OK.. so I skipped over the sheet film, and I'll concede that there are many old cameras without electronics, (I own 50 year old working cameras as well) and a 4x5 has less moving parts than a 35mm or a MF camera, but you still have to look at the overal system. Does your Pressman still have another 30 years of continuous use in it? If this takes regular maintenance who will perform it? Are you stocking up on spares at the moment to cover future repairs? Etc .
I am not trying to dis the use of such cameras, but I am trying to point out that there is a cost to maintaining such items and I think that the original poster is skipping over this and instead obsessing over the film storage issue. And while I have my fav films and processes I know that chemical process such as film are emphemeral.
The strength of an image is not tied to the equipment, film or processing - it is soley tied to the photographers vision. Fixating on the hardware limits that vision.
Keep film fresh for 30 years seems to be a tough nut to crack, but the question I ask is: what sort of camera/lens do you expect to be shooting in 30 years?
Electronics die. And there are very few cameras produced today that do not have any electronics in them.
So rather than considering just the film issue, you have to consider the overall package for the next 30 years, and that includes:
1/ Film storage 2/ Camera oeration and maintenace 3/ Developement chemicals
If anyone of these 3 fails you in the future, then the other 2 won't be able to do their job.
I would also question your deisre to store this film for so long. To me it seems you are obsessed with the film itself, rather than the images you are producing.
That was how I read the summary and it made me think - Dang the Dept of Homeland Security is so (dis)organised that you can phone in break in requests to their systems
The issue of the start menu has come up previously. The last time it did I remember reading a blog of the MS guy who was working on it (can someone supply the reference). His description of how his work was integrated into the complete code base was horrifying, and I truely felt sorry for him. From what I read the lack of direction was implicit in the way that code was built.
Years ago I started doing work for GE, and when I first arrived there was a saying going around that I think is also applicable to MS:
"GE is full of really smart people, and if the ever get organised then they will be a force to contend with"
Th efirst person shooter comments relate to the fact that it has been widely reported that the military uses computer simulations to get soldiers to the point of shooting someone becoming mer muscle memory as opposed to just thinking about it. This is a very reasonable use of technology to provide training that can't normally be provided ie shooting a live person. I was questioning how you get civilians to that same level of effectiveness in order that the pro-gun conceal to carry argument is useful (someone has to pull a trigger for it to be effective).
oops I made a mistake in saying that B only wounds A
Please tell me about this mythical training that Student B will have had that will keep him out of harms way?
I never said that Student A's wounds were fatal. But disregarding shooting the gunman is fair, as after all that scenario will be proven to be to the public benefit and the law will exonerate Student B. The edge case of shooting the innocent person out of not have a true understanding of the situation is what will make for an interesting lawsuit with people protesting on both sides.
OK so people under 21 cannot carry concealed weapons - so how many students does that take out of the picture at campuses? There has been a strong argument that the students could have done something.. if only they were allowed to carry. Also does your training also ensure that non-excitable people will be denied access to guns? (and let me point out a thing called a bell curve)
My comment about the running around with guns was related to the panic that will occur in the middle of a mass shooting. These are not normal times and mutliple people trying to save the world by hunting down the original shooter will only ADD to confusion. I also want to see the training that organizes multiple civilians to act as a unit in the same vein that law enforcement people are paid to do.
I agree that law enforcement people do not indescrimantly mow down people. But I re-iterate.. mass panic, multiple people with drawn guns, no clear idea of who is on which side of the law. This sort of thing adds to mistakes. And in this case the mistakes could be deadly and the following lawsuits very interesting.
So yo are saying that civilians have an easier time with pulling teh trigger than trained professionals? That seems to be an argument for stronger gun control.
There are arguments for and against gun control, and either direction carries consequences. But In my opinion the pro-gun argument sees only the benefts of "I have the right to act as I see fit, but am trusted to be 100% rigth in my behavior" , and overlooks the costs of "what happens if I screw up?" - and mistakes will happen and be all the more common with more liberal gun laws and more people carrying concealed weapons.
If you think that I am speaking rhetoric for pointing out the costs, then you might ponder whether people consider your own arguments to balanced or rhetoric themselves
You can run away if you like, but the pro-gun argument is based on the idea that you stand your ground and shoot. Without this belief the pro-gun argument fails.
