The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
True, but, despite the/. summary, the article really isn't about predicting events so much as trying to assess the level of uncertainty around the results o fteh model. By quantifying the uncertainty you can better use the results to decide what to do. Essentially, you want to be able to say "I think this will be the outcome, but I am only so sure about the accuracy of my prediction." It's not really about predicting the future (in the sense of "what event will occur" but what will happen if x occurs and how certain am I about that result.
Yeah, I hate to go all Taleb but that doesn't make sense from a Black Swan point of view. The catastrophes outside the model are always the worst catastrophes because they are outside the model.
True, but they aren't trying to predict Black Swan events, at least not from my RTF. Take Columbia, for example. If, after running the damage model, that had said "there is only a 20% chance we are right - i.e. there is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding our results" then NASA would have known to further analyze the situation. They weren't trying to say "there is x% chance a shuttle will suffer damage on launch the results in catastrophic failure of the vehicle on reentry."
By being more certain about the uncertainty you can better use the model's results to make decisions. You can also the better use the model to try to estimate the outcomes of rare events - such as what might happen if we experience a Cat 5 hurricane, how much time do we have if we wipe out the backup diesels, etc. You can't say what are the chances of the initiating event but should be able to better assess the likelihood of the outcomes.
The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
True, but, despite the/. summary, the article really isn't about predicting events so much as trying to assess the level of uncertainty around the results o fteh model. By quantifying the uncertainty you can better use the results to decide what to do. Essentially, you want to be able to say "I think this will be the outcome, but I am only so sure about the accuracy of my prediction." It's not really about predicting the future (in the sense of "what event will occur" but what will happen if x occurs and how certain am I about that result.
If you can't be part of the solution there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
If the client doesn't grimace when you state your fees your were too low
Seriously, get them in writing to ask you to go through any material you may have that is relevant to the problem at hand and ask you to bring it in without any concern over previous agreements. I'd get a lawyer to draft up the email and agreement. Tell them, off the record, you may have old notes that could help but want to avoid any problems.
Look at how many software walled gardens have failed: IBM, DEC, SGI, and AOL, to name a few. If Microsoft ever had a walled garden (more likely poorly fenced), it is failing. Apple's garden walls, no matter how thick or high they are built, will eventually fail.
TFA is baseless paranoia and speculation.
Apple may be different because it is not a computer company anymore. Its walled garden is about building a system that delivers a seamless content experience across multiple platforms and devices - be it a phone, TV, tablet, or PC. Eventually the platform will extend to automobiles and other places people use content.
Apple's walled garden lets them control the apps so that they don't break things; something of great value to most users. By having a consistent, secure environment they can bring content providers to the table.
Will they succeed? Who knows? They are coming up against some pretty strong competitors in cable/ISP and content space who'll want to keep the lions share f the profits; so brace for a fight. The again, they have a pretty compelling vision for how to control and deliver content.
Of course, Steve is probably telling God "Your human interface design sucks. Your creations suck" and convincing him to do a complete reboot with v2.0...
What Greece and Itily do is NOT European politics. But I don't blame you for not knowing how European politics works; even Europe's politicians seem to not know how it works. And we're in this big political crisis in which European politics is in the process of being reformed too. These are difficult times.
I guess Austria, Britain, France also do not constitute European politics either? It would seem that the EU is no more free of corruption and business influence than the US.
Corruption is a universal problem wherever there is money to be made. I would venture to say the US and the EU probably do more to plush it than many countries but neither are pure and virginal either.
Oh yes, like fining Google for a few 100 million will solve our crisis. Get real. Unlike in the US, corruption is illegal in Europe, and so misusing monopolies is punished like it should be. And companies are obliged to operate by the prevailing laws. That Google is an American company has nothing to do with it. A few months ago a cartel of European manufacturers of elevators was fined almost one billion euros, but since elevators are not as 'visible' as Google you don't know about that.
PAre your referring to the 2007 action? If so, a few months ago the EU cut one of the major European company's fine by 33%.
Of course, the "composting" they are referring to includes mixing the compost with biosolids - better known as sewage plant sludge. By giving it the nice veneer of "compost" - that friendly stuff that we have in our compost heap in the back yard - they can "green" biosolids. No one wants to put sludge on a farmer's field - so it magically becomes compost and no one cares.
