They're not required to, no. But then I am not required to like it, and I can post on Slashdot saying "I don't like it, and I'm not going to buy one, and you shouldn't too."
Just because they're not legally prohibited from trying to prevent people from rooting their devices doesn't mean that people can't publically condemn them for it.
Oh, certainly. I was flippantly giving the most famous use for nuclear waste, but as you point out there are many others (like breeder reactors!) which we are pretty stupid not to use. The only reason we don't, I think, is that uranium is so damn cheap and we need so little of it it's not worth the bother. (Plus people keep talking about The Scary Terrorists, but fuck them -- if we let them dictate our policy decisions without lifting a finger then we might as well tip over our king already.)
They did that -- they made CCD's for several DSLR's for a long while. Olympus got their sensors from Kodak for their DSLR's for years, and they also made some very high-end medium format sensors for Hasselblads and so on. Not sure why they wound up failing in this market, really; Olympus left them because they wanted a partnership with Panasonic for other reasons, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with the images from the Kodak sensors.
Re:Horse and buggy companies didn't make it either
on
The Rise and Fall of Kodak
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They had an angle into that market; they made CCD's for high-end digital SLR's for a long time. I know they sold sensors to Olympus, among others, for years. Olympus wound up switching to Panasonic as a sensor supplier for technical reasons related to video capture, but lots of folks still swear by the old Kodak sensor cameras.
Well, yes. You can put it next to a Peltier junction and power spacecraft off of it. You can also seal it up and chuck it in a hole in the ground and it will cause nobody trouble.
I think they're not really needed, not yet. There is still plenty of uranium, it's cheap, and uranium-fission reactors are a known quantity that we know how to build and that are really pretty safe.
This is the thing that everyone misses -- just how damned big that earthquake was. Twenty thousand people got washed out to sea -- whole trains, whole villages. While there are lessons to be learned from Fukushima, people seem to miss that it was in the context of a 9.0 quake.
Neither can hydroelectric power. No matter what precautions are taken, gravity and the mistakes of man will inevitably cause some poor bastard to fall off of a dam.
Even worse, there are all the issues that happen from coal *mining*. Never mind what happens on the burning end, coal mining kills people and ruins huge areas of land.
If you're comparing basically anything to coal, coal is worse.
Quality low f/number high zoom ratio lenses are pretty much impossible to find in the stills world. The best one I know of is the 12x f/2.8-3.7 zoom on the Panasonic FZ50, and even that thing pales in comparison to a decent DSLR lens. I've seen some movie-camera zooms that have ratios like 10x that have low f/numbers, but I imagine that 1920x1080 is less demanding than the 4000x3000 of even an aging DSLR sensor.
There you can either get 10x-type zooms that have maximum apertures like f/6.3 that generally suck, or f/2.8 zooms with ratios like 4x that are quite often great.
Most photographers tend to have the attitude that a camera is some thing you bolt on the back of a lens, and they're pretty much right. I did some wonderful wildlife work with a $150 (used) banged-up old DSLR; I finally gave it up after bits started falling off of it.
This is absolutely true. (I'm a rather ardent amateur wildlife photographer.)
In my grandparent post I'm not talking about shitty cellphone cameras; I'm talking about the new generation of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that are competing with DSLR's, often using the same sensors and lenses, and doing very well in many respects.
Lenses are even more limiting with stills than with video; 1080p may be the state of the art in video, but my fairly-old-but-still-nice DSLR shoots 4000x3000 images. My crappy lenses -- my 70-300 f/4-5.6 zoom, for instance -- do not look sharp up close. My nice ones are worlds better.
You don't need a large lens, though, unless you also want a very long focal length; you need a quality lens. The best 300mm lens that Olympus sells (a f/2.8) will set you back $5k and weighs 6-7 pounds. But the sharpest lens I own is a 35mm that weighs a couple of ounces. I guarantee it's capable of flawless 1080p.
Go look at Leica's still-camera lenses; the things are miniscule. A 50mm f/1.4 lens needs an aperture about 35mm across, after all. A 300 f/2.8? That's a different story.
I'm talking about a camera like the Panasonic GH1 or GH2, the Sony NEX series, or (I believe; maybe it just does 720p) the Olympus E-P3. These are cameras with the same sensors used in very nice DSLR's and can use any lens you care to put on the front of them -- literally any lens, so long as it has mechanically-linked manual focus and iris, since they tend to have very short register distances. Some of the modern autofocus lenses that are native to the Micro Four Thirds format of the Panasonic and Olympus models are very, very sharp.
Since you're trying to get the whole play in your field of view, you don't need a super-long focal length lens. One that comes to mind that would be good for this is the (standard) Four Thirds 40-150mm zoom, which is small enough that they'll let you into the stadium with it but with enough focal length to do what you need, and sharp as hell. (Go check slrgear.com if you want the data.)
I did apply to a bunch of overseas jobs, actually. Was accepted to one in Germany, but the acceptance came in the day after I'd already accepted a postdoc in the States. Sad times.
Slashdot Mirror
Very little, if it's powered from nuclear power (or solar/wind/geothermal).
They're not required to, no. But then I am not required to like it, and I can post on Slashdot saying "I don't like it, and I'm not going to buy one, and you shouldn't too."
Just because they're not legally prohibited from trying to prevent people from rooting their devices doesn't mean that people can't publically condemn them for it.
Does Linux sacrifice that much convenience for security?
I have to type in my root password once in a while when using the GUI, and I have to write "sudo" occasionally. It's not really a pain at all.
