Camera devices haven't been completely eliminated by camera phones, because the DSLR people won't let go of their equipment that lets them do things camera phones cannot. But all the point-and-shoots, no more need for those. You only need a separate camera now if you're a Pro video/photographer or if you're interest in more than a point and shoot.
There, fixed that for you.
As good as camera phones have gotten, they still aren't as good as my 2008 era G10 (bridge camera), let alone my 2010 era T2i (DSLR). They [camera phones] are utterly blown away by 2012 era equipment from the bridge camera level on up. You can do great things with them, and many are, but they aren't (currently) anything more than a glorified point-and-shoot. That is why DSLR users haven't switched. Consumer grade gear will never replace prosumer/hobbyist level gear, let alone professional gear. When you're manufacturing for the mass consumer market, you're competing on price and you simply can't afford to pack in the power and features that pro gear can.
That's the thing, he isn't really committed. He's not an IT professional, and has no stated intention of becoming one. He just wants to look professional and be treated like a professional without having to go to the bother of actually being a professional. He's a part-timer working on the side while doing something utterly unrelated - and presumably intending to bail, or at least cut way back when is gainfully employed in the actual field he's seeking a PhD in.
Or to put it coldly, he's exactly the kind of guy the certification process is supposed to weed out.
What intrigues me is that they apparently blew it to 35mm first instead of going straight to digital.
They explain that in the video, his film was not 35mm but 35mm equipment is standard and common. Thus it was cheaper and easier to transfer it to 35mm and then perform the restoration/digitization rather than building/adapting equipment and software for a one-off project.
My first boss, 23 years ago now, was the owner of the business and he treated that thing like a piggy bank. Which, really, it was. If he could get away with the company owning a resource (like his cars) he'd do that. So a lot of his daily expenses were paid for by the company. That meant, among other things, he didn't pay income taxes on the income that paid for his cars.
Had a friend who did the same thing - then he got audited and as a result went bankrupt. You can "get away" with a lot, just don't get caught.
Here's what amount to basically the entire article in far fewer words:
No, we don't have most of the tech. In fact we have very little. But here's some stuff we can handwave for page views. We can't show nekkid ladies, but "Star Trek" anything always gets page views.
There was a day when the US would have been outmaneuvering all the other industrial nations in advancing new technology like this.
Um, what new technology? This ship, her engines, they're completely old school. She's notable for her size, but beyond that there's nothing in the press release that indicates anything else that's ground breaking.
I know you say this in jest, and it's fine that Russians have this market, but there's also the aspect that the US wouldn't allow industry to build such a vessel, in this period of societal decline.
And forget about private industry being 'allowed' to build a twin-nuclear-powered massive ice break. It would be tied up in red tape and lawsuits until the investors left.
So? It's not like US (or pretty much anyone else for that matter) needs such a white elephant. The Russians have this market (huge icebreakers) all to themselves because they're pretty much the only ones that need huge icebreakers. The ones the US needs to supply the Antarctic research stations are considerably smaller, and the ones needed on the Great Lakes smaller still. Back in the 1950's, when were into the Antarctic in a big way and were building nuclear powered damm-near-everything... a nuclear powered icebreaker was never seriously considered. (And even at it's peak, the USCG owned less than a dozen icebreakers.)
know I can sometimes flip through a large book that I am very familiar with to find what I'm looking for faster than I can type the words into a search engine - especially when I'm not 100% sure on what word I'm looking for, but I'll know it when I see it. How much fuel does a 747 burn idling while a pilot tries typing in different key words looking for that section he knows deals with the quirk at hand?
That's you, an average luser. The guys using these apps are trained and experienced professionals - and there is a difference whether you believe it or not.
When you live with the same manuals day in and day out for years... when you're constantly using the bits you've memorized... when you're constantly grabbing the procedures... it all changes. It really does. Back when I was in the Navy, my chief would ream me a new one if I grabbed a manual and started "just flipping" rather than opening it almost immediately to the required section/page. That meant that you didn't know, that you were guessing. Guessing was Not Acceptable in our line of work. Not knowing something was acceptable, but if you didn't know, you used the table of contents or the index - that's what they were there for. (And they're faster than just flipping.)
It's been over two decades since I last held any of the twenty seven volumes of the 4399 in my hand - but I bet I could still locate any given functional description, block or wiring diagram, or procedure in under five minutes. (My average was much faster back in the day.) In situations like those I lived and worked in, or the pilots work in, what you call "familiarity" we called "barely trained".
I worked at Boeing on two new airplane projects. The aircraft manufacturers and the airlines know almost exactly how much fuel is consumed per pound of aircraft weight.
