Hitler was born and raised a Catholic. In Mein Kampf he says ""... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong were, admittedly, but Mussolini was raised Catholic and gave up his beliefs for Fascism. Franco definitely was not.
There are lots of great medium format cameras you can take out in the field. Mamiya's 645E is a really good buy - fully manual student camera for a great price - you can pick up used ones for $300-400. Only problem with those is they do not support interchangable backs (no digital back).
The reason i don't like the AFD for the field is all of its auto features are basically the worst I've used - my old Nikon N4004s had better autofocus than this camera, and it's supposed to be a top of the line MF SLR. You'll basically end up using the camera on manual anyway, so you might as well not pay for the auto features and get a MF with an autowinder.
Also, like I said, a used Hasselblad can be picked up for a song (I saw one for $150 CDN in a camera store recently!). Only problem is that the lenses are so expensive - but they're also the best lenses you can buy, pretty much.
Basically what I'm saying is if you don't really need the auto features, don't bother paying for them - pick up a decent manual camera with some nice lenses that can be expanded in the future to use a digital back - at that point you'll be set.
I have quite a bit of experience with the AFD with a PhaseOne H10 back on it, and I can say quite confidently that the AFD sucks. Don't get me wrong, the images that come out of the outfit are incredible (read: almost too sharp) - but the body itself sucks. The slowest autofocus I've ever used, coupled with an average metering system, and you have a terrible automatic camera. Sure, for studio work, that doesn't matter, but if you plan on taking that puppy out in the field, you'll regret it.
Better to pick up a Hasselblad H1 (if you want the auto features) or just about any old used Hassy body and put the back on that (Phase backs will work on most of the old MF bodies!)
That's the great thing about Physics though - it's not only cosmology - it's also quantum physics and the others. And we were nowhere near our present understanding of physics at the turn of the last century.
Because the Earth is a LOT brighter than the stars (because the stars are far away), and to properly expose the Earth onto whatever media is being used(film, CCD, whatever), less exposure is needed than would be necissary to pick up any stars (save the sun).
Just like pictures from the moon - you'll not see any stars in pictures taken of the moon on the moon (by Neil Armstron et al).
That's true. But those photographers have explicitly given up their copyright.
If I'm a wedding or portrait photographer, my business comes from the prints I sell to my customer. And I want to retain that copyright, because in 20 years, they might come back to me for reprints.
Or a guy like Art Wolfe (while I hate most if his stuff) makes all of his money making reprints for mass distribution. Copyrights are what make him successful.
Mostly, photographers are so concerned with copyright because they like to eat.
Their work is their sole source of income, and reprints tend to be a significant part of their income. The law has provided them with a mechanism to protect their rights, and they use it so they can provide for themselves and their families.
They all appreciate that their work can mean a great deal to their customers, but in the end they have to look out for themselves - if they were too nice with their copyrights, they'd end up giving away their livelihood.
I'm in the military, so perhaps I can provide some insight here.
Though I wasn't there, I would say that the soldiers were carrying real weapons, though I can pretty much assure you that they were not loaded with any kind of ammunition.
Those 'training rifles' you speak of? They're the soldier's personal weapon with what is called a Blank Firing Attatchment (BFA) fitted to the end.
That is a real weapon, and all the BFA does is provide a seal for the gases to recock and reload the weapon (so that the semiautomatic and automatic fire functions of the weapon will work).
Basically, the barrel of a gas-operated weapon (like an M-16 or just about any machine gun) has a little hole near the end of it that allows the gases that are propelling the bullet to travel down a gas tube and force the bolt of the weapon backwards to extract the casing in the chamber and put another round in.
When you fire blanks, there's no bullet to provide a seal and force the gas back down the tube. That's what the 'tiny orange thingy' (BFA) is for.
That said, replicas do exist for training purposes. They're made of solid rubber, and they're actually heavier than the service rifles!
Had they tried, the crew would at least have had a fighting chance - some pretty amazing things happen in an emergency - creative solutions start popping into smart people's heads. But in this case, the brilliant people at NASA weren't even given that chance. And that's the problem.
Fine. Have a little blade at the entrance into the locked box that cuts the paper like a standard reciept printer. There's plenty of industrial-strength machinery out there that can do this. (Think newspaper presses)
Or, do it like we do here in Canada.
Use a pen to mark your ballot, and deposit into the ballot box. Then, later, someone opens the box and counts the ballots. No hanging chads, no questionable code, just a ballot with a mark on it.
