Actually, what you are seeing in some images is the result of experiments with HDR imagery. The halos are tough to deal with when combining HDR images a bit and I am looking at ways to minimize that effect. For me, post processing is simply part of the photographic process. It was that way when I was shooting B&W film, Kodachrome and now digital.
I'm getting a sense that slashdot is in a way getting like Washington DC. People inside the beltway are totally detatched from what the majority of people are doing in their lives, and so is slashdot.
*Gee*, do you think? Look, I've been around here for a while (and so have you from the looks of your ID), but Slashdot has always been an online home to a subset of society that is rather technically inclined, so yeah... we are a bit detached from what *most* people (I'd say unwashed masses, but, well..... you know) are doing... like Windows.;-)
It is not about having just enough light. It also comes down to the quality of the optics, how well they are engineered to control light rays and deal with internal off axis light. Also, the ability of the larger sensor size of the dSLR allows for much less noise generated by each pixel allowing for higher range. To get some idea, all images on Jonesblog are shot with a dSLR (Canon 20d) and I think you will agree that images captured with dSLRs are much higher quality in both low and high light levels.
You seem to think that people will act honourably but they won't. People are trained from the cradle onwards to compete against against one another, never to cooperate.
You have never worked with a really good team then... If there are people that I work with who do not exhibit honorable characteristics (honesty, hard work, fair and equitable dealing), I am very careful with them and will not give them the same latitude. It's simple really when you can surround yourself with people like this. In terms of larger corporations, one cannot hope to have this spread throughout the entire corporation, but lots of behaviors flow downstream.
Somehow I think it's because you haven't yet faced the real world and are still sheltered in some kind of academia where the competition is still some kind of make believe stint. While there are niches where people act decently, the business world for the most certainly isn't it.
Be careful which folks you lecture to about "the real world" as I've been involved in a couple of businesses including being the VP of one of them. While I am in academia currently, there is no lack of possibilities about also continuing to work in/with business. I am careful about which business markets I want to spend time in and which ones that we believe we can compete in.
Or, you can stay far enough in front that nobody else knows or is ready for what you are doing. Admittedly this is easier in the hard core sciences (where I live). When you start making widgets or providing services, all bets are off here.
And what's more, once someone starts bending the rules, everybody *has* to do the same or be left behind to shrivel and die.
Alternatively, you could act in an honorable manner and expect, no demand that those companies who work with you/for you/supply to you also act with honesty and respect for their employees and customers.
Yes it would be nice if the world was fair. It might even be the sign that we're a civilised society. However currently the world is what it is (i.e. certainly not fair at all) and that is one of the most important lessons to be learned, bitter as it is.
This is the problem we are currently facing with big business and politics. Everybody has come to expect that our politicians and industry leaders are pathological liars with no ability or willingness to do the right thing. Is this acceptable? If we accept this, does it mean the fall of our culture/civilization? The USA is only a couple hundred years old you know...
On a side note, it might be useful to remember that the legal system doesn't have anything to do with being fair.
Funny, in civics class back in high school and college, fairness was what we were taught the legal system was all about. The establishment of rules and laws that enabled the Constitutional structure that this country was built upon.
Would you expect physics to be fair ?
Physics is what it is... A set of rules and laws that govern a reasonable set of expectations that are set in a framework of understanding. Law should be like that, but we have this little notion called free will. Humans fsck it all up, but physics itself is pure. The trick is that humans can be punished when they violate cultural laws while physicists are celebrated for violating physical laws.
HP used to have a policy of only promoting people to management who had been engineers. This had a couple of benefits including the managers ability to know work flows and products as well as still allowing the manager to be able to participate in the work and product development. This of course changed as part of the culture shift at HP around the same time somebody had the bright idea of canceling their RPN calculators.
However, to more directly answer your point, smarter companies distribute managerial duties amongst a number of senior people yet still allow those people to participate in the work. Of course they need to understand that a manager does not necessarily mean a pay scale increase. Rather they need to continue to reward their productive employees with different pay scales for say engineering (apprentice, junior, blah blah blah, senior, fellow).
It's not just your workers, it's what the workers want out of the job.
Precisely. Some folks are just in it for the paycheck, but that does not mean that they do not do their work with any lesser degree of competency. Other folks are in it to be famous while others still are doing their jobs to be influential. The trick is to create an environment where all approaches can be fostered and yet still maintain productivity, a sense of satisfaction (for you and your employees), and a positive income.
Do they want to be seen as the heros?
Heros I can take working for me. They tend to work very hard, are people pleasers and can often be trusted (they make good classified materials risks). The dangerous part about them is that they also tend to be co-dependent which for the company is not often a problem, but it leads to problems in their personal lives.