Yep. And the airlines know almost exactly how many miles the fly per year.
It's all basic engineering and beancounting stuff.
I've been all over the US over the past ten years, and I haven't seen a single "digital price tag". Not to mention, you can't make fluorescents flicker in quite the manner you can LED's.
That's just short of a quarter acre of growing space in a 20X20 area.
But you don't get a quarter acres's worth of sunlight, because the upper layers shade the lower and the rims shades the inner sections. The system you link to works because it's flat - and thus receives a full dose of sunlight. It's also fully enclosed to conserve heat.
Add in a 20X20 greenhouse for cooler weather and to start seedlings and you'd be in good shape for year round fresh food.
If by "year round fresh food" you mean "the occasional salad in the cooler/darker months", sure. Otherwise, not so much - because that's about all you're going to raise in a 20x20 greenhouse.
there are still a lot of bitter people in local Fandom because of this.
Fandom gets bitter and holds decades long grudges if their pizza is five minutes late. And if it's five minutes late *and* the pizza place forgot the extra pepperoni, the angst and bitterness is epic indeed. Seriously, Fandom getting their panties in a twist over something trivial is about as notable as the sun rising in the East. They make geeks look like Zen monks.
OTOH, there's a persistent rumor that the FBI and other TLA's have a thick file on the SCA because "it has a private army". I have no doubt they have a thick file... but not because of the "private army" (which a handful of tear gas grenades or a couple of rifleman could destroy in minutes), but because there are more than a few SCA players with security clearances. (Here in my Barony, back when we were a Shire, there were at least three nuclear weapons techs from the sub base that were members. Plus the guys who worked at the USAF base. Plus the guys who were in the army. Plus the guys who were R&D engineers of various sorts over at the weapons station...)
You also make your [Mars bound[ space craft more expensive by requiring to boost from the surface of the moon, and by adding the need to endure the [harsher than LEO] lunar temperature environment.
Won't argue about temp issues, but it takes rather less deltaV to go from Luna surface to a Mars transition orbit than it does to go from LEO to a Mars transition orbit.
True, but when you add in the deltaV to get to the Moon in the first place... plus all the costs associated with getting the base built and supported and boosting the materials and equipment to the Moon... The few tens of thousands of dollars you 'save' in fuel start to look like the chump change they are.
Fuel on earth is virtually dirt cheap. (It cost less than a million dollars to fill the Shuttle's external tank.) Complex Rube Goldberg schemes that cost many tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars don't reduce fuel cots - they increase them massively.
Never mind that we can get reaction mass and/or fuel from the Moon....
At a cost somewhere in the range of hundreds to thousands of times what it costs to boost the fuel directly from Earth into LEO.
I completely agree with the "nickel and dime" approach. I was not suggesting that we mine the moon for resources. My use of the moon is to give us a stable structure to build a base on.
The problem is - it costs an order of magnitude more to reach the moon, and you no more need a "stable base" than you a fish needs a bicycle.
You also make your [Mars bound[ space craft more expensive by requiring to boost from the surface of the moon, and by adding the need to endure the [harsher than LEO] lunar temperature environment.
Building a base on the moon to support exploration further out is like building a base in the middle of the Sahara desert to support deep ocean exploration or Antarctic expeditions... all you accomplish is making the whole affair much more expensive and difficult. I know it sounds like heresy to many, but you're far better off building a base in Charleston (SC) or Seattle (WA) to do either, and the same is true of LEO and going beyond the moon. The infrastructure and support costs are far lower, and transportation costs a barely visible fraction.
The shuttle program was definitely a success if you are willing to limit your goals to just looking down on the earth in awe. Had we spent those 135 missions pushing toward the settlement of a body outside of earth, we would be further along. Hell, just 20% of them could have built an outpost on the moon.
20% of Shuttle flights is roughly 25 flights - not even enough for a handful of Apollo class missions.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad we invested in the shuttle program. I just wish we used it to expand our capabilities instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
We're no more doing the same thing over and over at the ISS than we are in Antarctica. You confuse repeated trips to the same facility with the work done *at* the facility. You also fail to realize that much of the work is long term, this is real science and real engineering - not the surface impression you get from an hour (less commercials) of a show on the Discovery channel.
I believe they are imagining a world where a broadcast truck rolls up to a stadium and runs a few pair of 100Gbe fiber vs a large coax bundle.
I don't see how that's cheaper - because the cost of labor is the same, regardless of what's under the cable jacket. The OP is also missing the difference between the one-time cost of the hardware, and the ongoing costs of... well, pretty much everything else.