Takes longer to count, but sometimes important things actually DO take some time.
What issues can be explored? How about exploring these issues within the constructs of the legal system? Or the lawyers themselves finding examples in real life case law to support their arguments? It is cliched in some circles, yes, but obviously, for whatever reason, these lawyers wanted to explore the subject.
I remember when I was talking to a friend of mine about watching 'The Ususal Suspects', and he was going on about how it was a pretty good movie (I hadn't seen it yet). He says: "by the way, Kaiser Sose is the man with the limp". Ruined the entire movie for me.
. . . it was probably built between 5 000 BCE and 7 000 BCE. That date is before archeologists admit that homosapiens was running around on the planet.
I don't know what archaeologists you talk to, but I'm pretty sure that we'e been on the planet longer than 9000 years.
It says right at the bottom of the article that the pland can climb to high altitudes to leave rough seas. Ground effect simply increases efficiency and range.
Its about the more cutting edge theories like Superstring and M-Theory. A little technical at times, but the author explains the mathematical concepts in fairly easy to understand terms - and you realize how conceptually simple and... elegant the universe really is. We might not understand the math required to fully describe this elegance, but wow, is it ever pretty.
Quantum Theory describes phenomina on very small distance scales. And does it very well - in fact, it's often heralded as the most successful theory of all science.
General Relativity describes interactions between very heavy objects over very large distances.
Where these two break down is when very heavy objects interact over very small distances - such as inside a black hole, and this is where new theories like superstring theory or M-Theory are attempting to fill the gap. Problem is, we don't understand enough mathematics to even write the complete equations down!
Its not the University's responsibility to teach languages. That's what community colleges are for. Universities teach computer science, and the concepts behind it - the language used is a trivial matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Hitler was born and raised a Catholic. In Mein Kampf he says ""... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong were, admittedly, but Mussolini was raised Catholic and gave up his beliefs for Fascism. Franco definitely was not.
Make sure you get it right.
There are lots of great medium format cameras you can take out in the field. Mamiya's 645E is a really good buy - fully manual student camera for a great price - you can pick up used ones for $300-400. Only problem with those is they do not support interchangable backs (no digital back).
The reason i don't like the AFD for the field is all of its auto features are basically the worst I've used - my old Nikon N4004s had better autofocus than this camera, and it's supposed to be a top of the line MF SLR. You'll basically end up using the camera on manual anyway, so you might as well not pay for the auto features and get a MF with an autowinder.
Also, like I said, a used Hasselblad can be picked up for a song (I saw one for $150 CDN in a camera store recently!). Only problem is that the lenses are so expensive - but they're also the best lenses you can buy, pretty much.
Basically what I'm saying is if you don't really need the auto features, don't bother paying for them - pick up a decent manual camera with some nice lenses that can be expanded in the future to use a digital back - at that point you'll be set.
Better to pick up a Hasselblad H1 (if you want the auto features) or just about any old used Hassy body and put the back on that (Phase backs will work on most of the old MF bodies!)
That's the great thing about Physics though - it's not only cosmology - it's also quantum physics and the others. And we were nowhere near our present understanding of physics at the turn of the last century.
Because the Earth is a LOT brighter than the stars (because the stars are far away), and to properly expose the Earth onto whatever media is being used(film, CCD, whatever), less exposure is needed than would be necissary to pick up any stars (save the sun).
Just like pictures from the moon - you'll not see any stars in pictures taken of the moon on the moon (by Neil Armstron et al).
Hope that helps
Whoa. You mean that a television show isn't real? But, but .... my mother always told me to belive everything I see on the teevee.
Thanks for pointing that out, I mean, what would have happened had I gone on believing that Star Trek is real?
That's true. But those photographers have explicitly given up their copyright.
If I'm a wedding or portrait photographer, my business comes from the prints I sell to my customer. And I want to retain that copyright, because in 20 years, they might come back to me for reprints.
Or a guy like Art Wolfe (while I hate most if his stuff) makes all of his money making reprints for mass distribution. Copyrights are what make him successful.
Mostly, photographers are so concerned with copyright because they like to eat.
Their work is their sole source of income, and reprints tend to be a significant part of their income. The law has provided them with a mechanism to protect their rights, and they use it so they can provide for themselves and their families.
They all appreciate that their work can mean a great deal to their customers, but in the end they have to look out for themselves - if they were too nice with their copyrights, they'd end up giving away their livelihood.
More like a multi year experiment, with one control. And that control would be the day without the powerplant emissions spewing into the atmosphere.
I'm in the military, so perhaps I can provide some insight here.
Though I wasn't there, I would say that the soldiers were carrying real weapons, though I can pretty much assure you that they were not loaded with any kind of ammunition.
Those 'training rifles' you speak of? They're the soldier's personal weapon with what is called a Blank Firing Attatchment (BFA) fitted to the end.
That is a real weapon, and all the BFA does is provide a seal for the gases to recock and reload the weapon (so that the semiautomatic and automatic fire functions of the weapon will work).
Basically, the barrel of a gas-operated weapon (like an M-16 or just about any machine gun) has a little hole near the end of it that allows the gases that are propelling the bullet to travel down a gas tube and force the bolt of the weapon backwards to extract the casing in the chamber and put another round in.
When you fire blanks, there's no bullet to provide a seal and force the gas back down the tube. That's what the 'tiny orange thingy' (BFA) is for.
That said, replicas do exist for training purposes. They're made of solid rubber, and they're actually heavier than the service rifles!
Yes he did.
That was my good friend humour. I'd like you to meet him.
Unless the hero is driving the car.
Then a LAW could make a direct hit on the gas tank an he'll walk a way with a scratch on his forehead.
The point is, they didn't even bother to try.
Had they tried, the crew would at least have had a fighting chance - some pretty amazing things happen in an emergency - creative solutions start popping into smart people's heads. But in this case, the brilliant people at NASA weren't even given that chance. And that's the problem.
My girlfriend gave me some homemade chocolates, a bottle of cologne and a Seamonkeys starter kit.
Wierd collection of gifts - but pretty much perfect for me.
Fine. Have a little blade at the entrance into the locked box that cuts the paper like a standard reciept printer. There's plenty of industrial-strength machinery out there that can do this. (Think newspaper presses)
Or, do it like we do here in Canada.
Use a pen to mark your ballot, and deposit into the ballot box. Then, later, someone opens the box and counts the ballots. No hanging chads, no questionable code, just a ballot with a mark on it.
Takes longer to count, but sometimes important things actually DO take some time.
What issues can be explored? How about exploring these issues within the constructs of the legal system? Or the lawyers themselves finding examples in real life case law to support their arguments? It is cliched in some circles, yes, but obviously, for whatever reason, these lawyers wanted to explore the subject.
How come that's not working for me? I copy/pasted, and Google brings up an actual search with the first listing being the following, called CHAPTER 2
What gives?
I remember when I was talking to a friend of mine about watching 'The Ususal Suspects', and he was going on about how it was a pretty good movie (I hadn't seen it yet). He says: "by the way, Kaiser Sose is the man with the limp". Ruined the entire movie for me.
Unless you're in DST, because GMT doesn't move.
. . . it was probably built between 5 000 BCE and 7 000 BCE. That date is before archeologists admit that homosapiens was running around on the planet.
I don't know what archaeologists you talk to, but I'm pretty sure that we'e been on the planet longer than 9000 years.
It says right at the bottom of the article that the pland can climb to high altitudes to leave rough seas. Ground effect simply increases efficiency and range.
I like The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
Its about the more cutting edge theories like Superstring and M-Theory. A little technical at times, but the author explains the mathematical concepts in fairly easy to understand terms - and you realize how conceptually simple and ... elegant the universe really is. We might not understand the math required to fully describe this elegance, but wow, is it ever pretty.
Clarification:
Quantum Theory describes phenomina on very small distance scales. And does it very well - in fact, it's often heralded as the most successful theory of all science.
General Relativity describes interactions between very heavy objects over very large distances.
Where these two break down is when very heavy objects interact over very small distances - such as inside a black hole, and this is where new theories like superstring theory or M-Theory are attempting to fill the gap. Problem is, we don't understand enough mathematics to even write the complete equations down!
No actually, he's spot on.
.. well, I won't be
>And if I want to communicate with a spacecraft
>that's 12 light hours out
>getting my response back until this time >tomorrow.
That means if he sends out a message to the probe, he won't recieve a response to his message until this time tomorrow (barring any processing time).
Its not the University's responsibility to teach languages. That's what community colleges are for. Universities teach computer science, and the concepts behind it - the language used is a trivial matter.