Actually, blades of grass being thrown through objects during storms is well-documented. Just one site I found that explains this is Here.
As far as the stars are concerned, I understand what you are saying. I also know that I did see stars as impossible as that may seem... the sky was completely black.
I am a weather spotter for the national weather service and I have seen some interesting storms here in VA...
We once had a storm so intense that the sky was dark enough around 2:00pm that you could see stars in the breaks of the clouds and the moon was "shining." That was freaky - apparently, that storm spawned a "small" tornado that threw individual blades of grass through a telephone pole.
In 1985, the southern part of the state, where I am originally from, experienced the "Flood of 85." The Roanoke river crested at a record 23 feet... tons of damage was done, but some amazing stories, like that of an aging Labrador retriever in Eagle Rock that pulled its master to safety out of the rolling waters of Craig Creek, came out of it...
Here is a photo of the Roanoke stadium.
And yet again, I see the idiocy that the so-called "digital revolition" has spawned... composition for digital. How is composition for digital different than composition for film? I could understand lighting for digital or something of that nature...
The "digital revolution" has caused people who never would have had any interest in photography to get involved in it - and I'm all for that. But many of these folks are very techno-savvy, and probably lack artistic ability.
Digital photography is great for convenience. It helps out people who don't care enough about their photos to wait an hour to see them. It has spurred a market of technology-hungry consumers who want the latest and the greatest, and who usually care little about "composition." Don't believe me? Then why does Joe Blow go out and buy that 1GB CF card to hold a jillion images, everyone one of which he is going to go home and edit in PhotoShop?
Any other book on composition will give you as good or better information - anyone who concentrates on equipment as a defining characteristic of composition knows little about the art of photography.
"No queiro ser renaquajo condenado a prision perpetua en el verdoso estanque de la vida"
~ "I don't want to be a tadpole condemned to a perpetual prison in the stangnant cesspool of life."
Why would you want to even approach immortality? Do people just want to be immortal because they fear death? At one point in time, you did not exist, and you have no problem with this now. Why fear the day that you will cease to exist again?
Actually, lenses costing thousands are not necessary.
Get a few prime lenses (ie, fixed focal length) and they'll still blow those $1000+ zooms out of the water in terms of photo quality. In the case of zooms, what you pay for is a fast, constant aperture (and, of course, good glass). Most "pro" level zooms have a constant f/2.8 aperture, while consumer lenses usually have a variable maximum aperture. Plus, most consumer zooms suffer from horrible barrel distortion.
I have and currently use 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses from Canon, so I don't really have the need for zoom lenses. And you can pick up this entire set of lenses for cheaper than any L-Series lens and get better results.
As I have mentioned before, for the ultimate in resolution, get a view camera. That's basically what this thing is, though it isn't a "conventional" view camera in the sense that is uses somewhat larger film.
View cameras have been around forever. They are basically a light proof box to hold film, with a lens and a focusing mechanism (about the simplest camera you can have). They are large, but use bigger pieces of film for each photo - It's a simple rule of physics - the less you enlarge, the less detail is lost in the final product.
It hasn't been uncommon for someone to use a 16"x20" view camera for landscapes and to make contact prints (no enlargement) for awesome detail.
So, basically, this "technology," for the most part, is is old news. Yes, there is some new stuff...
What do you lose in using a view camera? Low-quality, plasticy zoom lenses. Cheap, built-in camera meters. Continuous frame advance. Cheesy "auto" modes. The list goes on. So, why use it? Because you lose these things, it slows you down. You think more about composition. You don't snap off 30 photos in 5 minutes and then go home and "correct" them digitally in photoshop. Slower process=better photos (though, clearly, this doesn't apply to the average Joe Schmoe who just wants to take snapshots of his dog and kids).
Digital technology is great, don't get me wrong. But most digital cameras nowadays suffer feature bloat... I can use any of the digicam out there, but when someone is trying to learn the basics of photography, you can't beat a view camera's simplicity.
