most challenging in the world.
Dude, I wouldn't name these three suns after them, but I hear ya... I'm a big Rush fan, too. Is there any news of a new album from these guys? I haven't looked over rush.com in a while (need to do that... I love Lifeson's KISS sketch).
Slashdot Mirror
"... the 35mm film used for movies, and then the duplication of the same for projection, really isn't that high of resolution. It could be that one of the reasons the new HD formats don't show the promised advantage is simply because the source material doesn't have much more additional information."
I would like to respond to this comment, because there are some people, who don't know any better, that may light on what you've said and develop incorrect understanding.
The fact is, 35 mm film is a very high resolution medium. I'm speaking of original camera negative (OCN) here. Yes, by the time you get to distribution prints the resolution has been reduced--moreso for optical workflows, less so for digital intermediate (DI) workflows--but this isn't really relevant to, for instance, home video production, since both standard definition (SD) and high definition (HD) video masters won't typically be derived from distribution prints (or at least they shouldn't be, IMO). Such masters are typically derived through a telecine process from first-generation color-timed prints made from the cut OCN (this is assuming the producer cares about quality at all). Digital intermediate workflows can, in theory, produce video masters as a by-product of the main theatrical release print production process, or at least derive the master from a first-generation inter-negative that avoids inter-positives and inter-negatives associated with optical workflows. This has the potential to greatly increase end product resolution.
A high-end DI workflow using a film scanner such as a Northlight might involve scanning at 6K resolution, then downconverting to either 4K or 2K, depending on the producer's needs. 4K has typically been used for demanding effects shots, while 2K has usually been deemed sufficient for non-effects work. (4K may be used more as DCI comes online--see below.) As you may know, 2K is 2048x1556, which is more or less equivalent to 1080 resolution, so you can see that the film itself actually offers much higher intrinsic resolution.
Now, of course, there are other factors. First, as hinted at, there may be compromises that result in suboptimal workflows (to save money) that result in reduced-quality end product. Also, the condition of the film plays a large role. What I've been talking about relates to modern emulsions that have been handled carefully. Obviously, poorly-handled film from days of yore won't offer the same results.
There is one other factor to consider here. For recent work like the two films cited in this article, and given a serious effort, there's no real reason the HD product shouldn't look very good. Using a high-quality telecine master, they should be able to produce good looking HD. (That said, clearly different qualities exist in the SD DVD mastering world owing to various compromises, both intentional and unintentional, so this is likely to continue into the HD realm.) But for older content, where rescanning is not deemed worthwhile or where original media is unavailable, then what I'm guessing might happen is they will upconvert SD content to HD. Frankly, I don't know if this would be better than a good quality SD version, but marketing concerns might drive folks down this path, for better or for worse. For instance, five years from now, will anyone want to buy SD DVDs, even for shows that were shot in SD? I don't know. If not, then if owners of profitable catalogs want to cash in on their holdings, they'll need to decide how to get to HD from their original assets. Upconverting SD to HD can be done with reasonable quality, but it will never be a good basis for judging HD quality. In this situation, though, I wouldn't blame the film.
Finally, I'd like to comment just a little on the promise of HD. I'm not at all sure that most people really understand what HD's promise really is. I think most people think (as I once thought) that the purpose of HD is to look "sharper" or "clearer," in general. This isn't really quite true. The real purpose of HD is to allow
Thanks, guys. You definitely put a smile on my face with this little sub-thread.
FWIW, I followed the above-provided link and viewed the guy's video, which I'd never actually seen before(!). Pretty gay. What is somewhat interesting, though, is that someone else had roto'd some light onto this kid's double-edged sabre in another video, and seeing that version made the whole thing look considerably less gay. Still gay, but less gay. If there had been decent sound effects added in, it would've "worked" even more (though still being pretty gay).
I guess my point is that roto and sound fx make a HUGE difference in how these sorts of shots come off... more so than I would've thought, actually. (I bet Ewan McGregor or Hayden Christensen would've looked pretty lame, too, without the accompanying fx... though not that lame, of course.)