Do they want the drama?
These people I *don't* want to work with. They are always sabotaging productivity in the name of something happening where they are at the center of attention. They such cycles and personnel time up like no other with the exception of the pathological narcissist.
Do they want to it to be done exactly right?
Fine, but allow them the opportunity to see failure as a learning experience. It (failure) will happen and if you encourage a culture of insisting everything is done without mistakes, you never hear about the mistakes that end up biting you in the ass down the road.
Do they want to tell other people to do the work?
No, it is a team and if they want the glory without the work then they don't work for me.
Or! You can find the best talent there is, treat your employees with respect, compensate them fairly (or very well if they are particularly valuable) and work from the perspective that a place of work is a place of education where people will gather skills and hopefully work to the best of their ability. The danger of this is that they will not stay because they are hired away, but honestly if your employees are not being recruited by everyone else out there, they are not the best and brightest.
You're probably more annoying to those around you than anyone else having a phone conversation.
Likely not. In the aircraft (or anywhere else), I am minding my own business and working. I also have no problem with normal conversation. Where problems crop up is people being completely unaware of their surroundings or those around them while they engage in LOUD intrusive dialogue.
If 2 people are having a conversation in the seat in front of you what do you do? Stand up and whisper shhhh!
If it is a normal conversation I probably would never notice them. However if it is like the two idiots on the plane from Sydney to LAX last time who were drunk, grabbing seats and the flight crew and yelling each and every word, they are likely in for a little discomfort. First by me and the other passengers who were disturbed, then jail time by the authorities on the receiving end of the flight.
Honestly it's none of your business. Don't listen in to their conversation.
You don't get out much, do you? I'd love to go on my merry way and ignore any conversation and almost always do. However, when you have some idiot sitting NEXT TO YOU talking about two octaves higher than necessary and making his conversation yours, you might not want to endure that much either after a couple of hours.
I am all for freedom and yes, of course I think it is important, thus my statement about the absurdity. Look, the issue is a safety issue from the standpoint of the FCC. What I am grateful for is the social implications of their decision that will make the inside of an airplane a quieter, more tolerable environment. I don't want to have to tell someone to shut the fsck up on a plane. Rather I would hope that social consideration would make this whole discussion moot. Where we start having problems is when certain freedoms start infringing upon safety and common sense such as navigational radios of aircraft (and frankly cell phone use while driving). As an aside: I've been hit on my bicycle by a cell phone using twit more concerned with text messaging than safely operating a vehicle, so I am aware of issues of safety versus someone's right to use their damned cellphone.
Which is more polite? Allowing idiots to blabber on and on about their banal lives annoying everyone around them or knocking them senseless, thereby saving everyone's sanity?
you evidently haven't heard how loudly some people play them. i can often hear them clearly from 3 or 4 seats back on a bus.
You are right, I have not seen (or heard) people playing their iPods so loud so as to hear them from a distance.
the hearing aid market is going to be absolutely booming in 10 or 20 years.
It may, but no more so than it was throughout the 70s and 80s with Walkmans, boomboxes and such. Don't forget small venues with some of the loudest punk music I've ever heard or Rush concerts or Van Halen concerts or etc....etc....etc.... making me glad I always brought earplugs to concerts. Walking out of the concert for hours later my friends would be clearing their ears, wiggling their fingers in their ears and saying "What?".
As long as they're talking at the top of their lungs, just interrupt them continually.
Why should I have to interrupt them continually? I've got my own work to do and no time or desire to police others manners. Why do you think this is OK?
Hey, my formative years were in the 70s and 80s and I saw more than my share of boomboxes and yes, Walkman sized devices with speakers in them. I for one, am grateful that this phenomenon died, but yes, I have seen some mp3 players with speakers in them along with cell phones. My Razr also has a speaker in it that allows you to play music or place calls on speaker phone which is another nuisance phenomenon seen with cell phone users in public.
Yeah, I have a pair of the Bose headphones and while they are nice for seriously eliminating the ambient noise in the cabin from the engines and air handlers, they do nothing to damp out the obnoxious cell phone conversation next to you. That you can hear wonderfully well due to the engineering of the headphones. It's actually nice as you can hear announcements that the pilot makes or hear when the flight attendant is asking you a question, but they do not completely eliminate ambient sounds.
As I said back in 2002, " it's hard to appreciate just how much thought and effort went into the design and interface. Little features like the lack of a built in speaker means that the iPod will never be used to offend others by thoughtlessly playing loud music and imparting an unconscious societal feeling of contempt for the device".