Unfortunately, standards have come to mean very little in the browser world. Everyone touts XHTML to be awesome. But have you tried designing a site that uses an XHTML strict schema w/CSS for all your formatting? 3 different browsers can give 3 totally different results - to hell with that "standard." Right now, it's useless.
Now, take JavaScript on IE and Mozilla. IE supports the "document.all" collection, while Mozilla relies on "document.getElementById." No problem there, and I know the "all" collection is not part of a "standard." But there are certain times when having the "all" collection can be beneficial. If people can make Mozilla support ActiveX, why can't they support the "all" collection? Clearly it's in the best interest of Mozilla to be compatible with the browser that "defines" unofficial standardization.
And I can bitch about IE 6, too - who the hell came up with its selective and strange CSS support? And why did MS really stop developing IE for the Mac?
Yeah, I've taken such courses, I am a college grad.
I find it somewhat disturbing that computer software is becoming so 'easy' to use, though, that's all. I remember cracking out the beta of Slackware Linux when I was in middle school (yup, I'm only 22), and customizing the hell out of it. I had so much more respect for the OS since I had to set up every aspect - I even learned bash scripting, which was much more than I could say about any other middle school students:)
How long have Linux buffs been saying that "In a few years, Linux will overtake Windows..."
It's a noble goal, and it would be awesome if it happened. But the reality is that, overtaking Windows is a goal that 1) Is fairly unrealistic in the short-term, and 2) Is fairly pointless.
Why would you want Linux to become the "normal" OS? I always thought that one of the main advantages of using Linux was because it was different. Something unique and that a lot of people haven't even heard of.
Linux is becoming commercialized. All the press about Linux now comes from companies who want to sell their wares, not give them away.
Maybe I want to compile my kernel to get support for sound. Maybe I want to manually edit my X config files, bypassing all warnings about my monitor bursting into flames. Maybe, just maybe I like that sort of thing... and I don't want it to be dumbed down to be like Windows, I don't want it to ride the golden cow god of popularity all the way to the bank, and replace the image of a Bill Gates as the borg with Tux as the icehouse penguin.
Most people don't care about pixels. Kodak still advertises their "Max" film as a "general purpose" film, for example, and it is an ISO 800 speed film, with horrible grain and sharpness. Since most people don't enlarge above 4x6" prints anyway, though, they don't care.
Every few years or so, Kodak and a few other companies get together and decide that consumers don't care about resolution, as long as a 4x6 looks ok. The people fueling the "digital megapixel rush" are gadget heads who just want the latests and the greatest, and have a lot of disposable income on their hands.
Personally, if you really care about resolution, get a field camera or view camera. I used to shoot with one... 4x5" negatives/positives enlarge very nicely... albeit most of these cameras are huge and can weight 10lbs or more. A good compromise on size/quality is a decent medium format system. People are going crazy for the $1000-range, 6 megapixel digital cameras with interchangable lenses now. You can get a new Mamiya 645e medium format setup for that, and have tons more resolution... resolution that I don't think consumer digital cameras are going to reach in the near future (they are still chasing "35mm quality," IMHO).... With a camera like that, you'll actually learn something about photography instead of keeping your camera in "auto" all the time, or relying on photoshop/gimp to do corrections later. And since you have to compose on ground glass, and each exposure "counts," you'll be more careful with composition.
I don't think that stuff like this comes along with the intent to actually use it in the long term...
It's kind of like shopping at a place like Walmart. They have those stupid little detector things at the doors that go off and are supposedly to catch shoplifters. The fact that they are there is the deterrent. I have yet to see one person caught shoplifting, but have seen countless people doing some shopping, pay for the item(s), and walk out the door. Everyone stops and looks.
The music industry is doing much the same thing. They don't really think they are going to catch anyone doing serious damage, they just count on the deterrent factor, and they count on publicity. We need to stop making such a big fucking deal of everything the RIAA, et. al. does. It only empowers them.
Right now, the job market dictates that employers not hire new grads, or if they have to, for a very low pay.
I graduated last May and started work for a software company immediately. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the work, but the cost of living is high enough that, financially speaking, my salary isn't near what I thought it was when moving from farther south. That being said, I don't do the work for the money - I do it for the enjoyment of the work.