Oh, well. It still must be pretty hard to live this down.
Did you pick your sig for this post? If not, it's interesting that it sorta applies, if you know what I mean. :)
No offense, but I noticed that you Kirk-yell incorrectly. It's Khan, not Kahn. Maybe you're thinking of the Paula Zahn passion-yell? :)
Dude, that was pretty funny. But just as important (to me anyway), it reminded me of how much I enjoy that particular portion of ROTJ. The segment to do with Luke, Vader, and the Emperor really is the main reason that movie is still worth watching again and again.
:)
Thanks for that.
Yours is an outstanding post: It should be required reading! Thank you. Now, if only folks like you and me had some real influence on the rest of the world. Oh, well.
Take it easy.
You made an interesting post, so I'd like to respond a little, just to make conversation. Most all of what I'll say is probably off topic.
Did you watch Howard Stern on the David Letterman show last week (or whenever it was... TiVo user here)? I like Howard Stern... I really do... but I'm not sure he helped his public opinion situation much with that interview. David Letterman did a good job of representing the side of reason on several of Howard's rants, for instance, IMO making Howard come off like a low-grade lunatic (which he does like to do for laughs from time to time). Not so good, in my view. But, it will be interesting to see how that all plays out. Hopefully, Howard has a good lawyer.
I won't argue the Dan Rather comment, because I am ignorant of the facts. Regarding the radio-related comments, however, I do have a couple responses. First, regarding Adam Carolla, David Lee Roth, and so on: These guys have a helluva pair of shoes to fill, as I'm pretty sure you're aware. No one should expect them to instantly garner the ratings Howard commanded after twenty years of broadcasting--it just isn't realistic at all. (Note that I'm not saying you have such expectations.) Anyone backfilling Howard Stern would most likely need YEARS of airplay to build anything near the same audience. My guess is that network executives (or whoever makes these sorts of decisions) won't give them that much time; if they don't deliver on a short timeline they'll be out. I'm guessing a year or two max, but who knows. This just seems to be the way media works these days. It's very unfortunate, IMO, but there it is.
Regardless of all that, it is my understanding that Howard's departure is mostly a function of the spate of FCC sanctions that rained down on him (and other edgy shows) and the resulting clamp-downs stations made in self defense. So, yes, radio execs play a part in this, but it's just as much (or moreso) Howard's desire to push the envelope that led to his departure. At least, that's how I see it. Maybe you see it differently?
Finally, on the "Jack FM" format item: I don't think this is such a bad thing. Frankly, I didn't know "Jack FM" was a CBS invention; it only recently (a year ago) came into my market (Los Angeles). Here, it replaced a well-liked station (Arrow 93.1), which catered to the classis rock crowd. Yes, "Jack FM" more or less does away with DJs (there is the voiceover "virtual DJ"), but IMO this isn't such a bad thing. I can understand missing the human element if you happen to have good human element in your area, but I find most of the DJs in L.A. to be annoying as hell, so their elimination is no big loss to me. I listen to music stations to hear music; "Jack FM" plays a much better selection of music I like to listen to, with MUCH better fidelity than ANY other station in L.A. (or anywhere else I've listened to FM radio). I don't know if it's significantly less compression, or more transparent electronics, or both, but they seem to me to be near "audiophile quality," if you'll pardon the use of that term.
Anyway, this's all just my opinion. Thanks, slashdot, for letting me express my thoughts....
Take it easy.
Your post is considered insightful by someone? Geez.
You know, as soon as I read your post, my immediate reaction was "Man, what an asshole." Then I read your sreen name and recognized you as the one guy on Slashdot who has declared me a "foe", even after my best efforts to smooth things over with you. I guess it's just how you are at this point in your life.
So, you pay for your schooling. Good for you. Really, I mean that. But did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you might be able to learn things beyond what _you_ think you need to learn? That maybe those things are worth learning? And that maybe, must maybe, you ought to respect the wishes of your professors, even if they seem to go against what you want?