Like the OP, I am self-taught, and am of the same mind as CmdrPony, having done it myself. If you need to start working right away...
Start your own shop, but count on the website/SEO/marketing side of things to start slow and develop (no pun intended) over time - likely several years. The market for "website developers" is fairly well saturated, albeit with far too many that are no more than Dreamweaver/FrontPage/MSWord-using ex-construction worker/secretary types who are 95% clueless yet able to put up a $200 site in a few days by advertising on Craigslist. Yes, your site may be far better, but money talks, and many clients don't understand the finer points of what makes a really good, nice-looking, fast rendering, cross platform website, or what SEO is and the kind of time it can eat.
The problem you have is you're always competing with the $200 folks - at least in the customer's mind. Unless you can build up repeat business maintaining a site you'll face the "So and So will do it for $XXX." Until you get a good book of references it's hard to overcome the price shopping; and most small businesses you'll target are very price sensitive.
Until you have a solid core of client sites showing your skill and capability and helping you sell at a price point that makes it worthwhile, your working capital and day-to-day income can be supplanted by the other computer skills you have: repair, networking, etc... Be willing to make on-site visits (even to homes - at least until you get too busy), and have a fast response time. Come up with good ways to describe common computer problems and your fixes for them in normal human-speak - people do like to understand a bit about what you are doing, and teaching them a little helps them become better users and clients.
I'd add in - be willing to change your business model. You may find fast in house support is more valuable than web design - if so, go with that. Offer web design on the side - as one more service offering. Also - offer to help select products - by providing impartial third party advice - for afloat fee - you may be able to build a business there; but be aware people will expect "free" support - make it clear what they are buying.
Find a small, cheap location where you can set up half a dozen systems while you work on them, get some biz cards made, and put out your shingle.
Be very careful about renting space - that is a cash flow problem you can't easily make go away; unlike working form home via cell phone. Start with a phone based business to test the waters - you can even hire an answering service to handle calls so people don't interrupt you while on site. Conserve cash however you can.
I am a fan of DVDCatalyst (www.tools4movies.com). It will rip and convert DVD files to various formats; has batch renaming so you can use various databases to pull information; experimental Blu-Ray support; and is inexpensive. The developer responds fast to questions (sometimes I wonder if he sleeps). I've been a fan of it for many years.
If you did any of your own darkroom work back in the wet film days, then you remember making careful adjustments to the enlarger, deciding just which paper to use, and giving due consideration to how long to leave the paper in the developer bath before the fix. And so on.
Far to well. You can still chose papers in today' s digital age.
But either you or a machine was doing the post-processing that we now can do so much better in today's software. You should really look into what Gimp can do for you with its unsharp mask (the digital equivalent of focusing the enlarger), and its HSV settings (equivalent to choosing different papers and development timings). Not to mention using masks to process different parts of the image differently, and do not get me started on the wonder of layers.
The photo that comes straight out of the camera is an unfinished work. It might be adequate for some purposes, but it is never as good as it could be.
Some of your comments made me interpret your point as "don't worry about such things as composition, lighting, etc. since you can fix all of that in post-processing." While I agree with you that post-processing is part of the overall process; it's not a substitute for creating a good image when pressing the shutter. Understanding composition, lighting, DOF and other fundamentals are as, if not more, important than post processing. Today's digital systems makes it to easy to gun off a bunch of images in hopes of getting one good one or leaving you to try to fix it in photoshop; when a little bit of skill at the start would result in a far better picture.
I'm not a big GIMP fan; the Mac has a number of inexpensive products that have a much better interface than the GIMP, IMHO. Layers and curves are cool; but for minor tweaks, not wholesale fixes of bad images.
The photo that comes straight out of the camera is an unfinished work. It might be adequate for some purposes, but it is never as good as it could be.
Sure, just as a selective light dodge or burn, or getting the right paper and exposure in the dark room, helps a film image; digital post-processing helps a digital image (without the need to mix chemicals). We're probably in closer agreement than this exchange would indicate; if I misunderstand your position mea culpa.
A decent photo is one that can you work with in Photoshop (or the Gimp, which is better for everything except a few types of professional work). The kinds of things you want to be able to do are cropping and rescaling, selective blurring of background distractions, selective sharpening with the "unsharp" capability, often some tweaking of colors. In this day and age, a photo is not finished until it has been photoshopped at least a little bit.