If you can't honestly see yourself putting in extra hours (in an ideal situation, of course) simply because you love the work and for no other reason, then don't get a job doing development.
If money's your forte, get your MBA, and become a manager. But in my experience, that would mean you'd have to be clueless and at least somewhat incompetent.
I am getting tired of people constantly feeling the need to have and use cell phones. People have this psychological need, it seems, to always be "connected" somehow.
Personally, I would find that stressful. I like to be able to "disappear" and no one can contact me until I say so.
Now, before you respond that I can just cut my phone off, think about how many people are actually willing to do this...
I've heard someone talking on a cell in a public restroom while taking a dump. A big old noisy, stinky shit.
Now, I ask you: How dependant can you be that you can't even take a shit without talking on your phone?
Just get a job working for the US government that requires some sort of security clearance. The US government isn't going to hire foreign workers/contractors to work on things pertinent to national security... at least I hope not.
So, what I guess this means for the online world is that, now, 15 year olds will have to find a way of saying "Lol LOLz! ROFLMAO" in a video world? Plus, most of the time when I use an IM client, I don't want people to look at me - just rolled out of bed or something. Nah, it's not gonna work.
Is it just me, or am I the only person out there that doesn't like star wars and star trek? I prefer stuff like Orson Welles and things that are somewhat less "Hollywood" sci-fi.
While the idea of the technology isn't really all that bad, I question the intent of Microsoft in creating Palladium. If the technology is adapted in its "pure" form, Microsoft will be able to determine what you can and cannot do on your own personal computer - and they will make consumers pay for this "technology." It would be like adding the extra "feature" to an automobile that you can drive only to certain places - and charging more for this "technology." Where can you go today?
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, this is in response to the "you fucking cunt" remark. Intelligent and thought-provoking, I have to admit.
Actually, blades of grass being thrown through objects during storms is well-documented. Just one site I found that explains this is Here.
As far as the stars are concerned, I understand what you are saying. I also know that I did see stars as impossible as that may seem... the sky was completely black.
Yeah, um, wtf? I'm glad to see the quality readers we have on this site.
I am a weather spotter for the national weather service and I have seen some interesting storms here in VA... We once had a storm so intense that the sky was dark enough around 2:00pm that you could see stars in the breaks of the clouds and the moon was "shining." That was freaky - apparently, that storm spawned a "small" tornado that threw individual blades of grass through a telephone pole. In 1985, the southern part of the state, where I am originally from, experienced the "Flood of 85." The Roanoke river crested at a record 23 feet... tons of damage was done, but some amazing stories, like that of an aging Labrador retriever in Eagle Rock that pulled its master to safety out of the rolling waters of Craig Creek, came out of it... Here is a photo of the Roanoke stadium.
And yet again, I see the idiocy that the so-called "digital revolition" has spawned ... composition for digital. How is composition for digital different than composition for film? I could understand lighting for digital or something of that nature...
The "digital revolution" has caused people who never would have had any interest in photography to get involved in it - and I'm all for that. But many of these folks are very techno-savvy, and probably lack artistic ability.
Digital photography is great for convenience. It helps out people who don't care enough about their photos to wait an hour to see them. It has spurred a market of technology-hungry consumers who want the latest and the greatest, and who usually care little about "composition." Don't believe me? Then why does Joe Blow go out and buy that 1GB CF card to hold a jillion images, everyone one of which he is going to go home and edit in PhotoShop?
Any other book on composition will give you as good or better information - anyone who concentrates on equipment as a defining characteristic of composition knows little about the art of photography.
As a story I read one time read,
"No queiro ser renaquajo condenado a prision perpetua en el verdoso estanque de la vida"
~ "I don't want to be a tadpole condemned to a perpetual prison in the stangnant cesspool of life."
Why would you want to even approach immortality? Do people just want to be immortal because they fear death? At one point in time, you did not exist, and you have no problem with this now. Why fear the day that you will cease to exist again?