I understood what the OP is asking, even if you don't. Shall I explain it to you? Seeing the 'guts' of a computer is like seeing the engine of an old mechanical car. It removes the "magic box" aspect of the featureless slab that an iPad is.
I understand quite well what's he's asking, thank you very much. What you fail to understand is that seeing the guts of the computer doesn't accomplish that. A CPU is still a magic box that you can't see inside. No matter how much you handwave, it's not the equivalent of an old car engine and never will be.
Wittering on about oscilloscopes and multimeters is like saying a 7 year old cannot understand car engines without an electron microscope to understand the exothermic chemistry at the heart of combustion. He's a 7 year old. All you want to show is what a spark plug does and where the oil goes.
No, writing about 'scopes and meters is telling the stone cold sober truth. A CPU is a magic box that you can't see inside without specialized equipment. (Which is also largely true of engines, but you can crudely manipulate them and see/hear the results - something you also can't do with a CPU chip.)
The OP wishes his son to understand computers rather than just be a computer user, so that they are more self reliant.
And how does seeing a CPU chip accomplish that? Like your fellow cargo cultists, you fail to understand that there is no value to "understanding computers" because you can no more alter how the chip functions than you stop the earth from spinning. Computers are tools, no more and no less than a wrench - and I don't need to understand molecular structure to use either.
hopefully one wherein the guts are a bit exposed so that he can learn how a computer works rather than just treating it like a magic object (i.e., iPad)
Seriously, you think an iPad is a "magic object" and a CPU chip isn't?
Perhaps something in the $300 range that would be the computer equivalent of an old mechanical car engine?
There's no such thing, and never has been. Unless you're talking a behemoth like a difference engine, or a toy like one of the Lego/Tinkertoy computers... how an electronic computer works isn't visible without at *least* some form of multimeter or oscilloscope... or for a computer of any complexity (read: any consumer computer past the mid/late 80's) a fairly sophisticated analyzer.
Another way to think about it: I'm looking for the computer equivalent of teaching my son how to survive in the forest should the zombie apocalypse ever come.
This is about as muddled and confusing a statement as I've ever read in an Ask Slashdot - which is an achievement worthy of note. You don't even know what you want to teach him, beyond conforming to some dogma ("no magic box") and ideals ("survive the zombie apocalypse") you've picked up along the line and now repeat as though they were sensible and logical observations of reality. You're the Slashdot version of a cargo cultist.
No, I'm not contradicting myself - because I *am* dealing with facts. It's a stone cold fact that this (donationware) model has been around nearly three decades, and always has the same result - the developer goes broke. Nothing fundamental has changed, and therefore there is no reason to believe this effort will be any different. (Especially since the early information confirms those decades of experience.)
There is no more need to collect more numbers than there is to put my hand in a fire to prove it will still burn.
The one dealing with assumptions and contradictions here is yourself - because your utter ignorance of experience, your disconnected from reality ideals, and your blinders to facts leads you to assume that somehow, some way, things will be different this time.
One man's trivia is another man's junk! I mean, its not like the "trivia" section is taking up wads of disk-space.
What you fail to understand is that disk space isn't Wikipedia's fundamental limitation - it's the amount of volunteer hours available. The more "trivia", the more time it takes to check and verify the sources... and Wikipedia is already running far, far behind on keeping itself up to date. I routinely run across "this needs to be fixed" boxes that are months or years old. Twice today, I ran across articles that either referenced something that happened in 2011 in the present or future tense...
Sometimes you need to compromise and realize you are writing content jointly with almost all of the rest of humanity (at least those who care about the article in any way). That is the point of the talk pages on Wikipedia, so you can collaborate in the development of the article.
You can't compromise or collaborate with someone who doesn't accept cited facts that are contrary to their worldview. That's the OP's point, and it went whooshing about ten feet over your head.
I can understand that you don't want to waste any more of your time fixing what was a casual edit. If the edit gets accepted, be grateful, otherwise don't let it piss you off.
The OP is supposed to be grateful when an edit that adds a cited fact is accepted, and just shrug it off when it isn't? That's about the most effed up thing I've ever read. Worse yet, you seem to be serious...
Slashdot Mirror
There, fixed that for you.
As good as camera phones have gotten, they still aren't as good as my 2008 era G10 (bridge camera), let alone my 2010 era T2i (DSLR). They [camera phones] are utterly blown away by 2012 era equipment from the bridge camera level on up. You can do great things with them, and many are, but they aren't (currently) anything more than a glorified point-and-shoot. That is why DSLR users haven't switched. Consumer grade gear will never replace prosumer/hobbyist level gear, let alone professional gear. When you're manufacturing for the mass consumer market, you're competing on price and you simply can't afford to pack in the power and features that pro gear can.