Hell yes, people do this in the terminal. Many have written before about the death of courtesy, but at least in the terminal you can walk to another part of the terminal and distance yourself from the person. The problem in an airplane (particularly in coach class) is that you are sitting in forced proximity to the offending person.
I've commented before about some of the hassles of travel lately (and some of the possible solutions), and all I have to say about the FCC maintaining the ban of cell phones on planes is thank you!. Aside from the "insufficient technical information" statement, this ruling is going to prevent someone from having violence done to them because of their inane constant droning to any and all within earshot. I once had the displeasure of sitting on a plane on the tarmac for two hours while our flight was delayed and the pilot allowed everyone to use their cell phones. It was torture as most folks were not talking on their cell phones to arrange transportation or take care of business, but they were talking (loudly) about everything and nothing and forcing those around them to have to listen! Even worse, people began trying to speak over one another and the volume gradually increased until there was an amazing din of people calling their friends to say "Hey! Hey! Betcha can't guess where I'm calling you from! An airplane! Ha ha ha ha, yeah and on my own cell phone even!". It was a horrible forced invasion of personal space and ever since then I had been hoping that the FCC would not allow this to become a common occurrence.
Thanks MsGeek! You are precisely correct. Oh and I would be remiss if I did not mention Salt Lake City. There was that movie SLCPunk! that was honestly more real than not, though I did have my problems with it. Specifically I had problems with the legal disclaimer that the movie was a fictional work, because all of those characters were absolutely taken from people that lived and breathed the scene here in Salt Lake City.
Dude, it's always been about the chicks. Geek chicks, punk chicks, smart chicks.... One day I even had the dumb luck of meeting a person that embodied all qualities in the same person.
I want to be honest with you though and at least educate some of the other readers by stating that a number of fans of Black Flag, TSOL, Husker Du, The Dead Kennedys and many more bands would heartily disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, what you are seeing in some images is the result of experiments with HDR imagery. The halos are tough to deal with when combining HDR images a bit and I am looking at ways to minimize that effect. For me, post processing is simply part of the photographic process. It was that way when I was shooting B&W film, Kodachrome and now digital.
I'm getting a sense that slashdot is in a way getting like Washington DC. People inside the beltway are totally detatched from what the majority of people are doing in their lives, and so is slashdot.
;-)
*Gee*, do you think? Look, I've been around here for a while (and so have you from the looks of your ID), but Slashdot has always been an online home to a subset of society that is rather technically inclined, so yeah... we are a bit detached from what *most* people (I'd say unwashed masses, but, well..... you know) are doing... like Windows.
It is not about having just enough light. It also comes down to the quality of the optics, how well they are engineered to control light rays and deal with internal off axis light. Also, the ability of the larger sensor size of the dSLR allows for much less noise generated by each pixel allowing for higher range. To get some idea, all images on Jonesblog are shot with a dSLR (Canon 20d) and I think you will agree that images captured with dSLRs are much higher quality in both low and high light levels.
You seem to think that people will act honourably but they won't. People are trained from the cradle onwards to compete against against one another, never to cooperate.
You have never worked with a really good team then... If there are people that I work with who do not exhibit honorable characteristics (honesty, hard work, fair and equitable dealing), I am very careful with them and will not give them the same latitude. It's simple really when you can surround yourself with people like this. In terms of larger corporations, one cannot hope to have this spread throughout the entire corporation, but lots of behaviors flow downstream.
Somehow I think it's because you haven't yet faced the real world and are still sheltered in some kind of academia where the competition is still some kind of make believe stint. While there are niches where people act decently, the business world for the most certainly isn't it.
Be careful which folks you lecture to about "the real world" as I've been involved in a couple of businesses including being the VP of one of them. While I am in academia currently, there is no lack of possibilities about also continuing to work in/with business. I am careful about which business markets I want to spend time in and which ones that we believe we can compete in.
Sure, you can do that and sleep like a baby...
Or, you can stay far enough in front that nobody else knows or is ready for what you are doing. Admittedly this is easier in the hard core sciences (where I live). When you start making widgets or providing services, all bets are off here.
And what's more, once someone starts bending the rules, everybody *has* to do the same or be left behind to shrivel and die.
Alternatively, you could act in an honorable manner and expect, no demand that those companies who work with you/for you/supply to you also act with honesty and respect for their employees and customers.
Yes it would be nice if the world was fair. It might even be the sign that we're a civilised society. However currently the world is what it is (i.e. certainly not fair at all) and that is one of the most important lessons to be learned, bitter as it is.