But in the midst of panic how can you be relied upon to safely determine immediate danger? Especially without any adequate training?
I am not pretending tha edge cases are the norm. But they are the locations where structure falls down, and assumptions get put to the test. This is why any analysis should included edge cases. Especially so if the assumptions of good meaning people can lead to the death of other innocent people (an potentially themselves through court mandated sentences).
1. Gunman comes to your location and squuezes off a few rounds. 2. Random student A sees this happens. 3. Random student B is around the corner and only hears it happen. 4. In the name of pubic service random student A whips out his large caliber hand gun and squeezes off a shot at the Gunman, wounding him/her 5. Random student B now comes around the corner with guns drawn and sees both Gunman and Random Student A with smoking handguns in their hands, and the Gunman suffering from a wound.
Questions:
1. Who does Random student B shoot at? 2. Whats sort of lawsuit would Random Student B face for killing Random Student A? 3. Students A and B are teenagers. How excitable are teenagers? 4. How does the response scale up from 1 Gunman and 2 Random Students, to 1 Gunman and 50 Random students running around with guns? Note that the majority of the students will be acting independently, but multiple students acting together has been a tactic used in a previous school shooting. 5. What does law enforcement do when confronted with this situation? (Hint: See question 2) 6. Given studies have shown that even trained soldiers can have trouble firing at living humans, why should non-military trained civilians suddenly be able to throw aside all qualms about doing so? Or should first person shooter games be required study when getting a gun license? 7. Assuming that all people now carry guns to protect against rare forms of crime (ie school shootings), how will turning all civilians into people wth no qualms about killing change society? In your reply compare/contrast shootings with other more common forms of anti social behaviour such as "road rage'.
A few years ago the US started fingerprinting pretty well everyone arriving from overseas. Initially it was the people arriving on work visas, then it extended to all tourist visas. I initially got it when on my L-1 visa, and had just index fingers done. Then as part of my green card application I had all 10 fingers done. And that is nothing compared to all the other checks that I have been through.
You citizens have it so easy.. you are just born here. I have had to prove that I deserve to be here (and so far they think I can stay)
The Metropolis interface consists of a person moving levers to positions indicated by lights. Now where have I previously heard the idea of a human augmenting a machine???.. I am sure I heard it recently.. something to do with a patent application or some such.. I can't quite find it now, but I am sure that rather than using google myself that this post will prompt a person to look it up for me.. Hmm.. is that also a human augmented computer system?????
When I first read the headline, it reminded me of a story that I saw on the RISKS list (and if anyone can find the exact link please do so) In summary (and from memory only) it was:
1/ A security company was contracted to do a pentration test of a bank. 2/ The employees found out, so were being aware of typical social engineering type situations 3/ The security company loaded up some special USB keys that had had key logger and other software on them 4/ 15 to 20 of said keys were scattered around the door of the bank prior to opening hours 5/ With 3 days something like 75% of the keys had phoned home and were reporting that they were connected to computers inside the bank.
After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees
Another scenario I heard of (also on RISKS I think) was to go to the front desk of a company, ask to use the bathroom (or toilet for the rest of us), and leave a CD in a prominant location that was clearly labelled with something like "Staff reductions". It wouldn't take very long before that CD was inserted into someones computer at that company.
This was part of the Future Car series last month on discovery. It looked like a neat car that would be good for running around the inner city.
Unfortunately the Future Car people managed to screw up the presentation by saying something along the lines of.. "Hey there is an generator connected to the compressed air engine.. so we can use that to power an air compressor.. and then we will never run out of compressed air to power the car."
There was some interesting stuff on that series, but in general each episode was 30 minutes of wank for 15 minutes of information.
I talked to a sound engineer friend of mine once about this type of technique. He pointed out that it falls down by totally ignoring the effect of the tone arm geometry and movement dynamics in extracting the sounds out of a record groove. The tone arm on a record player tracks in an arc and not a circle, and mass of the tone arm also plays an important part in the sound reproduction. So while an optical technique can extract an almost perfect rendition of the grooves from the record, without considering the tone arm it will only approximate the actual sounds played in a real system.
If the landings were faked in the first place with 1960's technology (and the idea of keeping all those involved completely isolated), what do you think could be done with current technology and digital photos?
