I'd argue that a chimp probably has an IQ of 40 or less, and survives quite well, so I don't think a IQ of 40 necessarily precludes survival. You're right; IQ tests to a western standard. That's fine. It doesn't destroy GGP's point, which is that it is quite possible for small populations to suffer genetic damage leading to genuine mental retardation throughout the population.
Apollo was different. As you said, Apollo used a much lower working pressure, with a higher proportion of O2 to yield a normal O2 partial pressure. However, both ISS and Shuttle use sea-level normal atmospheric pressure.
You're wrong, sorry. ISS and Shuttle use an oxy/nitro mix at full atmospheric pressure; not being a biomed person, I can't give you a good answer as to why, but I can confirm (both from publicly available information and personal experience working on Shuttle) that this is true.
It was supposed to be the fault of people who stopped doing engineering and started doing Powerpoint. And, having worked at NASA in 2002, that viewpoint is pretty supportable. Do you understand the difference between blaming it on the software and blaming it on people who stopped doing their real jobs (engineering - producing quality mathematically based analysis supporting scientific conclusions) and began doing bullshit paperwork (engineering by powerpoint - producing prtty slides that support the conclusion du jour)?
Powerpoint wasn't to blame. A culture that required Powerpoint, but couldn't give a shit if you had a Mentor or ProE model proving your conclusion, is what was to blame.
Both Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI in crew areas, actually. This is roughly average air pressure at sea level. Your contractor was completely wrong on this.
However, non-crew areas are not necessarily maintained at 14.7, and since convection doesn't operate, heat is a much more likely issue.
There are forms of intelligence retardation that are passed genetically. Small populations that interbreed can pass adverse genes throughout the whole population. Thus, in isolated tribes, if a gene for mental retardation does pop up, it can indeed affect the whole population over time.
Fry and Bender are the names of characters from Futurama; Fry is a 20th century human who winds up being frozen and wakes up in the future. Bender is an alcoholic robot.
They make a lot of money off of serious optical instrumentation. No one who needs to buy that caliber of gear is going to listen to your political argument. (We're talking about $10k surveying instruments as the *cheap* stuff in these product lines.) They make a lot of money off of consumer digital cameras, which are bought by people who don't care about politics at all, and will buy it because it's a cheap Nikon digital, and when it comes to cameras, Nikon is a good name. And they make a lot of money off of professional digital cameras, because the photographers who buy them could care less about the politics as long as their lenses work and the image is good. The 2000 people who won't buy a Nikon because of this are insignificant as far they're concerned.
Roberts Imaging in Indianopolis had a couple a little while back; I called and got the second to last one shipped out to me day I called them. I basically just got lucky, but they're another place to add to the BH/Adorama/Arlington rota.
Sure, and you can get converters to mount some Nikon lenses on Canon bodies, too. Doesn't make it a particularly good idea, though. I don't generally trust converters. Just one of those things. Also, you do lose a lot of functionality in terms of focus and metering when you use a converter; depending on your shooting style, this may or may not matter to you.
Personally, I love the wide availability of good Nikon glass. The fact that I can use anything from a 30 year old manual focus prime (mmm... 35/1.2... someday you will be mine) to the modern 70-200 AF-S VR (mmm... silent stabilized zoom... someday you will be mine) is nice. The fact that one of the finest lenses Nikon makes, their 50/1.8, is $90 new, is also nice.
I don't know if Tokina is going to make it in an EF-S mount, but I picked up their 12-24 and have been very happy with it so far; some CA at extreme wide zoom and wide open, but in a wide angle, you gotta expect that.
No. See, you're mistaking the slashdot crowd for normal people. Most people could give a shit, especially the sort of pros who are the intended customers of the D2X, people who aren't going to blink twice at buying a Nikon-licensed processing solution, especially given that ACR (Adobe's built in) isn't that great. Nikon really isn't doing anything that will harm them significantly in the long run.
The people getting screwed on it are people who preset a white-balance using a gray card at the shoot, and then shoot all their shots using that balance. They can't retrieve that data out of their photos.