This is the problem we are currently facing with big business and politics. Everybody has come to expect that our politicians and industry leaders are pathological liars with no ability or willingness to do the right thing. Is this acceptable? If we accept this, does it mean the fall of our culture/civilization? The USA is only a couple hundred years old you know...
On a side note, it might be useful to remember that the legal system doesn't have anything to do with being fair.
Funny, in civics class back in high school and college, fairness was what we were taught the legal system was all about. The establishment of rules and laws that enabled the Constitutional structure that this country was built upon.
Would you expect physics to be fair ?
Physics is what it is... A set of rules and laws that govern a reasonable set of expectations that are set in a framework of understanding. Law should be like that, but we have this little notion called free will. Humans fsck it all up, but physics itself is pure. The trick is that humans can be punished when they violate cultural laws while physicists are celebrated for violating physical laws.
HP used to have a policy of only promoting people to management who had been engineers. This had a couple of benefits including the managers ability to know work flows and products as well as still allowing the manager to be able to participate in the work and product development. This of course changed as part of the culture shift at HP around the same time somebody had the bright idea of canceling their RPN calculators.
However, to more directly answer your point, smarter companies distribute managerial duties amongst a number of senior people yet still allow those people to participate in the work. Of course they need to understand that a manager does not necessarily mean a pay scale increase. Rather they need to continue to reward their productive employees with different pay scales for say engineering (apprentice, junior, blah blah blah, senior, fellow).
It's not just your workers, it's what the workers want out of the job.
Precisely. Some folks are just in it for the paycheck, but that does not mean that they do not do their work with any lesser degree of competency. Other folks are in it to be famous while others still are doing their jobs to be influential. The trick is to create an environment where all approaches can be fostered and yet still maintain productivity, a sense of satisfaction (for you and your employees), and a positive income.
Do they want to be seen as the heros?
Heros I can take working for me. They tend to work very hard, are people pleasers and can often be trusted (they make good classified materials risks). The dangerous part about them is that they also tend to be co-dependent which for the company is not often a problem, but it leads to problems in their personal lives.
Do they want the drama?
These people I *don't* want to work with. They are always sabotaging productivity in the name of something happening where they are at the center of attention. They such cycles and personnel time up like no other with the exception of the pathological narcissist.
Do they want to it to be done exactly right?
Fine, but allow them the opportunity to see failure as a learning experience. It (failure) will happen and if you encourage a culture of insisting everything is done without mistakes, you never hear about the mistakes that end up biting you in the ass down the road.
Do they want to tell other people to do the work?
No, it is a team and if they want the glory without the work then they don't work for me.
Or! You can find the best talent there is, treat your employees with respect, compensate them fairly (or very well if they are particularly valuable) and work from the perspective that a place of work is a place of education where people will gather skills and hopefully work to the best of their ability. The danger of this is that they will not stay because they are hired away, but honestly if your employees are not being recruited by everyone else out there, they are not the best and brightest.
Consider having your attitude adjusted.
No. Go bother someone else.
You're probably more annoying to those around you than anyone else having a phone conversation.
Likely not. In the aircraft (or anywhere else), I am minding my own business and working. I also have no problem with normal conversation. Where problems crop up is people being completely unaware of their surroundings or those around them while they engage in LOUD intrusive dialogue.
If 2 people are having a conversation in the seat in front of you what do you do? Stand up and whisper shhhh!
If it is a normal conversation I probably would never notice them. However if it is like the two idiots on the plane from Sydney to LAX last time who were drunk, grabbing seats and the flight crew and yelling each and every word, they are likely in for a little discomfort. First by me and the other passengers who were disturbed, then jail time by the authorities on the receiving end of the flight.
Honestly it's none of your business. Don't listen in to their conversation.
You don't get out much, do you? I'd love to go on my merry way and ignore any conversation and almost always do. However, when you have some idiot sitting NEXT TO YOU talking about two octaves higher than necessary and making his conversation yours, you might not want to endure that much either after a couple of hours.
I am all for freedom and yes, of course I think it is important, thus my statement about the absurdity. Look, the issue is a safety issue from the standpoint of the FCC. What I am grateful for is the social implications of their decision that will make the inside of an airplane a quieter, more tolerable environment. I don't want to have to tell someone to shut the fsck up on a plane. Rather I would hope that social consideration would make this whole discussion moot. Where we start having problems is when certain freedoms start infringing upon safety and common sense such as navigational radios of aircraft (and frankly cell phone use while driving). As an aside: I've been hit on my bicycle by a cell phone using twit more concerned with text messaging than safely operating a vehicle, so I am aware of issues of safety versus someone's right to use their damned cellphone.