That's the thing, he isn't really committed. He's not an IT professional, and has no stated intention of becoming one. He just wants to look professional and be treated like a professional without having to go to the bother of actually being a professional. He's a part-timer working on the side while doing something utterly unrelated - and presumably intending to bail, or at least cut way back when is gainfully employed in the actual field he's seeking a PhD in.
Or to put it coldly, he's exactly the kind of guy the certification process is supposed to weed out.
It's not fair play - it's required by the government whose teat he's sucking at.
It's funny how you come up with a laundry list of criticisms of these wind farms - but pronounce an unbuilt theoretical reactor to be "safe".
It's even funnier that you think space based solar will ever be economical.
They explain that in the video, his film was not 35mm but 35mm equipment is standard and common. Thus it was cheaper and easier to transfer it to 35mm and then perform the restoration/digitization rather than building/adapting equipment and software for a one-off project.
Had a friend who did the same thing - then he got audited and as a result went bankrupt. You can "get away" with a lot, just don't get caught.
Here's what amount to basically the entire article in far fewer words:
Um, what new technology? This ship, her engines, they're completely old school. She's notable for her size, but beyond that there's nothing in the press release that indicates anything else that's ground breaking.
So? It's not like US (or pretty much anyone else for that matter) needs such a white elephant. The Russians have this market (huge icebreakers) all to themselves because they're pretty much the only ones that need huge icebreakers. The ones the US needs to supply the Antarctic research stations are considerably smaller, and the ones needed on the Great Lakes smaller still. Back in the 1950's, when were into the Antarctic in a big way and were building nuclear powered damm-near-everything... a nuclear powered icebreaker was never seriously considered. (And even at it's peak, the USCG owned less than a dozen icebreakers.)
That's you, an average luser. The guys using these apps are trained and experienced professionals - and there is a difference whether you believe it or not.
When you live with the same manuals day in and day out for years... when you're constantly using the bits you've memorized... when you're constantly grabbing the procedures... it all changes. It really does. Back when I was in the Navy, my chief would ream me a new one if I grabbed a manual and started "just flipping" rather than opening it almost immediately to the required section/page. That meant that you didn't know, that you were guessing. Guessing was Not Acceptable in our line of work. Not knowing something was acceptable, but if you didn't know, you used the table of contents or the index - that's what they were there for. (And they're faster than just flipping.)
It's been over two decades since I last held any of the twenty seven volumes of the 4399 in my hand - but I bet I could still locate any given functional description, block or wiring diagram, or procedure in under five minutes. (My average was much faster back in the day.) In situations like those I lived and worked in, or the pilots work in, what you call "familiarity" we called "barely trained".
Yep. And the airlines know almost exactly how many miles the fly per year.
It's all basic engineering and beancounting stuff.
I've been all over the US over the past ten years, and I haven't seen a single "digital price tag". Not to mention, you can't make fluorescents flicker in quite the manner you can LED's.
But you don't get a quarter acres's worth of sunlight, because the upper layers shade the lower and the rims shades the inner sections. The system you link to works because it's flat - and thus receives a full dose of sunlight. It's also fully enclosed to conserve heat.
If by "year round fresh food" you mean "the occasional salad in the cooler/darker months", sure. Otherwise, not so much - because that's about all you're going to raise in a 20x20 greenhouse.
I was thinking they sounded more like the Club Of Rome myself.
You think nobody is going to walk off with an unsecured tablet that's not an iPad? I have a bridge and some land in Florida to sell you.
Fandom gets bitter and holds decades long grudges if their pizza is five minutes late. And if it's five minutes late *and* the pizza place forgot the extra pepperoni, the angst and bitterness is epic indeed. Seriously, Fandom getting their panties in a twist over something trivial is about as notable as the sun rising in the East. They make geeks look like Zen monks.
OTOH, there's a persistent rumor that the FBI and other TLA's have a thick file on the SCA because "it has a private army". I have no doubt they have a thick file... but not because of the "private army" (which a handful of tear gas grenades or a couple of rifleman could destroy in minutes), but because there are more than a few SCA players with security clearances. (Here in my Barony, back when we were a Shire, there were at least three nuclear weapons techs from the sub base that were members. Plus the guys who worked at the USAF base. Plus the guys who were in the army. Plus the guys who were R&D engineers of various sorts over at the weapons station...)
If ever a post needed an "IANAL" tag on it...
True, but when you add in the deltaV to get to the Moon in the first place... plus all the costs associated with getting the base built and supported and boosting the materials and equipment to the Moon... The few tens of thousands of dollars you 'save' in fuel start to look like the chump change they are.