I disagree here - if you have to do all of that to get a great picture you really need to work on composition and exposure on the front end. True, photoshop can fix some errors or improve a picture; especially with good cropping, but nothing beats getting it right at the moment of exposure.
I may be old school because I started out with film, where you were forced to setup the equipment and shot right at the start; and you learned basic rules of thumb for exposure, depth of field, composition because fixing things in the darkroom was hard and time consuming. End the end, however, you developed an instinct for what was needed at the moment you pushed the shutter button; something the run and gn and photoshop later crowd is missing out on, IMHO.
2) take lots of pictures. if you get a one good picture out of 20-36 exposures, you're doing well.
Your advice is good - although I'd add a few comments:
1. Digital cameras have made it easy to shoot hundreds of pictures in hopes of getting one good one. The problem with that is people never learn composition, lighting, etc. - things film forced you to consider due to cost and limited exposures per roll. Sure - take lots of pictures but read up on the basics of exposure and composition - learn the rule of thirds. light zones, etc. Experiment with different settings - aperture, shutter speed to see what happens. Look at photos and decide what you like about them. Learn to look behind the subject - 30 photos with a branch growing out of someone's ear doesn't do you much good. Ultimately, it's the brain behind the lens that makes the difference.
2. The biggest advantage you get from a dSLR is depth of field - but it's not worth it if you leave your camera at home. I have a number of dSLRs and a bevy of lenses; but 80% of the time it's a 5 year old Canon point and shot that I have on me, simply because fit early fits in a pocket or briefcase.
3. Consider a ruggedized point and shot - one that you can take to the beach or in a pool. Buy extra batteries. Buy several smaller memory cards instead of one really large one. You can swap them out and if one dies you don't lose everything.
4. Don't get caught in the hype over megapixels or zoom length. Every name brand point and shot today has a good quality sensor and lens that will work just fine for a hobbyist photographer.As with any hobby, some people spend more time measurabating over specifications than actually enjoying the hobby.
5. Visit some photography web sites. I like Fred Miranda's site (fredmiranda.com) - posters will give good advice and critiques of your work, no flaming or gear wars; just a group of people interested in photography.
6. Start saving money because once you get hooked...
I think you're conflating several related but different ideas. Average != median. Some != many != most. Btw my karma went form positive to terrible in one day. I didn't even know you could have terrible karma!
I meant to say 2x the median US income; which it is (intact it is more than 2x but 2x is enough to make my point.
As for many vs one vs most when you have a buying profile that is significantly more affluent than the median consumer I'd say that means your item is too expensive for most buyers. Not all; but certain a significant enough % to say "most."
Not sure who is modding you down but the mod makes no sense to me.
According to BlueKai, median household income is over $100,000 a year for the iPad buyers. Given that is 2x the average US household incomes, the demographics show it is too expensive for most buyer. I do not have exact numbers, but I'd guess that group is roughly 15% of the population.
Be sure to call places to see what is open to public. Many places that essentially had open access have clamped down on visitors.
As for recommendations, what to see depends on what you're really interested. Any of the Smithsonian exhibits and the Ester-Hazy at Dulles are great for aerospace or industry buffs.
Most NASA sites have museums; even better if you know someone who works there and can give you a behind the scenes tour.
As a side note, there are also interesting things beyond the usual in most cities - Chicago has some of the world's greatest architecture as well as the best pizza anywhere.
The only person that can resolve this for you is the government contracting officer. They will have to review the requirements and decide what is an acceptable solution. You can offer up solutions, including keeping the drives in place since the equipment is staying there anyway, but they must make the call.
There hands may be tied by regulations that require physical destruction; in which case you have no choice. They may be able to approve keeping the drives. In the end, they will do whatever keeps them out of trouble; which often is to simply enforce the existing contract requirements. In that case, find a place that meets the destruction requirements. They may want to avoid that but if gov't contracting requirements require it they will do it.
It may sound ridiculous, but whatever you spend on new drives is a lot cheaper in the long run than making life difficult for the contracting officer.
He simply stated the lawmakers bringing suit had no standing to do so; they did it as private citizens. The case was not a test of Constitutional powers (which would go to the supremes) but yet another simple case of individuals using the courts to further their agenda.