That said, as long as they keep the gray card shot, they can get a balance off of that on the RAW converter and use that for the rest of the shots, so its still not a big deal.
No, Capture was better than ACR *before* any of this. It has nothing to do with legality, Capture really is a superior product. Then again, it costs $100 and ACR is free.
The photographers will just use Capture to do the front-end processing, and then import into Photoshop for retouch. Most of them really don't give a shit about any legal/technopolitical issues that might be associated, they'll just pay the $100 to Nikon for Capture and get on with their lives.
This is why you are a sys-admin, and why I am smarter than you.
Works the other way. Nikon's modern bodies will support just about any Nikon lens ever made, within limits; you may lose metering, you may lose feature A or feature B, but they will more or less work. Canon's new bodies won't. That said, Nikon's lenses have had a fair amount of circuitry inside of them for quite some time now, so it's less an issue than you think it is - Canon's decision to force people to move up in lenses was not a technical decision. Nor was Nikon's decision to support their older lenses. Canon wanted to sell new lenses. Nikon wanted to sell their bodies to long-time Nikon users. (For the record, I am a fan of Nikon.)
For a pro, bodies do wear out - the shutters are partly mechanical on pro cameras, and like all moving things, die. And new lenses come out, with new features - PWM motor focusing drives which are faster and quieter and optically-stabilized lenses are two of the more recent innovations in the field. But, basically, it's not a technical decision.
We'll ignore the encrypted white balance info and set it manually.
OH, WAIT, I ALREADY DO.
Of the last 1000 pictures I took, I believe I kept the as-shot white balance on absolutely none of them. All that's restricted here is as-shot white balance info; no image data, just metadata required for interpreting the image in the exact same fashion as the camera's internals did. The problem will come in mostly for photographers serious enough to do gray-card preset balances; they actually have a use for that encrypted data. Then again, most of those photographers aren't going to balk at giving $100 to Nikon for Capture.
Anyone with an SLR is going to be incredibly resistant to changing manufacturers.
I have a couple Nikon-mount lenses from the 60s that work reasonably well on my D70. I probably have $2500 into glass at this point. Changing to a Canon would not only cost me the camera body cost, but I would have to replace all of those lenses. And probably buying a new flash; I don't know how well my SB-800 would work on a Canon, but I guarantee Canon's equivalent would work better. It's lock-in, and pretty much *all* professional or semi-professional photographers will bend over and smile, because changing systems just isn't worth it to them.
Not if that fault rate is inside your own test facility. GP was pointing out that testing at module, instead of die, level may well be profitable.
If you're reasonably sure the die is good, you will save money by testing at the module level, for a given level of reasonably sure.
Essentially, your costs are as follows:
D is cost of testing a die. E is cost of assembling a die. M is cost of testing a module. A is cost of assembling a module. N is number of dies per module. P is probability of a die failure. 1-P is probability of a die success.
The cost of a die failure if you test at die level is D+E. The expected value of die failure costs per module is (D+E)*(1-P)*N - the cost per failure times the probability of failure, multiplied by N to normalize it to the module. This is not strictly correct, but is close enough for purpose of illustration.
The cost of a die failure if you test only at module level is NE+A+M; the cost of a full assembled module plus testing said module. The expected value of die failure costs at module level is (NE+A+M)*(1-P)^N*(1-F).
Essentially, if (NE+A+M)*(1-P)^(N-1)*(1-F) N(D+E) then it makes sense to not test the dies and just test the assembled modules.
Not necessarily true. Some pairs are not provided with current at all; on these pairs, you can't use any of the above. Dedicated lines are also often not energized.
Slashdot Mirror
Nikon Capture generally produces better results than ACR on my D70.
The upper limit on film resolution is not in scanning, but in the physics and chemistry behind the film.
Digital will eventually surpass film.
I'd argue that a chimp probably has an IQ of 40 or less, and survives quite well, so I don't think a IQ of 40 necessarily precludes survival. You're right; IQ tests to a western standard. That's fine. It doesn't destroy GGP's point, which is that it is quite possible for small populations to suffer genetic damage leading to genuine mental retardation throughout the population.