Fuel on earth is virtually dirt cheap. (It cost less than a million dollars to fill the Shuttle's external tank.) Complex Rube Goldberg schemes that cost many tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars don't reduce fuel cots - they increase them massively.
At a cost somewhere in the range of hundreds to thousands of times what it costs to boost the fuel directly from Earth into LEO.
The problem is - it costs an order of magnitude more to reach the moon, and you no more need a "stable base" than you a fish needs a bicycle.
You also make your [Mars bound[ space craft more expensive by requiring to boost from the surface of the moon, and by adding the need to endure the [harsher than LEO] lunar temperature environment.
Building a base on the moon to support exploration further out is like building a base in the middle of the Sahara desert to support deep ocean exploration or Antarctic expeditions... all you accomplish is making the whole affair much more expensive and difficult. I know it sounds like heresy to many, but you're far better off building a base in Charleston (SC) or Seattle (WA) to do either, and the same is true of LEO and going beyond the moon. The infrastructure and support costs are far lower, and transportation costs a barely visible fraction.
20% of Shuttle flights is roughly 25 flights - not even enough for a handful of Apollo class missions.
We're no more doing the same thing over and over at the ISS than we are in Antarctica. You confuse repeated trips to the same facility with the work done *at* the facility. You also fail to realize that much of the work is long term, this is real science and real engineering - not the surface impression you get from an hour (less commercials) of a show on the Discovery channel.
I don't see how that's cheaper - because the cost of labor is the same, regardless of what's under the cable jacket. The OP is also missing the difference between the one-time cost of the hardware, and the ongoing costs of... well, pretty much everything else.
I understand quite well what's he's asking, thank you very much. What you fail to understand is that seeing the guts of the computer doesn't accomplish that. A CPU is still a magic box that you can't see inside. No matter how much you handwave, it's not the equivalent of an old car engine and never will be.
No, writing about 'scopes and meters is telling the stone cold sober truth. A CPU is a magic box that you can't see inside without specialized equipment. (Which is also largely true of engines, but you can crudely manipulate them and see/hear the results - something you also can't do with a CPU chip.)
And how does seeing a CPU chip accomplish that? Like your fellow cargo cultists, you fail to understand that there is no value to "understanding computers" because you can no more alter how the chip functions than you stop the earth from spinning. Computers are tools, no more and no less than a wrench - and I don't need to understand molecular structure to use either.
Seriously, you think an iPad is a "magic object" and a CPU chip isn't?
There's no such thing, and never has been. Unless you're talking a behemoth like a difference engine, or a toy like one of the Lego/Tinkertoy computers... how an electronic computer works isn't visible without at *least* some form of multimeter or oscilloscope... or for a computer of any complexity (read: any consumer computer past the mid/late 80's) a fairly sophisticated analyzer.
This is about as muddled and confusing a statement as I've ever read in an Ask Slashdot - which is an achievement worthy of note. You don't even know what you want to teach him, beyond conforming to some dogma ("no magic box") and ideals ("survive the zombie apocalypse") you've picked up along the line and now repeat as though they were sensible and logical observations of reality. You're the Slashdot version of a cargo cultist.
No, I'm not contradicting myself - because I *am* dealing with facts. It's a stone cold fact that this (donationware) model has been around nearly three decades, and always has the same result - the developer goes broke. Nothing fundamental has changed, and therefore there is no reason to believe this effort will be any different. (Especially since the early information confirms those decades of experience.)
There is no more need to collect more numbers than there is to put my hand in a fire to prove it will still burn.
The one dealing with assumptions and contradictions here is yourself - because your utter ignorance of experience, your disconnected from reality ideals, and your blinders to facts leads you to assume that somehow, some way, things will be different this time.
That has to be one of the most amazing pieces of circular reasoning and doublethink I've ever seen.
What you fail to understand is that disk space isn't Wikipedia's fundamental limitation - it's the amount of volunteer hours available. The more "trivia", the more time it takes to check and verify the sources... and Wikipedia is already running far, far behind on keeping itself up to date. I routinely run across "this needs to be fixed" boxes that are months or years old. Twice today, I ran across articles that either referenced something that happened in 2011 in the present or future tense...
You can't compromise or collaborate with someone who doesn't accept cited facts that are contrary to their worldview. That's the OP's point, and it went whooshing about ten feet over your head.
The OP is supposed to be grateful when an edit that adds a cited fact is accepted, and just shrug it off when it isn't? That's about the most effed up thing I've ever read. Worse yet, you seem to be serious...