The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" in its own words, and is intended to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" -- i.e. individuals. That individuals "don't have standing" to bring Constitutional issues to the courts is an idea popularized recently by the birther lawsuits, but individual standing wasn't an issue until 1922 -- within the "Constitution dying over the past century" that I mentioned.
Actually, the court has wrestled with this issue long before that. However, it makes perfect constitutional sense to argue that unless the person(s) suing have suffered an injury or loss directly attributable to the actions of the state then they have no standing to sue. To do otherwise gives the court the power to legislate form the bench by deciding policy issues; something left to the Executive and legislative branches. Hence, the concept of standing, as it has evolved, is not a weakening of the Constitution but completely inline with its requirements.
Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.
Except, per your reference, the judge did none of that. He simply stated the lawmakers bringing suit had no standing to do so; they did it as private citizens. The case was not a test of Constitutional powers (which would go to the supremes) but yet another simple case of individuals using the courts to further their agenda.
While the question of what rights does the President have to send troops, in his role of CiC and as a furtherance of his diplomatic powers, and what powers does Congress have to limit such actions is interesting; this was not a test case for that.
This will become yet one more thing some parents use to put unrealistic expectations on their kids. Sure, physical traits determine one's aptitude for sport (DUH); but almost all of us will never play at a level that has any financial impact on our lives; let alone at that elite pro level. Even at the top pro level the competition is so tough that few make a viable career of it.
So now some parents will ratchet up their expectations and further push their kids towards an unrealistic goal. Instead of playing a sport because you enjoy it and reaping the benefits of that, they will be pushed into what they are good at.
Real ability is a lucky combination of physical gifts, mental gifts and hard work. Even within a family one person may have it and another will be at best a journeyman player. Even so, as other's have pointed out a better marker may be having parent and grandparent or two that were world class athletes. Even then, you may just be a regression towards the mean.
Of course, no one ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American public or on the sports parent's willingness to shell out for any edge.
I truly feel sorry for the kids - sports should be fun and a way to socialize; not yet another thing you must compete at and win for your parent's sake.
I see that you've conceded your original point, that tablets are too expensive for most people. You even admit you're getting ready to buy one yourself, as soon as the newest, fanciest, most expensive one comes out!!!
thank you for agreeing with me that you were incorrect before.
Nice try, but really wanting something and buying it are two different things; which just gets to my point that tablets are still too expensive for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
True, but, despite the /. summary, the article really isn't about predicting events so much as trying to assess the level of uncertainty around the results o fteh model. By quantifying the uncertainty you can better use the results to decide what to do. Essentially, you want to be able to say "I think this will be the outcome, but I am only so sure about the accuracy of my prediction." It's not really about predicting the future (in the sense of "what event will occur" but what will happen if x occurs and how certain am I about that result.
Yeah, I hate to go all Taleb but that doesn't make sense from a Black Swan point of view. The catastrophes outside the model are always the worst catastrophes because they are outside the model.
True, but they aren't trying to predict Black Swan events, at least not from my RTF. Take Columbia, for example. If, after running the damage model, that had said "there is only a 20% chance we are right - i.e. there is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding our results" then NASA would have known to further analyze the situation. They weren't trying to say "there is x% chance a shuttle will suffer damage on launch the results in catastrophic failure of the vehicle on reentry."
By being more certain about the uncertainty you can better use the model's results to make decisions. You can also the better use the model to try to estimate the outcomes of rare events - such as what might happen if we experience a Cat 5 hurricane, how much time do we have if we wipe out the backup diesels, etc. You can't say what are the chances of the initiating event but should be able to better assess the likelihood of the outcomes.
The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
True, but, despite the /. summary, the article really isn't about predicting events so much as trying to assess the level of uncertainty around the results o fteh model. By quantifying the uncertainty you can better use the results to decide what to do. Essentially, you want to be able to say "I think this will be the outcome, but I am only so sure about the accuracy of my prediction." It's not really about predicting the future (in the sense of "what event will occur" but what will happen if x occurs and how certain am I about that result.