Take it easy, man.
Thanks for this post. It is unfortunate, I think, that so many folks today are so driven by bottom-line concerns that they lose sight of (or at least strongly deprioritize) many of the non-financial goals with which most businesses are started. Further--and I think this is more or less the point of the original post--it is a sad thing anytime someone who creates something from nothing is later told to leave by folks who come later. Perhaps this man had it coming based on performance issues--the company has not been performing well financially for some time--but it is a sad thing nonetheless. I think anyone who doesn't immediately see that ought to consider what it would be like if it were to happen to them!
Take it easy.
You're obviously on the right track, but allow me to provide a little modification to your thinking. The text "these truths" does not, in fact, limit the scope of rights being discussed; "these truths" refers to the list of statements that follow in the sentence, each starting with "that", that establish the baseline understanding upon which the rest of the document builds (e.g., _that_ all men are created equal, _that_ they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, _that_ those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.).
As I try to state in a post a little further down, it is my view that it is the specific reference to "certain" unalienable rights that limits the scope of the rights that are asserted to be unalienable.
Anyway, have a nice holiday.
P.S.: So this isn't viewed as totally off-topic, I'm 40 years old and I program at work. It isn't my job, though... I do it to get work done. (I'm an aerospace engineer.) In my opinion, the primary "problem" is the drift towards management. At least that's what I see where I work.
Well, first it helps to get the quote right. According to http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/inde x.htm, which seems fairly authoritative, the relevant text is as follows:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Based on what they show when you follow the "Congress's Draft" link, it appears as though your text is from an earlier version.
Anyway, the key difference that is relevant here is the deliberate and presumably careful use of the word "certain" to restrict the scope of rights--among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--that are deemed (explicitly and implicitly, and by their statement) unalienable.
In other words, in my opinion it is overreaching to assert that the Declaration of Independence declares all possible rights to be unalienable to all men, and so forth, as you have suggested.
Something to think about, I think.
starfish
:-)
Too much quasi-visual information, man.
If widespread acceptance of man-made diamonds as substitutes for mined diamonds can bring an end to suffering, I'm all for it.
I just hope people retain understanding of the distinction between the two.
Just one more thing: Since a couple of people have mentioned it, I'd like to weigh in on the 'conflict diamonds' issue.
If widespread acceptance of man-made diamonds as substitutes for mined diamonds can bring an end to suffering, I'm all for it.
I just hope people retain understanding of the distinction between the two.
Take it easy, Mr. Earp.
Thank you, sir, for setting me straight. I'm glad I don't know you.
I apologize for my outburst; I should have thought twice before issuing it. I do not wish to have you consider me a "foe."
After further reflection on this topic, I have come to the conclusion that it is largely a philosophical debate. You are obviously very intelligent and I see your point; I am not dense. Clearly, if a man-made diamond or pearl is physically identical to a natural one, they are, in a certain way, the same thing. However, my view is that there is more to them than meets the eye; I believe there is significance in how things come to be. I believe all instances of this sort of significance need to be understood, remembered, and considered by people so they don't run afoul in cases where the implications are more serious (hence my slippery slope comment).
I do believe the differences in how man-made and natural diamonds and pearls come to be leads people to make different value judgements (i.e., the two things would be valued differently). Humans make value judgments on seemingly identical things all the time. Consider this somewhat vulgar case: If a stripper gives you a kiss, she is most likely doing it to extract financial reward. If your wife gives you a kiss, it is probably motivated by love. The kisses may both feel the same to you, but I would imagine one has more value than the other.
Perhaps more on point: Consider a situation where one man offers to sell you a 2 billion year old 3 carat diamond from a kimberlite pipe for $50,000. Another man offers to sell you a physically identical diamond, man-made in Virginia that morning, also for $50,000. Assume that you want this sort of diamond and you have the $50,000 to spend. Also assume that no one was harmed, etc., in the production of the natural diamond. In other words, all other factors are equal. Which would you choose? If you tell me that you'd choose the man-made diamond, I'd say that you were saying this to make your point, or you lack the sort of romantic (in the classical sense) inclination that I have (and I hope many others still have).
