"A common mistake that people made when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools" - Mostly Harmless
Real Action Paintball; it's a hybrid of AS and paintball. AS-style realism, but the guns fire.43 caliber paintballs. Played a bit this summer with a borrowed gun, it was all sorts of fun. Only downside is the hardware, $500 for the M4 or MP5 clones.
Darwin source is available; I don't know if FV is included there or in the proprietary higher levels of the OS. I'm inclined to say it isn't though, logging in via >console or ssh doesn't decrypt and mount the drive.
OS X FileVault...AES128 encryption of your home directory with no backdoors! (At least not that I know of). Ain't nobody reading your files without your key.
Here. It's a little out of date (v7.63), but for those of us who don't slum around with MSFS, it's a nifty little toy. And a real pain to fly, I couldn't manage 80 hours no way.
Totally, old lenses are great, a 50-year old Schneider is going to kick ass...but for exacting macro work, modern glass and coatings are arguably superior to older gear. Don't get me wrong, when I go large-format I'm going used, but for superior close-up stuff it's gonna cost you.
Could also do some stunning macro photography as well.
Not really. Large-format macro is insanely difficult and tedious, not to mention pricey. While you probably could get away with not manually calculating your bellows factor (the effective change in f-stop as you focus closely) by taking a shot, checking the exposure, and compensating, there's the small matter of the lens, which is vitally important for good closeup work. View camera lenses are expensive enough already, a macro/process lens is just obscene, upwards of $2000 for a good one. I don't even know if you can rack out a cheap lens far enough to focus that close; ultimately film and processing costs are trivial next to the gear.
I wonder if AAPL should snatch up SUNW for a song. Hell with that. Apple should buy out SGI for a line of a song aqnd roll some of that monstrous multiprocessor goodness into OS X. Screw Big Mac, I want a 512-proc single-system XServe! Seriously though, with what SGI could be had for these days, I don't see why not.
An NEF from my D70s is ~6 megabytes while an LZW-compressed TIFF of the same image s ~38, and there's none of the postprocessing options of RAW available nearly as easily; you can do a lot of adjustment in Photoshop but it tends to be a lot more complicated than just playing with the sliders and buttons you get in the Open RAW dialog, or dedicated RAW software. TIFF is pretty much just a good way to clog up your camera and card...it can be useful if you don't have a RAW option, I've used it on my CoolPix 4300, but if you do have the RAW then go for it (if you want lossless images - most high-end cameras shoot great JPEGs, a lot of pros just do that and use the pics straight...I like to fiddle around with stuff, so I shoot RAW:D).
Lag. DPReview doesn't mention it at all, but I've seen a couple of other sites that claim while it's been greatly reduced from other EVFs, there's still a discernable pause between pressing the button and getting the picture. Couple that with a lack of a decent burst mode and the camera is useless for any sort of fast-action photography.
Anyway, without interchangeable lenses, it's a moot point. An interchangeable-lens remote EVF with a completely lag-free viewer that's as clear and bright as a proper TTL would sell, but we're a LONG way from that. Even if we did have that, it would probably more eat into the viewfinder/twin-lens reflex market more than the SLR market.
The optional ($99, but worth it) Nikon Capture software has a "Dust Off" feature - you take an out-of-focus picture of a featureless white card (instructions in the manual) so the only thing that shows up clearly is sensor contamination; the software uses it as a reference to strip out any visible dust from your photos. I personally don't have a dust problem, but a friend had some horrible dust issues and the software worked rather well until he could get it cleaned. Word to the wise, not a lot of shops will do that - he had to send his back to Nikon. They were cool about it though, charged him like ten bucks and shipping. I've heard you can retract the mirror and jam a Shop-Vac in there, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try that on my expensive-ass camera.
Committing treason is an impeachable offense.Lying to Congress in the hopes they will permit your war action (due to that little document called the Constitution, the president cannot go to war without the formal approval of Congress) is treason. George Bush is a traitor.