Apollo was different. As you said, Apollo used a much lower working pressure, with a higher proportion of O2 to yield a normal O2 partial pressure. However, both ISS and Shuttle use sea-level normal atmospheric pressure.
References:
Indian newspaper, gives pressure in mmHg.
Random science site, gives pressure in psi.
Space.com article about the pressure leak that was experienced last year, gives the pressure in psi.
You're wrong, sorry. ISS and Shuttle use an oxy/nitro mix at full atmospheric pressure; not being a biomed person, I can't give you a good answer as to why, but I can confirm (both from publicly available information and personal experience working on Shuttle) that this is true.
No.
It was supposed to be the fault of people who stopped doing engineering and started doing Powerpoint. And, having worked at NASA in 2002, that viewpoint is pretty supportable. Do you understand the difference between blaming it on the software and blaming it on people who stopped doing their real jobs (engineering - producing quality mathematically based analysis supporting scientific conclusions) and began doing bullshit paperwork (engineering by powerpoint - producing prtty slides that support the conclusion du jour)?
Powerpoint wasn't to blame. A culture that required Powerpoint, but couldn't give a shit if you had a Mentor or ProE model proving your conclusion, is what was to blame.
FUCK no.
2000 revolutions per MINUTE is approximately 33.3 revolutions per second; 33.3 Hz.
Both Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI in crew areas, actually. This is roughly average air pressure at sea level. Your contractor was completely wrong on this.
However, non-crew areas are not necessarily maintained at 14.7, and since convection doesn't operate, heat is a much more likely issue.
There are forms of intelligence retardation that are passed genetically. Small populations that interbreed can pass adverse genes throughout the whole population. Thus, in isolated tribes, if a gene for mental retardation does pop up, it can indeed affect the whole population over time.
Seriously, you need to chill.
Fry and Bender are the names of characters from Futurama; Fry is a 20th century human who winds up being frozen and wakes up in the future. Bender is an alcoholic robot.
They make a lot of money off of serious optical instrumentation. No one who needs to buy that caliber of gear is going to listen to your political argument. (We're talking about $10k surveying instruments as the *cheap* stuff in these product lines.) They make a lot of money off of consumer digital cameras, which are bought by people who don't care about politics at all, and will buy it because it's a cheap Nikon digital, and when it comes to cameras, Nikon is a good name. And they make a lot of money off of professional digital cameras, because the photographers who buy them could care less about the politics as long as their lenses work and the image is good. The 2000 people who won't buy a Nikon because of this are insignificant as far they're concerned.
And was smart enough to basically not change the program, which worked great as CEP and works great as Audition. My favorite sample editor, bar none.
That's fine. But Nikon isn't, and shouldn't be, worried about you, because no one who's taking advice from you is even considering a D2X.
Roberts Imaging in Indianopolis had a couple a little while back; I called and got the second to last one shipped out to me day I called them. I basically just got lucky, but they're another place to add to the BH/Adorama/Arlington rota.
Sure, and you can get converters to mount some Nikon lenses on Canon bodies, too. Doesn't make it a particularly good idea, though. I don't generally trust converters. Just one of those things. Also, you do lose a lot of functionality in terms of focus and metering when you use a converter; depending on your shooting style, this may or may not matter to you.
Personally, I love the wide availability of good Nikon glass. The fact that I can use anything from a 30 year old manual focus prime (mmm... 35/1.2... someday you will be mine) to the modern 70-200 AF-S VR (mmm... silent stabilized zoom... someday you will be mine) is nice. The fact that one of the finest lenses Nikon makes, their 50/1.8, is $90 new, is also nice.
I don't know if Tokina is going to make it in an EF-S mount, but I picked up their 12-24 and have been very happy with it so far; some CA at extreme wide zoom and wide open, but in a wide angle, you gotta expect that.
No. See, you're mistaking the slashdot crowd for normal people. Most people could give a shit, especially the sort of pros who are the intended customers of the D2X, people who aren't going to blink twice at buying a Nikon-licensed processing solution, especially given that ACR (Adobe's built in) isn't that great. Nikon really isn't doing anything that will harm them significantly in the long run.