In the end, perhaps comparisons such as these all come down to some sort of stoicism vs. romanticism argument. Really, the whole purpose of my original post was just to bring these sorts of thoughts to the forefront for people to consider. Ultimately, people will do what they will do.
I'm not sure I fully get what you're saying, but it seems as though you are arguing that bigger is not necessarily better if newer technology, which is presumably smaller, comes along to displace older, larger in-place technology. I don't think anyone would argue against that.
I think the original poster's thinking was that there are many missions that require complex payloads, high transmit powers, extensive stationkeeping and/or orbit adjusts, etc., that all require power and fuel systems that are inherently relatively large-scale as compared with these nano-satellites. Such systems are probably not threatened by the emergence of these new capabilities, just as a Hummer is not threatened by a motorcycle; different missions require different solutions.
All of that said, I think that it is possible that small satellites networked together may eventually be able to replace larger designs for certain classes of mission. GPS is a well-known example of this already deployed; more are likely to be developed.
You point out a lot of interesting ideas here; I'd like to comment on the autonomy aspect. If, at some point, nano-satellites can actually form a reasonable in-space network, then the autonomy can exist at the constellation level. Assuming a sufficient number of satellites in a constellation to allow continuous mission control communications with the network, there could be a continuous stream of messages with various purposes beamed and relayed throughout the network. This, in combination with advanced ground software, could reduce the human interaction factor to an acceptable level. I guess my point is this: in systems such as these, the ground segment architecture (especially control software) may be as important an element of success as the satellites themselves. (This is actually becoming more and more the case in conventional satellite systems, too, especially for the DoD. [I work in the satellite industry.])
I work in the satellite industry. Assuming quality design and manufacture, the primary determinants of a conventional satellite's life (I'm speaking of geosynchronous satellites here) are power and fuel. Non-geosynchronous satellites also have these considerations but have other considerations as well, such as their environment. Because these so-called "nanosatellites" are so small, it would appear that they would not be suitable to geo use since they have such limited space for batteries, solar arrays, and fuel; they are probably intended for LEO/MEO use. In LEO/MEO scenarios, stationkeeping is most likely not as significant an issue as precise position determination, which the GPS system can provide. In essence, I'm thinking they can be allowed to "wander" a little, so long as we know where they are at any given time. I'm not sure how the formation flying aspect plays into this, though.
On the subject of attitude control, there is mention made of both nano reaction wheels and magnetic stabilization. I'm assuming nano reaction wheels are similar in concept to conventional reaction wheels, which allow control of spacecraft attitude through momentum transfer from body to wheel (which, in turn, must periodically be "dumped" using thruster ops). Magnetic stabilization is a new concept for me, but I suppose it might have to do with using current loops to create local magnetic fields that interact with the Earth's magnetic field in a manner that torques the body as desired. This would probably only be practical for very small bodies, since large satellites would probably require overly massive devices to create sufficient torque for adequate control. Interesting stuff, if this is what it really is.
Thank you, sir, for setting me straight. I'm glad I don't know you.
Thanks for your response.
I responded to another poster's response to my post above; you might find some of what I said there to be relevant to your comments.
In general, my point was not aimed at establishing one or the other as better than the other. Rather, I was merely saying that I think the distinction between the two is important to recognize and maintain.
I will disagree with you on your assertion that "a diamond is nothing but carbon atoms arranged in tetrahedrons." Yes, scientifically, what you say is correct. However, it leaves out the fact that the process that creates them (natural diamonds) is wondrous, at least to some. You may not think it so, or you may think the synthesis process is physically identical and therefore equally wondrous, which might be true, but there is, in a manner of speaking, a sort of miracle that goes on inside the earth to make these things, as there is inside oysters to make pearls. Again, to you this might be unimportant but to others there is value in maintaining the distinction.