Aha! First hand knowledge of the problem... Thanks Dylan.
Which is more polite? Allowing idiots to blabber on and on about their banal lives annoying everyone around them or knocking them senseless, thereby saving everyone's sanity?
Seriously though, don't be absurd.
you evidently haven't heard how loudly some people play them. i can often hear them clearly from 3 or 4 seats back on a bus.
You are right, I have not seen (or heard) people playing their iPods so loud so as to hear them from a distance.
the hearing aid market is going to be absolutely booming in 10 or 20 years.
It may, but no more so than it was throughout the 70s and 80s with Walkmans, boomboxes and such. Don't forget small venues with some of the loudest punk music I've ever heard or Rush concerts or Van Halen concerts or etc....etc....etc.... making me glad I always brought earplugs to concerts. Walking out of the concert for hours later my friends would be clearing their ears, wiggling their fingers in their ears and saying "What?".
As long as they're talking at the top of their lungs, just interrupt them continually.
Why should I have to interrupt them continually? I've got my own work to do and no time or desire to police others manners. Why do you think this is OK?
Hey, my formative years were in the 70s and 80s and I saw more than my share of boomboxes and yes, Walkman sized devices with speakers in them. I for one, am grateful that this phenomenon died, but yes, I have seen some mp3 players with speakers in them along with cell phones. My Razr also has a speaker in it that allows you to play music or place calls on speaker phone which is another nuisance phenomenon seen with cell phone users in public.
Yeah, I have a pair of the Bose headphones and while they are nice for seriously eliminating the ambient noise in the cabin from the engines and air handlers, they do nothing to damp out the obnoxious cell phone conversation next to you. That you can hear wonderfully well due to the engineering of the headphones. It's actually nice as you can hear announcements that the pilot makes or hear when the flight attendant is asking you a question, but they do not completely eliminate ambient sounds.
As I said back in 2002, " it's hard to appreciate just how much thought and effort went into the design and interface. Little features like the lack of a built in speaker means that the iPod will never be used to offend others by thoughtlessly playing loud music and imparting an unconscious societal feeling of contempt for the device".
Hell yes, people do this in the terminal. Many have written before about the death of courtesy, but at least in the terminal you can walk to another part of the terminal and distance yourself from the person. The problem in an airplane (particularly in coach class) is that you are sitting in forced proximity to the offending person.
I've commented before about some of the hassles of travel lately (and some of the possible solutions), and all I have to say about the FCC maintaining the ban of cell phones on planes is thank you!. Aside from the "insufficient technical information" statement, this ruling is going to prevent someone from having violence done to them because of their inane constant droning to any and all within earshot. I once had the displeasure of sitting on a plane on the tarmac for two hours while our flight was delayed and the pilot allowed everyone to use their cell phones. It was torture as most folks were not talking on their cell phones to arrange transportation or take care of business, but they were talking (loudly) about everything and nothing and forcing those around them to have to listen! Even worse, people began trying to speak over one another and the volume gradually increased until there was an amazing din of people calling their friends to say "Hey! Hey! Betcha can't guess where I'm calling you from! An airplane! Ha ha ha ha, yeah and on my own cell phone even!". It was a horrible forced invasion of personal space and ever since then I had been hoping that the FCC would not allow this to become a common occurrence.
Thanks MsGeek! You are precisely correct. Oh and I would be remiss if I did not mention Salt Lake City. There was that movie SLCPunk! that was honestly more real than not, though I did have my problems with it. Specifically I had problems with the legal disclaimer that the movie was a fictional work, because all of those characters were absolutely taken from people that lived and breathed the scene here in Salt Lake City.
Funny, to which I reply:
:-)
"As an academician, we have a duty to community service. Posting on Slashdot is part of that community service."
It's the geek chicks, isn't it? =)
Dude, it's always been about the chicks. Geek chicks, punk chicks, smart chicks.... One day I even had the dumb luck of meeting a person that embodied all qualities in the same person.
The story is from England. They have hip hip, but no hip hop.
OK, somebody please mod this as funny! (emphasis, mine)
I was at an important club one night
You lost me right there.... Get over yourself.
I want to be honest with you though and at least educate some of the other readers by stating that a number of fans of Black Flag, TSOL, Husker Du, The Dead Kennedys and many more bands would heartily disagree.
IS that why you repeat something other people have said to try and grab Karma?
:-)
Here, let me repeat something that someone else has said. "Go fsck yourself....."
In all honesty though, I've been around Slashdot for a while now (since '97 or '98) and am not remotely concerned about making cheap karma grabs.