Oh, certainly. I was flippantly giving the most famous use for nuclear waste, but as you point out there are many others (like breeder reactors!) which we are pretty stupid not to use. The only reason we don't, I think, is that uranium is so damn cheap and we need so little of it it's not worth the bother. (Plus people keep talking about The Scary Terrorists, but fuck them -- if we let them dictate our policy decisions without lifting a finger then we might as well tip over our king already.)
They did that -- they made CCD's for several DSLR's for a long while. Olympus got their sensors from Kodak for their DSLR's for years, and they also made some very high-end medium format sensors for Hasselblads and so on. Not sure why they wound up failing in this market, really; Olympus left them because they wanted a partnership with Panasonic for other reasons, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with the images from the Kodak sensors.
They had an angle into that market; they made CCD's for high-end digital SLR's for a long time. I know they sold sensors to Olympus, among others, for years. Olympus wound up switching to Panasonic as a sensor supplier for technical reasons related to video capture, but lots of folks still swear by the old Kodak sensor cameras.
Well, yes. You can put it next to a Peltier junction and power spacecraft off of it. You can also seal it up and chuck it in a hole in the ground and it will cause nobody trouble.
This is true. (Of course, you can mount the Leicas on the mirrorless interchangeable cameras, since they have no mirror box either.)
[citation needed], much? All the comparisons I've seen, doing exactly what you suggest, have come to the exact opposite conclusion.
I recall that after 9/11, people asked "Oh no! What happens if someone flies a plane into a nuclear reactor?"
Some folks went off and thought about it, and came back with the answer: "It'll bounce off of the containment vessel."
Seems like we ought to just plug the Navy nuke ships into the grid while they're in port. Might actually get some public good out of the things.
Want to build one in my backyard? Be my guest. A nuke plant in my backyard pollutes my life far less than a coal plant across town.
I think they're not really needed, not yet. There is still plenty of uranium, it's cheap, and uranium-fission reactors are a known quantity that we know how to build and that are really pretty safe.
This is the thing that everyone misses -- just how damned big that earthquake was. Twenty thousand people got washed out to sea -- whole trains, whole villages. While there are lessons to be learned from Fukushima, people seem to miss that it was in the context of a 9.0 quake.
Neither can hydroelectric power. No matter what precautions are taken, gravity and the mistakes of man will inevitably cause some poor bastard to fall off of a dam.
Even worse, there are all the issues that happen from coal *mining*. Never mind what happens on the burning end, coal mining kills people and ruins huge areas of land.
If you're comparing basically anything to coal, coal is worse.
Because lawyers have managed to find the source of every other video that someone rich and powerful didn't want to have shared on the internet... hm.
Quality low f/number high zoom ratio lenses are pretty much impossible to find in the stills world. The best one I know of is the 12x f/2.8-3.7 zoom on the Panasonic FZ50, and even that thing pales in comparison to a decent DSLR lens. I've seen some movie-camera zooms that have ratios like 10x that have low f/numbers, but I imagine that 1920x1080 is less demanding than the 4000x3000 of even an aging DSLR sensor.
There you can either get 10x-type zooms that have maximum apertures like f/6.3 that generally suck, or f/2.8 zooms with ratios like 4x that are quite often great.
Most photographers tend to have the attitude that a camera is some thing you bolt on the back of a lens, and they're pretty much right. I did some wonderful wildlife work with a $150 (used) banged-up old DSLR; I finally gave it up after bits started falling off of it.
This is absolutely true. (I'm a rather ardent amateur wildlife photographer.)
In my grandparent post I'm not talking about shitty cellphone cameras; I'm talking about the new generation of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that are competing with DSLR's, often using the same sensors and lenses, and doing very well in many respects.
Lenses are even more limiting with stills than with video; 1080p may be the state of the art in video, but my fairly-old-but-still-nice DSLR shoots 4000x3000 images. My crappy lenses -- my 70-300 f/4-5.6 zoom, for instance -- do not look sharp up close. My nice ones are worlds better.
You don't need a large lens, though, unless you also want a very long focal length; you need a quality lens. The best 300mm lens that Olympus sells (a f/2.8) will set you back $5k and weighs 6-7 pounds. But the sharpest lens I own is a 35mm that weighs a couple of ounces. I guarantee it's capable of flawless 1080p.
Go look at Leica's still-camera lenses; the things are miniscule. A 50mm f/1.4 lens needs an aperture about 35mm across, after all. A 300 f/2.8? That's a different story.
I'm talking about a camera like the Panasonic GH1 or GH2, the Sony NEX series, or (I believe; maybe it just does 720p) the Olympus E-P3. These are cameras with the same sensors used in very nice DSLR's and can use any lens you care to put on the front of them -- literally any lens, so long as it has mechanically-linked manual focus and iris, since they tend to have very short register distances. Some of the modern autofocus lenses that are native to the Micro Four Thirds format of the Panasonic and Olympus models are very, very sharp.
Since you're trying to get the whole play in your field of view, you don't need a super-long focal length lens. One that comes to mind that would be good for this is the (standard) Four Thirds 40-150mm zoom, which is small enough that they'll let you into the stadium with it but with enough focal length to do what you need, and sharp as hell. (Go check slrgear.com if you want the data.)
More generally, how do they keep somebody from livestreaming it -- or, at the very least, recording it and streaming it later.
We have cameras that are the size of a pack of cards that record very high quality 1080p video, after all.
I'm ashamed of my government. I love my country. They're different.
I did apply to a bunch of overseas jobs, actually. Was accepted to one in Germany, but the acceptance came in the day after I'd already accepted a postdoc in the States. Sad times.
I'm an American, and I love my country.
But if I were offered an opportunity to emigrate to Iceland tomorrow, I'd probably take it. (Who brought Eastern Europe into this?)