The people getting screwed on it are people who preset a white-balance using a gray card at the shoot, and then shoot all their shots using that balance. They can't retrieve that data out of their photos.
That said, as long as they keep the gray card shot, they can get a balance off of that on the RAW converter and use that for the rest of the shots, so its still not a big deal.
No, Capture was better than ACR *before* any of this. It has nothing to do with legality, Capture really is a superior product. Then again, it costs $100 and ACR is free.
The photographers will just use Capture to do the front-end processing, and then import into Photoshop for retouch. Most of them really don't give a shit about any legal/technopolitical issues that might be associated, they'll just pay the $100 to Nikon for Capture and get on with their lives.
This is why you are a sys-admin, and why I am smarter than you.
Works the other way. Nikon's modern bodies will support just about any Nikon lens ever made, within limits; you may lose metering, you may lose feature A or feature B, but they will more or less work. Canon's new bodies won't. That said, Nikon's lenses have had a fair amount of circuitry inside of them for quite some time now, so it's less an issue than you think it is - Canon's decision to force people to move up in lenses was not a technical decision. Nor was Nikon's decision to support their older lenses. Canon wanted to sell new lenses. Nikon wanted to sell their bodies to long-time Nikon users. (For the record, I am a fan of Nikon.)
For a pro, bodies do wear out - the shutters are partly mechanical on pro cameras, and like all moving things, die. And new lenses come out, with new features - PWM motor focusing drives which are faster and quieter and optically-stabilized lenses are two of the more recent innovations in the field. But, basically, it's not a technical decision.
We'll ignore the encrypted white balance info and set it manually.
OH, WAIT, I ALREADY DO.
Of the last 1000 pictures I took, I believe I kept the as-shot white balance on absolutely none of them. All that's restricted here is as-shot white balance info; no image data, just metadata required for interpreting the image in the exact same fashion as the camera's internals did. The problem will come in mostly for photographers serious enough to do gray-card preset balances; they actually have a use for that encrypted data. Then again, most of those photographers aren't going to balk at giving $100 to Nikon for Capture.
Anyone with an SLR is going to be incredibly resistant to changing manufacturers.
I have a couple Nikon-mount lenses from the 60s that work reasonably well on my D70. I probably have $2500 into glass at this point. Changing to a Canon would not only cost me the camera body cost, but I would have to replace all of those lenses. And probably buying a new flash; I don't know how well my SB-800 would work on a Canon, but I guarantee Canon's equivalent would work better. It's lock-in, and pretty much *all* professional or semi-professional photographers will bend over and smile, because changing systems just isn't worth it to them.
Not if that fault rate is inside your own test facility. GP was pointing out that testing at module, instead of die, level may well be profitable.
If you're reasonably sure the die is good, you will save money by testing at the module level, for a given level of reasonably sure.
Essentially, your costs are as follows:
D is cost of testing a die.
E is cost of assembling a die.
M is cost of testing a module.
A is cost of assembling a module.
N is number of dies per module.
P is probability of a die failure.
1-P is probability of a die success.
The cost of a die failure if you test at die level is D+E. The expected value of die failure costs per module is (D+E)*(1-P)*N - the cost per failure times the probability of failure, multiplied by N to normalize it to the module. This is not strictly correct, but is close enough for purpose of illustration.
The cost of a die failure if you test only at module level is NE+A+M; the cost of a full assembled module plus testing said module. The expected value of die failure costs at module level is (NE+A+M)*(1-P)^N*(1-F).
Essentially, if (NE+A+M)*(1-P)^(N-1)*(1-F) N(D+E) then it makes sense to not test the dies and just test the assembled modules.
Not necessarily true. Some pairs are not provided with current at all; on these pairs, you can't use any of the above. Dedicated lines are also often not energized.
Absolutely true. Just pointing out that their excuse is not as totally weird as it sounds at first.
Part of the reasoning behind choosing -48VDC as the line voltage was, in fact, to help prevent oxidation of buried lines.
I'm not making it up either. There's a lot of funky shit in the telco systems, but some of it is for very good reason.