I am NOT a fan of Bush, I did NOT vote for him, we'd be in a hell of a lot better a situation if he were never in the White House...but he has never committed treason. Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Again, BushCo has done some very very nasty things, and is no doubt one of the worst administrations in the history of the country, and again, it would make me very happy to see them gone, but you can't nail them on treason. Morally...yeah, it is treason, "a betrayal of trust or confidence." Legally...no. I have no doubt there's an impeachable offense, at least in this case (I may hate Bush but I'm not naive, he's not the first president to lie to Congress), but there's nothing been done that's treasonous by the extremely narrow definition under US law.
(Yes, I realize somebody will say the necons are the true enemies of America and therefore BushCo is aiding and comforting them, but that ain't gonna fly legally. Shady, very bad for the country, but not enemies.)
((As usual, IANAL, if anybody who is would like to correct me, much appreciated))
This revolutionary new chemical process, in addition to providing much higher resolution, also allows for a much greater exposure latitude than current state-of-the-art digital sensors, allowing for much greater levels of both highlight ans shadow details in high-contrast images. And this color process of which you speak should record much more accurately and vividly. All in all, I agree this breakthrough technology looks to be far superior to the current pitiful CCDs we are all used to. Perhaps a bit more inconvenient, but the results will far outweigh the drawbacks.
(disclaimer: I have both a state-of-the-digital art Nikon D70, and a 30+-year old Nikkormat EL. I use them both a lot. Oh, but the older lenses put anything Nikon makes nowadays to shame...300mm Nikkor-H telephoto is a work of art. Anyway, I'm babbling.)
300lpm. Not official from Kodak, they don't have the specs up in the info. Shame they discontinued it, I shot a few rolls in B&W class...it's absolutely ridiculous stuff, slow as all getout (ISO25) and tricky to develop properly, but 11x14 prints from a 35mm negative have _less_ grain than a contact sheet of Delta 100 negatives when you compare them under a loupe. B&H still carries 8x10 sheets of the stuff, I'd love to see a landscape shot on that. If you're into film and you know what you're doing, I strongly suggest getting what you can find while it's still available.
Aeros aren't neccessary to exceed 1G, the Corvette Z06 pushes about 1.05G and the M-B F400 concept car uses active camber adjustment to "carve" corners up to 1.2G or so. You're right though, you can't pull 3.6Gs of lateral acceleration on your tires alone, that takes tremendous downforce as well; IIRC an F1 car set for maximum downforce weighs something like two and a third times more at speed. (Yes, that does work out to theretically driving upside down. Maybe put some ramps in the Mont Blanc tunnel and try it out?) It's interesting, F1 cars handle better at higher speeds - a corner that can'tbe negotiated at say 75 mph might be perfect at 120.
I've noticed you guys have a regard for the scientific method, and make quite an effort to try and keep things controlled with regards to how you run your experiments and derive your conclusions. Have you ever considered bringing a formally trained scientist onto the crew to make sure you're going "by the book", so to speak?
Re:What about "The Adolescence of P-1"
on
Top 20 Geek Novels
·
· Score: 1
My sophomore Algerbra II teacher gave me a copy of that book - it's surprisngly good. I do think the writing could be a bit better - while not bad at all, it's definitely not the work of a consummate author - the plot was really qute interesting. I wouldn't put it on the top 20, but it's definitely worth a read if you can scrounge up a copy.
Not that it's a bad geek movie, us chem majors (all 6 of us) used to have weekly watchings of it in college...but Pi is definitely the greatest geek movie I've ever seen. Period.
Just for the record, a lab print isn't ink-based, at least at the shop I go to - they use one of these suckers (maybe not that exact brand/model, but you get the point) to "paint" the image onto genuine light-sensitive color photo paper that's processed the old-fashioned way with chemicals. $1.99 for an 8x10, $2.99 for an 11x14. They look a hell of a lot better than any photo print I've ever seen, including dyesubs, and they last and last. When I do a print for my small photography side business, I do it this way...the client is almost always amazed with the result, and asks me what kind of printer I use, they just have to get one for themselves. I tell them "trade secret":)
If you just have to use your printer, I'd suggest Ilford GALERIE Classic paper; it has an encapsulation system that soaks up the ink and mostly protects it from fading, It's pricey (enough so that there's NO economic advantage over a lab print) and takes a full day to dry out, but it is as close to perfect as you're gonna get from an inkjet. When I do prints for my own consumption, I ususally go this route for the convenience.