Regarding slippery slope arguments being logical fallacies, well, I suppose that may be true. I was not attempting to present a logical proof, which should have been evident. Though inappropriate for logic, slippery slopes do often adequately describe human psychological responses, at least in my experience.
Finally, I had hoped it would be clear but my Grand Canyon illustration was not meant to parallel the diamond question. It, like its colorful love doll sibling, was aimed at showing two examples of distinctions I think we all understand to be significant. The idea, whether it was worthwhile presenting or not, was that many differences between things in life are not so apparent and require discrimination to see. In my opinion, people's ability to discriminate these things should be developed--or at least maintained--but not diminished.
Take it easy.
Thanks for your response... I found it enjoyable reading.
To clarify, in case my meaning was not clear, I was not suggesting that man-made things are, in general, inferior to natural things. I agree that most of the examples you cited suggest otherwise. What I find to be unfortunate is when two things that are fundamentally different--e.g., a natural thing and a man-made version of the same thing--are accepted as being the same thing. A man-made diamond is not the same thing as a synthetic diamond regardless of any structural equivalence; one comes from nature, the other from man. Perhaps the difference is subtle and of concern only to purists but I think there is significance to the difference, even if only in how we think of things.
There are many uses for man-made diamonds. In fact, a man-made diamond may be perfectly suitable for jewelry to someone who is not concerned about the difference. But the difference is there and I think it should be recognized and understood, not glossed over as unimportant.
Parenthetically, as the grandparent poster, to whom I wrote my original post in response, suggests in his follow-up to my post, there are unfortunate real-world issues surrounding the mining of natural diamonds. Whether or not man-made diamonds are the answer to these problems I cannot say. Regardless, these problems are not at the core of my point.
To summarize: Probably like you, I would most likely prefer a machine-sewn shirt made from machine-woven cloth made from machine-spun thread, for all the reasons you state. I would not like it, however, if it were advertised to me as "the same thing" as a hand-sewn haute couture shirt made from high-quality hand-woven cloth, even if they appeared to be virtually identical. The two products are very different. There would be reasons why I would select one over the other and reasons why I would pay different amounts for one or the other. This is fine to me. But I wouldn't want the two things to be considered "the same thing" or "of the same quality." (Please note that I am not suggesting that you were in any way making such an argument.)
Where natural things still usually beat out artificial ones is in directly satisfying the senses with the complexity and texture that human minds and spirits have evolved to enjoy.
This sums up very well an element of what I was aiming at, in general.
Take it easy.
"A man made diamond is a diamond.... A pearl is a pearl."
I do not wish to rag on you, personally, but since your comment was moderated "Insightful," I felt a need to say something. It is my opinion that your view that a diamond is a diamond, a pearl is a pearl, is symptomatic of a problem I think underlies our society today. I am referring to the notion, which I believe is more widely-held than should be, that man-made things are "just as good" (in whatever ways matter) as their natural equivalents. Don't get me wrong: I don't lie awake at night lamenting the existence of synthetic diamonds and cultured pearls. I do, however, regret that, more and more every day, people seem to be willing to forego the authentic in favor of whatever is cheaper, more easily accessible, etc. There is a certain wonder in the creation of things such as diamonds and pearls. The fact that we can produce near equivalents is impressive, I suppose, but I think there is real danger in so readily substituting one for the other in our minds.
Seeing the Grand Canyon on TV, even a large screen HDTV, is no substitute for seeing it in real life. Fucking a love doll is no substitute for real pussy. These things we take more or less for granted. But there are many slippery slopes in life; we must beware them all.
[soap-box mode: off]
While your post is informative, I believe the parent poster understands the nature of exclusive-or. I think his point was that this situation is probably not an exclusive-or sort of situation, i.e., the kid is probably quite smart AND the MSCP program may not be the most challenging in the world.
Dude, I wouldn't name these three suns after them, but I hear ya... I'm a big Rush fan, too. Is there any news of a new album from these guys? I haven't looked over rush.com in a while (need to do that... I love Lifeson's KISS sketch).
Oh, man, that takes me back. Thanks for a good laugh.