Only jihadist culture is so demented that they think these videos help their cause. To everyone else in the world, they detract from it. And if it's intimidation they're after, that doesn't work against societies that have advanced weapons. Post away!
Look for people who strenuously oppose posting such videos, in places where strong language and visuals commonly appear, and you know who ISIS' domestic friends are.
Same reason that you can get a lot of TV episode streams the next day on the network website, but their tablet app makes you wait a week: "Because we're Hollywood, and we can force Congress to let us do that."
That first stage camera is primarily to inform SpaceX, not us. Because a first-stage soft landing attempt os being made, they have a strong interest in knowing what happens.
There have been plenty of technical attacks on the hockey-stick curve because it shows a long period of slowly declining temperature, with just small up-and-down fluctuations, until the start of the industrial revolution, when it immediately jackrabbits upward. This ignores that well-documented warm period around CE 1000 snd the notably chilly period that bottomed around 1600. Now an error is not fraud; scientists make oopsies like anyone else, and the peer review process is designed to shake errors out. It turns into fraud when, after a problem like this has been pointed out, a researcher fudges the math to suit his preconceptions and disseminates fishy emails to 'hide a decline' in more recent times.
And yes, Mann could use the slacker libel law in other countries to win a suit. If he can show that somebody in England read Steyn's column on the subject at some point, Steyn could probably be extradited and beheaded. This still does not establish scientific proof of the hockey stick.
None of this invalidates the Arrhenius carbon warming hypothesis. It just does not support it. Let's all agree to allow science, not politics, to determine the truth on climate change.
You cite the words of a judge, not a scientist, a person more used to evaluating arguments among celebrities than deciding the value of opposing scientific hypotheses. Scientists accuse each other of manipulating data all the time, as do political columnists. This is traditionally handled by applying the scientific method to marshal facts and test contending hypotheses. If Mann is confident of having science on his side, why should he be afraid of a lowly editorialist?
And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area. You people have chosen to contaminate climate research with your political bullying. Now that this no longer seems to be working, you're rollling in the lawyers. Good luck with that.
I said fly, not drop. Passing the amendment I had in mind would allow porcine self-delivery to markets, taking a significant amount of truck congestion off the roads
Introduction of the lawsuit as an element of the scientific method is underway in the Land of the Formerly Free also. Michael Mann has sued columnist Mark Steyn for mocking the hockey-stick curve. I'm looking forward to passage of an amendment to the square-cube law that will allow a concrete block to fly.
For the record, I'm neutral on climate. I trust the scientific method to come up with the truth. Greens, go ahead and force us to "believe" (another newly introduced element of the scientific method) in apocalyptic warming. Just don't get in our way when we build the new reactor fleet it will take to replace fossil fuels.
Definitely let's not get suckered into using ground troops other than for special-forces ops. Our most effective weapons are the drones. which is precisely why jihadists hate them so much. We need to use lots, lots more of them. Oderint, dum metuant.
It graphically illustrates the falsity of the lefty narrative that carnage in the Middle East is all America's fault somehow. Britain and France had actual colonies there for years, yet the US is the country that gets blamed for starting jihadism. Two reasons are advanced for this:
1. After WW II, the US supported the creation of Israel, a place where Arabs and Jews have uneasily coexisted since ancient times. The first generation of jihadists saw this as an opportunity to exterminate the Jews and take all the land for themselves. They lost, and since then have kept on losing, which is America's fault because bagels and Hollywood.
2. The US, as the world's largest importer of petroleum, has forced Arab countries to accept trillions of dollars in exchange for its oil. This has resulted in women driving in some countries in the region, thereby corrupting the purity of Islamic traditions. Secret clauses in the oil company agreements require that the oil money be spent on desert ski runs and mile-tall skyscrapers built with slave labor. This is also America's fault.
The problem isn't the tech, but the DRM. Today's sensors could make life a lot easier for the DIY repairman, by providing early warning of impending failures and detailed information about what has gone wrong. But no - once again, it serves the need of the corporation to make everything proprietary.