(and I am sure there are people out there who would take the above seriously)
And while you seem to be holding out, I did see one website that suggested less thna 7% of the worlds population doesn't use the metric system.. and the US is 80% of that 7%
NTSFPWTSMAM - Not Safe For People With The Same Morals As Me
While not RTFA this tag seems to be all about setting a level of moral standards in order to protect people from "Objectional" material. And thats my objection. It's such a huge generalisation that anything I would want to be protected from is the same as what other people would want to be protected from. But in using the proposed tag it is the website that is setting what everyone is supposed to think is "bad".
As an extreme, what would the people who produced goatse.cx or tubgirl think if they are at work and saw that their own sites were marked as NTSFW??
Its not safe for work But *I* made it at work You shouldn't look at it at work, its not safe to do But it's *my* work Its not... bzzt.. %$#$&%#$%$#.. (head explodes)
Yeah but the problem with electrons is that you aren't buying them. All you are doing is renting them. Once you have finished using them you send them back to the provider. So in that way photons *are* different.
I'm not sure of the Indian taxation system, but I would guess that a consumer is already paying the government for the privelage of getting electrons in the first place, which will then be used to turn the photons into useful information. This would smack of double taxation. But hey, the Australian government is happy doing this as we can pay government mandated GST on top of government mandated stamp duty.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. It tries to show how the US (and others) reign in sovereign countries via economic power rather than brute force through use of things like the world bank. Chilling subject, but I think that Overthrow is better written and makes for a better read.
I think that the monroe doctrine is tied in, as it basically says.. "Europe. Stay away from what belongs to us", even though the things involved were other soverign nations.
As for the countries the book lists (in no order):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Phillipines
Nicaragua
Honduras
South Vietnam
Guatemala
Chile
Iran
Grenada
Panama
Afghanistan
Slashdot Mirror
OK .. so I skipped over the sheet film, and I'll concede that there are many old cameras without electronics, (I own 50 year old working cameras as well) and a 4x5 has less moving parts than a 35mm or a MF camera, but you still have to look at the overal system. Does your Pressman still have another 30 years of continuous use in it? If this takes regular maintenance who will perform it? Are you stocking up on spares at the moment to cover future repairs? Etc .
I am not trying to dis the use of such cameras, but I am trying to point out that there is a cost to maintaining such items and I think that the original poster is skipping over this and instead obsessing over the film storage issue. And while I have my fav films and processes I know that chemical process such as film are emphemeral.
The strength of an image is not tied to the equipment, film or processing - it is soley tied to the photographers vision. Fixating on the hardware limits that vision.
Keep film fresh for 30 years seems to be a tough nut to crack, but the question I ask is: what sort of camera/lens do you expect to be shooting in 30 years?
Electronics die. And there are very few cameras produced today that do not have any electronics in them.
So rather than considering just the film issue, you have to consider the overall package for the next 30 years, and that includes:
1/ Film storage
2/ Camera oeration and maintenace
3/ Developement chemicals
If anyone of these 3 fails you in the future, then the other 2 won't be able to do their job.
I would also question your deisre to store this film for so long. To me it seems you are obsessed with the film itself, rather than the images you are producing.
That was how I read the summary and it made me think - Dang the Dept of Homeland Security is so (dis)organised that you can phone in break in requests to their systems
The issue of the start menu has come up previously. The last time it did I remember reading a blog of the MS guy who was working on it (can someone supply the reference). His description of how his work was integrated into the complete code base was horrifying, and I truely felt sorry for him. From what I read the lack of direction was implicit in the way that code was built.
Years ago I started doing work for GE, and when I first arrived there was a saying going around that I think is also applicable to MS:
"GE is full of really smart people, and if the ever get organised then they will be a force to contend with"
Th efirst person shooter comments relate to the fact that it has been widely reported that the military uses computer simulations to get soldiers to the point of shooting someone becoming mer muscle memory as opposed to just thinking about it. This is a very reasonable use of technology to provide training that can't normally be provided ie shooting a live person. I was questioning how you get civilians to that same level of effectiveness in order that the pro-gun conceal to carry argument is useful (someone has to pull a trigger for it to be effective).
oops I made a mistake in saying that B only wounds A
Please tell me about this mythical training that Student B will have had that will keep him out of harms way?