While AMD and IBM make technically superior chips, they simply don't have the mass manufacturing capability to compete with Chipzilla; a side effect of the huge capacity is the ability hae the quantity of procs available to offer deep discounts to high-volume customers (e.g. Dell and Apple) and still make money.
On a side note, the stuff due to be out of Intel by the time Apple switches the PowerMacs doesn't look too shabby at all - of course, we'll have to see what IBM/AMD are offering to compete.
Nestlé may own all European crap chocolatiers, but not the good stuff. Stop by Chocosphere and browse the selections. [snobby chef]Amedi and Valrhona are widely considered the world's finest brands and most certainly are _not_ owned by Nestlé; Callebaut isn't anything to sniffle at, either. I can't comment on anything else, those are the only three brands I've tried[/snobby chef]
Seriously though, if you're a chocolate fan, you need to try this stuff. I myself prefer the Valrhona Jivara milk chocolate, or the Amedi Porcelana if I'm in the mood for darck chocolate. Expensive, yes, but some things are worth paying for.
Yeah, I can see wanting both - that's why I'm going for the 55-200, I already have an amazing, very old, Nikkor-H 300mm tele. I love the thing, it's solid metal and you could probably beat somebody to death with it. I don't know how I feel about Microdrives though, I've heard mixed things about them; I know I can't knock it 'till I've tried it, but I'm opting for 2x4GB CF cards. Moot point anyway, B&H shipped already, should be here Monday.
Actually, the $900 is just for the camera body. $1200 with a lens, but in all fairness it's an excellent Nikkor. Personally, I'm going for the $1400 two-lens package, you can't beat the price for the glass you're getting.
Canon might make an arguably better body in the Digital Rebel XT, but by all accounts the kit lens pales next to the Nikon. And yes, I am a Nikon fanboy, or at least I already have several F-mount lenses that more than justify buying a new Nikon body.
Slashdot Mirror
"A common mistake that people made when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools" - Mostly Harmless
"The Iris hypothesis was published by Richard Lindzen and co-authors in the March 2001 issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society."
Of course...it's from a NASA news release about some observations that counter the Iris effect.
Real Action Paintball; it's a hybrid of AS and paintball. AS-style realism, but the guns fire .43 caliber paintballs. Played a bit this summer with a borrowed gun, it was all sorts of fun. Only downside is the hardware, $500 for the M4 or MP5 clones.
Darwin source is available; I don't know if FV is included there or in the proprietary higher levels of the OS. I'm inclined to say it isn't though, logging in via >console or ssh doesn't decrypt and mount the drive.
OS X FileVault...AES128 encryption of your home directory with no backdoors! (At least not that I know of). Ain't nobody reading your files without your key.
Here. It's a little out of date (v7.63), but for those of us who don't slum around with MSFS, it's a nifty little toy. And a real pain to fly, I couldn't manage 80 hours no way.
Woody Allen voiced Z (not to mention the rest of the cast), yeah, Antz wasn't really a kid's film. I like 'em both myself.
Totally, old lenses are great, a 50-year old Schneider is going to kick ass...but for exacting macro work, modern glass and coatings are arguably superior to older gear. Don't get me wrong, when I go large-format I'm going used, but for superior close-up stuff it's gonna cost you.
Could also do some stunning macro photography as well.
Not really. Large-format macro is insanely difficult and tedious, not to mention pricey. While you probably could get away with not manually calculating your bellows factor (the effective change in f-stop as you focus closely) by taking a shot, checking the exposure, and compensating, there's the small matter of the lens, which is vitally important for good closeup work. View camera lenses are expensive enough already, a macro/process lens is just obscene, upwards of $2000 for a good one. I don't even know if you can rack out a cheap lens far enough to focus that close; ultimately film and processing costs are trivial next to the gear.
I wonder if AAPL should snatch up SUNW for a song.
Hell with that. Apple should buy out SGI for a line of a song aqnd roll some of that monstrous multiprocessor goodness into OS X. Screw Big Mac, I want a 512-proc single-system XServe! Seriously though, with what SGI could be had for these days, I don't see why not.
An NEF from my D70s is ~6 megabytes while an LZW-compressed TIFF of the same image s ~38, and there's none of the postprocessing options of RAW available nearly as easily; you can do a lot of adjustment in Photoshop but it tends to be a lot more complicated than just playing with the sliders and buttons you get in the Open RAW dialog, or dedicated RAW software. :D).
TIFF is pretty much just a good way to clog up your camera and card...it can be useful if you don't have a RAW option, I've used it on my CoolPix 4300, but if you do have the RAW then go for it (if you want lossless images - most high-end cameras shoot great JPEGs, a lot of pros just do that and use the pics straight...I like to fiddle around with stuff, so I shoot RAW
Lag. DPReview doesn't mention it at all, but I've seen a couple of other sites that claim while it's been greatly reduced from other EVFs, there's still a discernable pause between pressing the button and getting the picture. Couple that with a lack of a decent burst mode and the camera is useless for any sort of fast-action photography.
Anyway, without interchangeable lenses, it's a moot point. An interchangeable-lens remote EVF with a completely lag-free viewer that's as clear and bright as a proper TTL would sell, but we're a LONG way from that. Even if we did have that, it would probably more eat into the viewfinder/twin-lens reflex market more than the SLR market.
The optional ($99, but worth it) Nikon Capture software has a "Dust Off" feature - you take an out-of-focus picture of a featureless white card (instructions in the manual) so the only thing that shows up clearly is sensor contamination; the software uses it as a reference to strip out any visible dust from your photos. I personally don't have a dust problem, but a friend had some horrible dust issues and the software worked rather well until he could get it cleaned. Word to the wise, not a lot of shops will do that - he had to send his back to Nikon. They were cool about it though, charged him like ten bucks and shipping. I've heard you can retract the mirror and jam a Shop-Vac in there, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try that on my expensive-ass camera.
Committing treason is an impeachable offense.Lying to Congress in the hopes they will permit your war action (due to that little document called the Constitution, the president cannot go to war without the formal approval of Congress) is treason. George Bush is a traitor.
I am NOT a fan of Bush, I did NOT vote for him, we'd be in a hell of a lot better a situation if he were never in the White House...but he has never committed treason. Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Again, BushCo has done some very very nasty things, and is no doubt one of the worst administrations in the history of the country, and again, it would make me very happy to see them gone, but you can't nail them on treason. Morally...yeah, it is treason, "a betrayal of trust or confidence." Legally...no. I have no doubt there's an impeachable offense, at least in this case (I may hate Bush but I'm not naive, he's not the first president to lie to Congress), but there's nothing been done that's treasonous by the extremely narrow definition under US law.
(Yes, I realize somebody will say the necons are the true enemies of America and therefore BushCo is aiding and comforting them, but that ain't gonna fly legally. Shady, very bad for the country, but not enemies.)
((As usual, IANAL, if anybody who is would like to correct me, much appreciated))
This revolutionary new chemical process, in addition to providing much higher resolution, also allows for a much greater exposure latitude than current state-of-the-art digital sensors, allowing for much greater levels of both highlight ans shadow details in high-contrast images. And this color process of which you speak should record much more accurately and vividly. All in all, I agree this breakthrough technology looks to be far superior to the current pitiful CCDs we are all used to. Perhaps a bit more inconvenient, but the results will far outweigh the drawbacks.
(disclaimer: I have both a state-of-the-digital art Nikon D70, and a 30+-year old Nikkormat EL. I use them both a lot. Oh, but the older lenses put anything Nikon makes nowadays to shame...300mm Nikkor-H telephoto is a work of art. Anyway, I'm babbling.)
300lpm. Not official from Kodak, they don't have the specs up in the info. Shame they discontinued it, I shot a few rolls in B&W class...it's absolutely ridiculous stuff, slow as all getout (ISO25) and tricky to develop properly, but 11x14 prints from a 35mm negative have _less_ grain than a contact sheet of Delta 100 negatives when you compare them under a loupe. B&H still carries 8x10 sheets of the stuff, I'd love to see a landscape shot on that. If you're into film and you know what you're doing, I strongly suggest getting what you can find while it's still available.
Aeros aren't neccessary to exceed 1G, the Corvette Z06 pushes about 1.05G and the M-B F400 concept car uses active camber adjustment to "carve" corners up to 1.2G or so. You're right though, you can't pull 3.6Gs of lateral acceleration on your tires alone, that takes tremendous downforce as well; IIRC an F1 car set for maximum downforce weighs something like two and a third times more at speed. (Yes, that does work out to theretically driving upside down. Maybe put some ramps in the Mont Blanc tunnel and try it out?) It's interesting, F1 cars handle better at higher speeds - a corner that can'tbe negotiated at say 75 mph might be perfect at 120.
I've noticed you guys have a regard for the scientific method, and make quite an effort to try and keep things controlled with regards to how you run your experiments and derive your conclusions. Have you ever considered bringing a formally trained scientist onto the crew to make sure you're going "by the book", so to speak?
My sophomore Algerbra II teacher gave me a copy of that book - it's surprisngly good. I do think the writing could be a bit better - while not bad at all, it's definitely not the work of a consummate author - the plot was really qute interesting. I wouldn't put it on the top 20, but it's definitely worth a read if you can scrounge up a copy.
Not that it's a bad geek movie, us chem majors (all 6 of us) used to have weekly watchings of it in college...but Pi is definitely the greatest geek movie I've ever seen. Period.
Just for the record, a lab print isn't ink-based, at least at the shop I go to - they use one of these suckers (maybe not that exact brand/model, but you get the point) to "paint" the image onto genuine light-sensitive color photo paper that's processed the old-fashioned way with chemicals. $1.99 for an 8x10, $2.99 for an 11x14. They look a hell of a lot better than any photo print I've ever seen, including dyesubs, and they last and last. When I do a print for my small photography side business, I do it this way...the client is almost always amazed with the result, and asks me what kind of printer I use, they just have to get one for themselves. I tell them "trade secret" :)
If you just have to use your printer, I'd suggest Ilford GALERIE Classic paper; it has an encapsulation system that soaks up the ink and mostly protects it from fading, It's pricey (enough so that there's NO economic advantage over a lab print) and takes a full day to dry out, but it is as close to perfect as you're gonna get from an inkjet. When I do prints for my own consumption, I ususally go this route for the convenience.
While AMD and IBM make technically superior chips, they simply don't have the mass manufacturing capability to compete with Chipzilla; a side effect of the huge capacity is the ability hae the quantity of procs available to offer deep discounts to high-volume customers (e.g. Dell and Apple) and still make money.
On a side note, the stuff due to be out of Intel by the time Apple switches the PowerMacs doesn't look too shabby at all - of course, we'll have to see what IBM/AMD are offering to compete.
Nestlé may own all European crap chocolatiers, but not the good stuff. Stop by Chocosphere and browse the selections. [snobby chef]Amedi and Valrhona are widely considered the world's finest brands and most certainly are _not_ owned by Nestlé; Callebaut isn't anything to sniffle at, either. I can't comment on anything else, those are the only three brands I've tried[/snobby chef]
Seriously though, if you're a chocolate fan, you need to try this stuff. I myself prefer the Valrhona Jivara milk chocolate, or the Amedi Porcelana if I'm in the mood for darck chocolate. Expensive, yes, but some things are worth paying for.
Yeah, I can see wanting both - that's why I'm going for the 55-200, I already have an amazing, very old, Nikkor-H 300mm tele. I love the thing, it's solid metal and you could probably beat somebody to death with it. I don't know how I feel about Microdrives though, I've heard mixed things about them; I know I can't knock it 'till I've tried it, but I'm opting for 2x4GB CF cards. Moot point anyway, B&H shipped already, should be here Monday.
Actually, the $900 is just for the camera body. $1200 with a lens, but in all fairness it's an excellent Nikkor. Personally, I'm going for the $1400 two-lens package, you can't beat the price for the glass you're getting.
Canon might make an arguably better body in the Digital Rebel XT, but by all accounts the kit lens pales next to the Nikon. And yes, I am a Nikon fanboy, or at least I already have several F-mount lenses that more than justify buying a new Nikon body.