I'm an E-M5 fan also. I do a lot of hiking, and needed a camera that didn't get gruesomely heavy after a long day of hiking (recently completed a 13-day hike across the UK, sea to sea). I do need the versatility, resolution and zoom capability that a phonecam can't provide, so I found micro 4/3 an ideal format.
Phonecams will get a lot better when some manufacturer gets that making a phone slightly wider would allow the camera to be built into one of the long sides of the device, shooting out the top end instead of the back. This would permit better lenses and real optical zoom, operated with a little thumbwheel, probably at the sacrifice of some wide-angle capability. This would also improve versatility in choice of shooting angles, such as being able to hold it over your head shooting over a crowd while still having a clear view of the monitor.
Actually the tiny lenses of phonecams offer greater depth of field than dedicated cameras. What DSLRs give you is control over DOF, such as being able to choose to shoot macro on a tripod to make a slow, deep-field shot of a whole insect, as opposed to a fast wide-open shot of the same subject that blurs a distracting background into 'bokeh'.
The lowly phonecam is great for street and 'social' shooting because people have learned to ignore smartphones that are out in public. This cultural shift allows us all to be apprentice Cartier-Bressons, shooting street scenes in situations where a DSLR, even one of the small formats, is seen to stand between the photographer and the subject.
Its best claim was that since smartphone cameras are better than ever, that "camera you always have with you" has replaced most sales of small point-and-shoots. But the claim that mirrorless cameras are unpopular - why? What technical reason would cause photographes to prefer mirror slap over the near-silent operation of a mirrorless? Or did the article confuse mirrorless with small format? If so, then this was a comparison of apple.jpg shot with a micro four thirds with orange.jpg shot with a full-frame Canon.
Then keep in mind that the legal profession is to the Democratic Party what oil and pharma are to the Republicans. Antivax activism is their latest gold strike.
Slashdot Mirror
Only jihadist culture is so demented that they think these videos help their cause. To everyone else in the world, they detract from it. And if it's intimidation they're after, that doesn't work against societies that have advanced weapons. Post away!
Look for people who strenuously oppose posting such videos, in places where strong language and visuals commonly appear, and you know who ISIS' domestic friends are.
Same reason that you can get a lot of TV episode streams the next day on the network website, but their tablet app makes you wait a week: "Because we're Hollywood, and we can force Congress to let us do that."
Post generator failure! I wonder who this is...
That first stage camera is primarily to inform SpaceX, not us. Because a first-stage soft landing attempt os being made, they have a strong interest in knowing what happens.
"Look! If I hold his head at just the right angle and look way in the back - a chipped molar!"
High-priced products are a corporatist conspiracy.
Free products are a corporatist conspiracy.
This is starting to sound like when the Church of Warminetics predicts that carbon warming will cause flooding and droughts.
And when they shoot his dog based on a false report, that's animal abuse.
There have been plenty of technical attacks on the hockey-stick curve because it shows a long period of slowly declining temperature, with just small up-and-down fluctuations, until the start of the industrial revolution, when it immediately jackrabbits upward. This ignores that well-documented warm period around CE 1000 snd the notably chilly period that bottomed around 1600. Now an error is not fraud; scientists make oopsies like anyone else, and the peer review process is designed to shake errors out. It turns into fraud when, after a problem like this has been pointed out, a researcher fudges the math to suit his preconceptions and disseminates fishy emails to 'hide a decline' in more recent times.
And yes, Mann could use the slacker libel law in other countries to win a suit. If he can show that somebody in England read Steyn's column on the subject at some point, Steyn could probably be extradited and beheaded. This still does not establish scientific proof of the hockey stick.
None of this invalidates the Arrhenius carbon warming hypothesis. It just does not support it. Let's all agree to allow science, not politics, to determine the truth on climate change.
You cite the words of a judge, not a scientist, a person more used to evaluating arguments among celebrities than deciding the value of opposing scientific hypotheses. Scientists accuse each other of manipulating data all the time, as do political columnists. This is traditionally handled by applying the scientific method to marshal facts and test contending hypotheses. If Mann is confident of having science on his side, why should he be afraid of a lowly editorialist?
And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area. You people have chosen to contaminate climate research with your political bullying. Now that this no longer seems to be working, you're rollling in the lawyers. Good luck with that.