.. if only they were allowed to carry. Also does your training also ensure that non-excitable people will be denied access to guns? (and let me point out a thing called a bell curve)
.. mass panic, multiple people with drawn guns, no clear idea of who is on which side of the law. This sort of thing adds to mistakes. And in this case the mistakes could be deadly and the following lawsuits very interesting.
I never said that Student A's wounds were fatal. But disregarding shooting the gunman is fair, as after all that scenario will be proven to be to the public benefit and the law will exonerate Student B. The edge case of shooting the innocent person out of not have a true understanding of the situation is what will make for an interesting lawsuit with people protesting on both sides.
OK so people under 21 cannot carry concealed weapons - so how many students does that take out of the picture at campuses? There has been a strong argument that the students could have done something
My comment about the running around with guns was related to the panic that will occur in the middle of a mass shooting. These are not normal times and mutliple people trying to save the world by hunting down the original shooter will only ADD to confusion. I also want to see the training that organizes multiple civilians to act as a unit in the same vein that law enforcement people are paid to do.
I agree that law enforcement people do not indescrimantly mow down people. But I re-iterate
So yo are saying that civilians have an easier time with pulling teh trigger than trained professionals? That seems to be an argument for stronger gun control.
There are arguments for and against gun control, and either direction carries consequences. But In my opinion the pro-gun argument sees only the benefts of "I have the right to act as I see fit, but am trusted to be 100% rigth in my behavior" , and overlooks the costs of "what happens if I screw up?" - and mistakes will happen and be all the more common with more liberal gun laws and more people carrying concealed weapons.
If you think that I am speaking rhetoric for pointing out the costs, then you might ponder whether people consider your own arguments to balanced or rhetoric themselves
You can run away if you like, but the pro-gun argument is based on the idea that you stand your ground and shoot. Without this belief the pro-gun argument fails.
But in the midst of panic how can you be relied upon to safely determine immediate danger? Especially without any adequate training?
I am not pretending tha edge cases are the norm. But they are the locations where structure falls down, and assumptions get put to the test. This is why any analysis should included edge cases. Especially so if the assumptions of good meaning people can lead to the death of other innocent people (an potentially themselves through court mandated sentences).
1. Gunman comes to your location and squuezes off a few rounds.
2. Random student A sees this happens.
3. Random student B is around the corner and only hears it happen.
4. In the name of pubic service random student A whips out his large caliber hand gun and squeezes off a shot at the Gunman, wounding him/her
5. Random student B now comes around the corner with guns drawn and sees both Gunman and Random Student A with smoking handguns in their hands, and the Gunman suffering from a wound.
Questions:
1. Who does Random student B shoot at?
2. Whats sort of lawsuit would Random Student B face for killing Random Student A?
3. Students A and B are teenagers. How excitable are teenagers?
4. How does the response scale up from 1 Gunman and 2 Random Students, to 1 Gunman and 50 Random students running around with guns? Note that the majority of the students will be acting independently, but multiple students acting together has been a tactic used in a previous school shooting.
5. What does law enforcement do when confronted with this situation? (Hint: See question 2)
6. Given studies have shown that even trained soldiers can have trouble firing at living humans, why should non-military trained civilians suddenly be able to throw aside all qualms about doing so? Or should first person shooter games be required study when getting a gun license?
7. Assuming that all people now carry guns to protect against rare forms of crime (ie school shootings), how will turning all civilians into people wth no qualms about killing change society? In your reply compare/contrast shootings with other more common forms of anti social behaviour such as "road rage'.
A few years ago the US started fingerprinting pretty well everyone arriving from overseas. Initially it was the people arriving on work visas, then it extended to all tourist visas. I initially got it when on my L-1 visa, and had just index fingers done. Then as part of my green card application I had all 10 fingers done. And that is nothing compared to all the other checks that I have been through.
.. you are just born here. I have had to prove that I deserve to be here (and so far they think I can stay)
You citizens have it so easy
You mean rounded corners etc like slashdot did with their style makeover??
The Metropolis interface consists of a person moving levers to positions indicated by lights. Now where have I previously heard the idea of a human augmenting a machine??? .. I am sure I heard it recently .. something to do with a patent application or some such .. I can't quite find it now, but I am sure that rather than using google myself that this post will prompt a person to look it up for me .. Hmm .. is that also a human augmented computer system?????
from what I remember the security team hacked teh drives to achieve what the wanted.