Actually, lenses costing thousands are not necessary.
Get a few prime lenses (ie, fixed focal length) and they'll still blow those $1000+ zooms out of the water in terms of photo quality. In the case of zooms, what you pay for is a fast, constant aperture (and, of course, good glass). Most "pro" level zooms have a constant f/2.8 aperture, while consumer lenses usually have a variable maximum aperture. Plus, most consumer zooms suffer from horrible barrel distortion.
I have and currently use 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses from Canon, so I don't really have the need for zoom lenses. And you can pick up this entire set of lenses for cheaper than any L-Series lens and get better results.
As I have mentioned before, for the ultimate in resolution, get a view camera. That's basically what this thing is, though it isn't a "conventional" view camera in the sense that is uses somewhat larger film.
View cameras have been around forever. They are basically a light proof box to hold film, with a lens and a focusing mechanism (about the simplest camera you can have). They are large, but use bigger pieces of film for each photo - It's a simple rule of physics - the less you enlarge, the less detail is lost in the final product.
It hasn't been uncommon for someone to use a 16"x20" view camera for landscapes and to make contact prints (no enlargement) for awesome detail.
So, basically, this "technology," for the most part, is is old news. Yes, there is some new stuff...
What do you lose in using a view camera? Low-quality, plasticy zoom lenses. Cheap, built-in camera meters. Continuous frame advance. Cheesy "auto" modes. The list goes on. So, why use it? Because you lose these things, it slows you down. You think more about composition. You don't snap off 30 photos in 5 minutes and then go home and "correct" them digitally in photoshop. Slower process=better photos (though, clearly, this doesn't apply to the average Joe Schmoe who just wants to take snapshots of his dog and kids).
Digital technology is great, don't get me wrong. But most digital cameras nowadays suffer feature bloat... I can use any of the digicam out there, but when someone is trying to learn the basics of photography, you can't beat a view camera's simplicity.
Unfortunately, standards have come to mean very little in the browser world. Everyone touts XHTML to be awesome. But have you tried designing a site that uses an XHTML strict schema w/CSS for all your formatting? 3 different browsers can give 3 totally different results - to hell with that "standard." Right now, it's useless. Now, take JavaScript on IE and Mozilla. IE supports the "document.all" collection, while Mozilla relies on "document.getElementById." No problem there, and I know the "all" collection is not part of a "standard." But there are certain times when having the "all" collection can be beneficial. If people can make Mozilla support ActiveX, why can't they support the "all" collection? Clearly it's in the best interest of Mozilla to be compatible with the browser that "defines" unofficial standardization. And I can bitch about IE 6, too - who the hell came up with its selective and strange CSS support? And why did MS really stop developing IE for the Mac?
... yet again that people have too much time on their hands. That, and Germans love David Hasselhoff.
Yeah, I've taken such courses, I am a college grad.
:)
I find it somewhat disturbing that computer software is becoming so 'easy' to use, though, that's all. I remember cracking out the beta of Slackware Linux when I was in middle school (yup, I'm only 22), and customizing the hell out of it. I had so much more respect for the OS since I had to set up every aspect - I even learned bash scripting, which was much more than I could say about any other middle school students
How long have Linux buffs been saying that "In a few years, Linux will overtake Windows..."
It's a noble goal, and it would be awesome if it happened. But the reality is that, overtaking Windows is a goal that 1) Is fairly unrealistic in the short-term, and 2) Is fairly pointless.
Why would you want Linux to become the "normal" OS? I always thought that one of the main advantages of using Linux was because it was different. Something unique and that a lot of people haven't even heard of.
Linux is becoming commercialized. All the press about Linux now comes from companies who want to sell their wares, not give them away.
Maybe I want to compile my kernel to get support for sound. Maybe I want to manually edit my X config files, bypassing all warnings about my monitor bursting into flames. Maybe, just maybe I like that sort of thing... and I don't want it to be dumbed down to be like Windows, I don't want it to ride the golden cow god of popularity all the way to the bank, and replace the image of a Bill Gates as the borg with Tux as the icehouse penguin.
There's .... oh, no, it's just changing shape again.
Most people don't care about pixels. Kodak still advertises their "Max" film as a "general purpose" film, for example, and it is an ISO 800 speed film, with horrible grain and sharpness. Since most people don't enlarge above 4x6" prints anyway, though, they don't care.
... With a camera like that, you'll actually learn something about photography instead of keeping your camera in "auto" all the time, or relying on photoshop/gimp to do corrections later. And since you have to compose on ground glass, and each exposure "counts," you'll be more careful with composition.
Every few years or so, Kodak and a few other companies get together and decide that consumers don't care about resolution, as long as a 4x6 looks ok. The people fueling the "digital megapixel rush" are gadget heads who just want the latests and the greatest, and have a lot of disposable income on their hands.
Personally, if you really care about resolution, get a field camera or view camera. I used to shoot with one... 4x5" negatives/positives enlarge very nicely... albeit most of these cameras are huge and can weight 10lbs or more. A good compromise on size/quality is a decent medium format system. People are going crazy for the $1000-range, 6 megapixel digital cameras with interchangable lenses now. You can get a new Mamiya 645e medium format setup for that, and have tons more resolution... resolution that I don't think consumer digital cameras are going to reach in the near future (they are still chasing "35mm quality," IMHO).
Just my 2 cents.
I don't think that stuff like this comes along with the intent to actually use it in the long term...
It's kind of like shopping at a place like Walmart. They have those stupid little detector things at the doors that go off and are supposedly to catch shoplifters. The fact that they are there is the deterrent. I have yet to see one person caught shoplifting, but have seen countless people doing some shopping, pay for the item(s), and walk out the door. Everyone stops and looks.
The music industry is doing much the same thing. They don't really think they are going to catch anyone doing serious damage, they just count on the deterrent factor, and they count on publicity. We need to stop making such a big fucking deal of everything the RIAA, et. al. does. It only empowers them.
Right now, the job market dictates that employers not hire new grads, or if they have to, for a very low pay.
I graduated last May and started work for a software company immediately. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the work, but the cost of living is high enough that, financially speaking, my salary isn't near what I thought it was when moving from farther south. That being said, I don't do the work for the money - I do it for the enjoyment of the work.
If you can't honestly see yourself putting in extra hours (in an ideal situation, of course) simply because you love the work and for no other reason, then don't get a job doing development.
If money's your forte, get your MBA, and become a manager. But in my experience, that would mean you'd have to be clueless and at least somewhat incompetent.
Can you stream porn with it?
I am getting tired of people constantly feeling the need to have and use cell phones. People have this psychological need, it seems, to always be "connected" somehow.
Personally, I would find that stressful. I like to be able to "disappear" and no one can contact me until I say so.
Now, before you respond that I can just cut my phone off, think about how many people are actually willing to do this...
I've heard someone talking on a cell in a public restroom while taking a dump. A big old noisy, stinky shit.
Now, I ask you: How dependant can you be that you can't even take a shit without talking on your phone?
Just get a job working for the US government that requires some sort of security clearance. The US government isn't going to hire foreign workers/contractors to work on things pertinent to national security... at least I hope not.
You've gotta be kidding me... next thing you know, there will be an age restriction on buying cigarettes, alcohol, and pr0n.
So, what I guess this means for the online world is that, now, 15 year olds will have to find a way of saying "Lol LOLz! ROFLMAO" in a video world? Plus, most of the time when I use an IM client, I don't want people to look at me - just rolled out of bed or something. Nah, it's not gonna work.
Is it just me, or am I the only person out there that doesn't like star wars and star trek? I prefer stuff like Orson Welles and things that are somewhat less "Hollywood" sci-fi.
While the idea of the technology isn't really all that bad, I question the intent of Microsoft in creating Palladium. If the technology is adapted in its "pure" form, Microsoft will be able to determine what you can and cannot do on your own personal computer - and they will make consumers pay for this "technology." It would be like adding the extra "feature" to an automobile that you can drive only to certain places - and charging more for this "technology." Where can you go today?