I said fly, not drop. Passing the amendment I had in mind would allow porcine self-delivery to markets, taking a significant amount of truck congestion off the roads
Does it have to be branded "FecaMax" at $10,000 per gram, or is there a generic?
So that's the definition of 'humanitarian.' I always wondered about that.
Introduction of the lawsuit as an element of the scientific method is underway in the Land of the Formerly Free also. Michael Mann has sued columnist Mark Steyn for mocking the hockey-stick curve. I'm looking forward to passage of an amendment to the square-cube law that will allow a concrete block to fly.
For the record, I'm neutral on climate. I trust the scientific method to come up with the truth. Greens, go ahead and force us to "believe" (another newly introduced element of the scientific method) in apocalyptic warming. Just don't get in our way when we build the new reactor fleet it will take to replace fossil fuels.
Not very useful to the NSA, certainly, but a gold mine for Europe's approximately eight billion pickpockets.
Definitely let's not get suckered into using ground troops other than for special-forces ops. Our most effective weapons are the drones. which is precisely why jihadists hate them so much. We need to use lots, lots more of them. Oderint, dum metuant.
It graphically illustrates the falsity of the lefty narrative that carnage in the Middle East is all America's fault somehow. Britain and France had actual colonies there for years, yet the US is the country that gets blamed for starting jihadism. Two reasons are advanced for this:
1. After WW II, the US supported the creation of Israel, a place where Arabs and Jews have uneasily coexisted since ancient times. The first generation of jihadists saw this as an opportunity to exterminate the Jews and take all the land for themselves. They lost, and since then have kept on losing, which is America's fault because bagels and Hollywood.
2. The US, as the world's largest importer of petroleum, has forced Arab countries to accept trillions of dollars in exchange for its oil. This has resulted in women driving in some countries in the region, thereby corrupting the purity of Islamic traditions. Secret clauses in the oil company agreements require that the oil money be spent on desert ski runs and mile-tall skyscrapers built with slave labor. This is also America's fault.
The problem isn't the tech, but the DRM. Today's sensors could make life a lot easier for the DIY repairman, by providing early warning of impending failures and detailed information about what has gone wrong. But no - once again, it serves the need of the corporation to make everything proprietary.
Linux for Tractors, anyone?
I'm an E-M5 fan also. I do a lot of hiking, and needed a camera that didn't get gruesomely heavy after a long day of hiking (recently completed a 13-day hike across the UK, sea to sea). I do need the versatility, resolution and zoom capability that a phonecam can't provide, so I found micro 4/3 an ideal format.
Phonecams will get a lot better when some manufacturer gets that making a phone slightly wider would allow the camera to be built into one of the long sides of the device, shooting out the top end instead of the back. This would permit better lenses and real optical zoom, operated with a little thumbwheel, probably at the sacrifice of some wide-angle capability. This would also improve versatility in choice of shooting angles, such as being able to hold it over your head shooting over a crowd while still having a clear view of the monitor.
Actually the tiny lenses of phonecams offer greater depth of field than dedicated cameras. What DSLRs give you is control over DOF, such as being able to choose to shoot macro on a tripod to make a slow, deep-field shot of a whole insect, as opposed to a fast wide-open shot of the same subject that blurs a distracting background into 'bokeh'.
The lowly phonecam is great for street and 'social' shooting because people have learned to ignore smartphones that are out in public. This cultural shift allows us all to be apprentice Cartier-Bressons, shooting street scenes in situations where a DSLR, even one of the small formats, is seen to stand between the photographer and the subject.
Its best claim was that since smartphone cameras are better than ever, that "camera you always have with you" has replaced most sales of small point-and-shoots. But the claim that mirrorless cameras are unpopular - why? What technical reason would cause photographes to prefer mirror slap over the near-silent operation of a mirrorless? Or did the article confuse mirrorless with small format? If so, then this was a comparison of apple.jpg shot with a micro four thirds with orange.jpg shot with a full-frame Canon.
Then keep in mind that the legal profession is to the Democratic Party what oil and pharma are to the Republicans. Antivax activism is their latest gold strike.
They promise to only look at our metadata, not the content of our cell calls and digital pictures.