However I recently purchased a USB drive that comes with U3 capability
To me this is just plain evil. By default when you plug it in it runs code on the drive from a separate partition.
When I first read the headline, it reminded me of a story that I saw on the RISKS list (and if anyone can find the exact link please do so) In summary (and from memory only) it was:
1/ A security company was contracted to do a pentration test of a bank.
2/ The employees found out, so were being aware of typical social engineering type situations
3/ The security company loaded up some special USB keys that had had key logger and other software on them
4/ 15 to 20 of said keys were scattered around the door of the bank prior to opening hours
5/ With 3 days something like 75% of the keys had phoned home and were reporting that they were connected to computers inside the bank.
After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees
Another scenario I heard of (also on RISKS I think) was to go to the front desk of a company, ask to use the bathroom (or toilet for the rest of us), and leave a CD in a prominant location that was clearly labelled with something like "Staff reductions". It wouldn't take very long before that CD was inserted into someones computer at that company.
This was part of the Future Car series last month on discovery. It looked like a neat car that would be good for running around the inner city.
.. "Hey there is an generator connected to the compressed air engine .. so we can use that to power an air compressor .. and then we will never run out of compressed air to power the car."
Unfortunately the Future Car people managed to screw up the presentation by saying something along the lines of
There was some interesting stuff on that series, but in general each episode was 30 minutes of wank for 15 minutes of information.
I talked to a sound engineer friend of mine once about this type of technique. He pointed out that it falls down by totally ignoring the effect of the tone arm geometry and movement dynamics in extracting the sounds out of a record groove. The tone arm on a record player tracks in an arc and not a circle, and mass of the tone arm also plays an important part in the sound reproduction. So while an optical technique can extract an almost perfect rendition of the grooves from the record, without considering the tone arm it will only approximate the actual sounds played in a real system.
RMS says boycott buying the books, not reading them. Read your own link.
Barry Trotter is more fun to read, but the really best thing is that the books are about one tenth the size for the same entertainment.
If the landings were faked in the first place with 1960's technology (and the idea of keeping all those involved completely isolated), what do you think could be done with current technology and digital photos?
(and I am sure there are people out there who would take the above seriously)
Obligatory wiki page
.. and the US is 80% of that 7%
And while you seem to be holding out, I did see one website that suggested less thna 7% of the worlds population doesn't use the metric system
NTSFPWTSMAM - Not Safe For People With The Same Morals As Me
... bzzt .. %$#$&%#$%$# .. (head explodes)
While not RTFA this tag seems to be all about setting a level of moral standards in order to protect people from "Objectional" material. And thats my objection. It's such a huge generalisation that anything I would want to be protected from is the same as what other people would want to be protected from. But in using the proposed tag it is the website that is setting what everyone is supposed to think is "bad".
As an extreme, what would the people who produced goatse.cx or tubgirl think if they are at work and saw that their own sites were marked as NTSFW??
Its not safe for work
But *I* made it at work
You shouldn't look at it at work, its not safe to do
But it's *my* work
Its not
This question was fully answered by a comment to the original call for questions.
Thus the slashdot "editors" totally wasted a slot with a stupid question.
Yeah but the problem with electrons is that you aren't buying them. All you are doing is renting them. Once you have finished using them you send them back to the provider. So in that way photons *are* different.
I'm not sure of the Indian taxation system, but I would guess that a consumer is already paying the government for the privelage of getting electrons in the first place, which will then be used to turn the photons into useful information. This would smack of double taxation. But hey, the Australian government is happy doing this as we can pay government mandated GST on top of government mandated stamp duty.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. It tries to show how the US (and others) reign in sovereign countries via economic power rather than brute force through use of things like the world bank. Chilling subject, but I think that Overthrow is better written and makes for a better read.
I think that the monroe doctrine is tied in, as it basically says .. "Europe. Stay away from what belongs to us", even though the things involved were other soverign nations.
As for the countries the book lists (in no order):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Phillipines
Nicaragua
Honduras
South Vietnam
Guatemala
Chile
Iran
Grenada
Panama
Afghanistan
The book is Overthrow - Americas Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer.