Perhaps it could be just due to pedal placement? Someone else pointed out that the Cadillacs etc. have giant brake pedals located a long way from the gas. They're pretty close in my Yaris (but still far apart enough that the odds of hitting the wrong one/should/ be small).
So, I was in Denver recently, and was in a HUGE collection of people at the security line. They had it routed back and forth, to the point where 1000 people were standing in an area maybe 30-40m on a side.
If you want to blow yourself up, disrupt air travel, and kill a shitload of people, the security line's a better place to do it. (The lethal radius of a 20kg bomb is pretty big, as I understand it...) And I'm sure the analysts know this, and insist on huge security lines anyway -- because it's wonderful theater.
If I buy a SNES game, that cartridge is mine to do with as I want. Nintendo's not going to do something to randomly break it over the network, and I am assured that it's going to work as designed.
Likewise, the hardware is mine to do with as I wish. It's *my* console, not Nintendo's.
I used to play my games on my SNES or PSX, just like I used to play my games on my computer. Both were fun.
But now, if I pay money for a console, all I can do is play Sony's games on Sony's console. This isn't good enough. I'm not paying $500 for a computer that I don't have root on, thanks.
Neither do the people doing the classifying. Since nobody seems to be making good decisions about what to keep secret, we're in sort of a bind. Wikileaks' attitude -- that anything that ruffles the conscience enough for someone with a clearance to leak it ought to be public -- is as good of a leading-order approximation as any.
It depends on the lens. My 300mm f/5.6 would be at f/16 three stops down, well after the point where diffraction eats your lunch on Four Thirds. Same with my 9mm f/4; there's noticeable degradation by f/11. This is because these are slow lenses.
Some relatively fast lenses are so sharp wide open that there's not much improvement from stopping down. Olympus 150/2, 35-100/2, 50/2, Sigma 150/2.8, etc. (I know Four Thirds lenses; I'm sure there are Nikon ones too, etc.)
But the "three stop rule" is true for old standard lenses, especially when used on large formats (fullframe/film) where diffraction isn't as big of an issue, but edge softness is. Your rule is true for my OM 50/1.8; it's best around f/5.6.
That sounds like a fairly expensive proposition to add gyroscopic stabilization. It might be cheaper to just buy a Sony/Pentax/Olympus camera with sensor-shift IS. On the Oly ones at least, you can dial in the focal length for "non-electronic" lenses; this works very well.
The old Nikon lens was excellent on crop cameras but was quite soft and crappy around the edges of full-frame. So, once the D3 came out, Nikon had to make a better one that could actually deliver a good image to a fullframe sensor.
Canon's doesn't have this problem; the old 70-200, especially at 200/2.8, just doesn't resolve fine detail that well -- it lacks "microcontrast", as people say. (The mid-frequency MTF sucks, as the physicists say.)
This is exacerbated on crop cameras, actually, because their smaller pixels mean the lens has to be sharper.
Using fullframe lenses on crop cameras means that you don't deal with soft corners/edges, but it does mean that the smaller pixels demand a higher degree of sharpness from the lens. I shoot Olympus, which is a system of crop lenses designed for crop cameras -- even the cheap lenses are often wickedly sharp.
They make them. Leica has one, but nobody can afford it. Sigma makes some with their funky "Foveon" sensors.
The seriously nice, and remarkably affordable, ones are the "Micro Four-Thirds" cameras from Olympus and Panasonic. They have ordinary Four Thirds sensors inside, just like on Olympus DSLR's. You can use either compact Micro Four Thirds lenses on them (both Olympus and Panasonic make some, and more are coming), or standard Four Thirds lenses.
They rereleased the 70-200 f/2.8L just recently. Don't think it's because of the reflective-sensor problem, but I can say with certainty (my dad has one of the old ones) that the old design has some issues that come out when shot on APS-C.
Most SLR lenses aren't diffraction-limited, though. If you go to slrgear.com or dpreview.com and look at performance vs. aperture, you'll notice poorer performance wide open (because of aberrations) and poorer performance closed past f/8 (on Four Thirds) or f/16 (on 35mm format) because of aberrations. Most lenses are best somewhere between f/4 and f/8.
They make those. I saw a 500 f/6.3 (actual light-gathering ability) in a shop the other day, but most are 500 f/8. They give rather bizarre "donut" bokeh and tend to lack contrast, but they are essentially free from chromatic aberration and quite small for their length.
Can't get that much aperture, though.
I'd like a modern mirror lens, actually. Real multicoatings and autofocus, and you're good to go. The motorized aperture isn't really that necessary (if it's 500 f/8, I probably don't want to close it down further), and I have sensor-shift IS already.
That overhead is mitigated pretty well by microlenses, though. They put little lenses over the pixel array to funnel light into the sensitive bits and away from the dead-weight circuitry.
There aren't many poor sensors around any more, though. There is plenty of crappy glass.
I have probably the worst sensor in the SLR market available. It's one of the first Panasonic sensors used in the Four Thirds cameras from Olympus. Newer ones are better, but this one exhibits pattern noise pretty badly in shadows at ISO 800, and even in bright areas at ISO 1600. And the images are still *stunningly* good (if taken of a suitable subject with a good lens). It only gets better from there, on the newer Olympus cameras, or on larger formats.
The judge said that the existence of CP in the cache doesn't in itself make him guilty; that the prosecution must also show "mens rea" (which translates essentially to "guilty intent", as I understand it).
If this guy is guilty, then show it, and you can chuck him in jail and take his computer. If he's innocent, give him his computer back.
Normal rules of ethics dictate that the commons should be more willing to help someone out if they're willing to donate to the commons too. This is related to the idea behind the GPL. If you have two friends who are short a buck for lunch, you're more likely to give your only dollar to the one who's more likely to spot you when you come up short.
Just because organ donation is a matter of life and death doesn't mean that it plays by any different rules than "ordinary" ethics -- it just means the stakes for getting it right are that much higher. The commons should encourage people to contribute/to/ the commons, thereby enriching everyone, and rules like this are just one way to do it.
And this sort of ethics is independent of anyone's primitive superstitions. Superstitions are fine -- believe whatever you want -- but don't expect reality to change to suit them.
Slashdot Mirror
You're also not supposed to torture people, but we've been doing that for a while.
Just because the Geneva Conventions says that the military's not supposed to do X doesn't mean that they're not doing X.
Perhaps it could be just due to pedal placement? Someone else pointed out that the Cadillacs etc. have giant brake pedals located a long way from the gas. They're pretty close in my Yaris (but still far apart enough that the odds of hitting the wrong one /should/ be small).
A little over 50 is not old.
Anecdotally, if anything it's skewed toward the young (at least in Tucson).
So, I was in Denver recently, and was in a HUGE collection of people at the security line. They had it routed back and forth, to the point where 1000 people were standing in an area maybe 30-40m on a side.
If you want to blow yourself up, disrupt air travel, and kill a shitload of people, the security line's a better place to do it. (The lethal radius of a 20kg bomb is pretty big, as I understand it...) And I'm sure the analysts know this, and insist on huge security lines anyway -- because it's wonderful theater.
If I buy a SNES game, that cartridge is mine to do with as I want. Nintendo's not going to do something to randomly break it over the network, and I am assured that it's going to work as designed.
Likewise, the hardware is mine to do with as I wish. It's *my* console, not Nintendo's.
I used to play my games on my SNES or PSX, just like I used to play my games on my computer. Both were fun.
But now, if I pay money for a console, all I can do is play Sony's games on Sony's console. This isn't good enough. I'm not paying $500 for a computer that I don't have root on, thanks.
Marketshare of what determined how?
Neither do the people doing the classifying. Since nobody seems to be making good decisions about what to keep secret, we're in sort of a bind. Wikileaks' attitude -- that anything that ruffles the conscience enough for someone with a clearance to leak it ought to be public -- is as good of a leading-order approximation as any.
It depends on the lens. My 300mm f/5.6 would be at f/16 three stops down, well after the point where diffraction eats your lunch on Four Thirds. Same with my 9mm f/4; there's noticeable degradation by f/11. This is because these are slow lenses.
Some relatively fast lenses are so sharp wide open that there's not much improvement from stopping down. Olympus 150/2, 35-100/2, 50/2, Sigma 150/2.8, etc. (I know Four Thirds lenses; I'm sure there are Nikon ones too, etc.)
But the "three stop rule" is true for old standard lenses, especially when used on large formats (fullframe/film) where diffraction isn't as big of an issue, but edge softness is. Your rule is true for my OM 50/1.8; it's best around f/5.6.
That sounds like a fairly expensive proposition to add gyroscopic stabilization. It might be cheaper to just buy a Sony/Pentax/Olympus camera with sensor-shift IS. On the Oly ones at least, you can dial in the focal length for "non-electronic" lenses; this works very well.
The old Nikon lens was excellent on crop cameras but was quite soft and crappy around the edges of full-frame. So, once the D3 came out, Nikon had to make a better one that could actually deliver a good image to a fullframe sensor.
Canon's doesn't have this problem; the old 70-200, especially at 200/2.8, just doesn't resolve fine detail that well -- it lacks "microcontrast", as people say. (The mid-frequency MTF sucks, as the physicists say.)
This is exacerbated on crop cameras, actually, because their smaller pixels mean the lens has to be sharper.
Using fullframe lenses on crop cameras means that you don't deal with soft corners/edges, but it does mean that the smaller pixels demand a higher degree of sharpness from the lens. I shoot Olympus, which is a system of crop lenses designed for crop cameras -- even the cheap lenses are often wickedly sharp.
85/1.2L is actually pretty soft around the edges, from what I've heard.
But, yes, long tele primes are excellent, as are some midrange macro lenses (Sigma 150/2.8, Olympus 50/2, etc.)
They make them. Leica has one, but nobody can afford it. Sigma makes some with their funky "Foveon" sensors.
The seriously nice, and remarkably affordable, ones are the "Micro Four-Thirds" cameras from Olympus and Panasonic. They have ordinary Four Thirds sensors inside, just like on Olympus DSLR's. You can use either compact Micro Four Thirds lenses on them (both Olympus and Panasonic make some, and more are coming), or standard Four Thirds lenses.
Not at base ISO it's not. Go read the dpreview.
They rereleased the 70-200 f/2.8L just recently. Don't think it's because of the reflective-sensor problem, but I can say with certainty (my dad has one of the old ones) that the old design has some issues that come out when shot on APS-C.
Most SLR lenses aren't diffraction-limited, though. If you go to slrgear.com or dpreview.com and look at performance vs. aperture, you'll notice poorer performance wide open (because of aberrations) and poorer performance closed past f/8 (on Four Thirds) or f/16 (on 35mm format) because of aberrations. Most lenses are best somewhere between f/4 and f/8.
There are SLR zooms that are amazing optically, easily the equal of a prime. In no particular order:
Olympus 14-35 f/2
Olympus 30-100 f/2
Olympus 90-250 f/2.8
Olympus 11-22 f/2.8-3.5
Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-3.5
Nikon 200-400 f/4
Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 (what a huge thing)
They make those. I saw a 500 f/6.3 (actual light-gathering ability) in a shop the other day, but most are 500 f/8. They give rather bizarre "donut" bokeh and tend to lack contrast, but they are essentially free from chromatic aberration and quite small for their length.
Can't get that much aperture, though.
I'd like a modern mirror lens, actually. Real multicoatings and autofocus, and you're good to go. The motorized aperture isn't really that necessary (if it's 500 f/8, I probably don't want to close it down further), and I have sensor-shift IS already.
That overhead is mitigated pretty well by microlenses, though. They put little lenses over the pixel array to funnel light into the sensitive bits and away from the dead-weight circuitry.
There aren't many poor sensors around any more, though. There is plenty of crappy glass.
I have probably the worst sensor in the SLR market available. It's one of the first Panasonic sensors used in the Four Thirds cameras from Olympus. Newer ones are better, but this one exhibits pattern noise pretty badly in shadows at ISO 800, and even in bright areas at ISO 1600. And the images are still *stunningly* good (if taken of a suitable subject with a good lens). It only gets better from there, on the newer Olympus cameras, or on larger formats.
The judge didn't say that he was innocent.
The judge said that the existence of CP in the cache doesn't in itself make him guilty; that the prosecution must also show "mens rea" (which translates essentially to "guilty intent", as I understand it).
If this guy is guilty, then show it, and you can chuck him in jail and take his computer. If he's innocent, give him his computer back.
Normal rules of ethics dictate that the commons should be more willing to help someone out if they're willing to donate to the commons too. This is related to the idea behind the GPL. If you have two friends who are short a buck for lunch, you're more likely to give your only dollar to the one who's more likely to spot you when you come up short.
Just because organ donation is a matter of life and death doesn't mean that it plays by any different rules than "ordinary" ethics -- it just means the stakes for getting it right are that much higher. The commons should encourage people to contribute /to/ the commons, thereby enriching everyone, and rules like this are just one way to do it.
And this sort of ethics is independent of anyone's primitive superstitions. Superstitions are fine -- believe whatever you want -- but don't expect reality to change to suit them.
Which is slightly less, but not that much less, than turnout in the USA.
Your local university probably puts lots of these on. There's a lot of talent in college music programs, and you can usually go hear it for free.