There's profit in confusion
If you can't be part of the solution there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
If the client doesn't grimace when you state your fees your were too low
Seriously, get them in writing to ask you to go through any material you may have that is relevant to the problem at hand and ask you to bring it in without any concern over previous agreements. I'd get a lawyer to draft up the email and agreement. Tell them, off the record, you may have old notes that could help but want to avoid any problems.
Look at how many software walled gardens have failed: IBM, DEC, SGI, and AOL, to name a few. If Microsoft ever had a walled garden (more likely poorly fenced), it is failing. Apple's garden walls, no matter how thick or high they are built, will eventually fail.
TFA is baseless paranoia and speculation.
Apple may be different because it is not a computer company anymore. Its walled garden is about building a system that delivers a seamless content experience across multiple platforms and devices - be it a phone, TV, tablet, or PC. Eventually the platform will extend to automobiles and other places people use content.
Apple's walled garden lets them control the apps so that they don't break things; something of great value to most users. By having a consistent, secure environment they can bring content providers to the table.
Will they succeed? Who knows? They are coming up against some pretty strong competitors in cable/ISP and content space who'll want to keep the lions share f the profits; so brace for a fight. The again, they have a pretty compelling vision for how to control and deliver content.
Of course, Steve is probably telling God "Your human interface design sucks. Your creations suck" and convincing him to do a complete reboot with v2.0...
What Greece and Itily do is NOT European politics. But I don't blame you for not knowing how European politics works; even Europe's politicians seem to not know how it works. And we're in this big political crisis in which European politics is in the process of being reformed too. These are difficult times.
I guess Austria, Britain, France also do not constitute European politics either? It would seem that the EU is no more free of corruption and business influence than the US.
Corruption is a universal problem wherever there is money to be made. I would venture to say the US and the EU probably do more to plush it than many countries but neither are pure and virginal either.
Oh yes, like fining Google for a few 100 million will solve our crisis. Get real. Unlike in the US, corruption is illegal in Europe, and so misusing monopolies is punished like it should be. And companies are obliged to operate by the prevailing laws. That Google is an American company has nothing to do with it. A few months ago a cartel of European manufacturers of elevators was fined almost one billion euros, but since elevators are not as 'visible' as Google you don't know about that.
PAre your referring to the 2007 action? If so, a few months ago the EU cut one of the major European company's fine by 33%.
Of course, the "composting" they are referring to includes mixing the compost with biosolids - better known as sewage plant sludge. By giving it the nice veneer of "compost" - that friendly stuff that we have in our compost heap in the back yard - they can "green" biosolids. No one wants to put sludge on a farmer's field - so it magically becomes compost and no one cares.
You obviously have never run a business before. As a coder who has done exactly that for the past 10 years, I can say, it can be a real slog.
SNIP
I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I started. Though maybe that was a good thing. I do have no regrets.
True. Starting a small business is like starting a family - it's a lot of fun at the creating part but a real job for the rest of your life.
Like the OP, I am self-taught, and am of the same mind as CmdrPony, having done it myself. If you need to start working right away...
Start your own shop, but count on the website/SEO/marketing side of things to start slow and develop (no pun intended) over time - likely several years. The market for "website developers" is fairly well saturated, albeit with far too many that are no more than Dreamweaver/FrontPage/MSWord-using ex-construction worker/secretary types who are 95% clueless yet able to put up a $200 site in a few days by advertising on Craigslist. Yes, your site may be far better, but money talks, and many clients don't understand the finer points of what makes a really good, nice-looking, fast rendering, cross platform website, or what SEO is and the kind of time it can eat.
The problem you have is you're always competing with the $200 folks - at least in the customer's mind. Unless you can build up repeat business maintaining a site you'll face the "So and So will do it for $XXX." Until you get a good book of references it's hard to overcome the price shopping; and most small businesses you'll target are very price sensitive.
Until you have a solid core of client sites showing your skill and capability and helping you sell at a price point that makes it worthwhile, your working capital and day-to-day income can be supplanted by the other computer skills you have: repair, networking, etc... Be willing to make on-site visits (even to homes - at least until you get too busy), and have a fast response time. Come up with good ways to describe common computer problems and your fixes for them in normal human-speak - people do like to understand a bit about what you are doing, and teaching them a little helps them become better users and clients.
I'd add in - be willing to change your business model. You may find fast in house support is more valuable than web design - if so, go with that. Offer web design on the side - as one more service offering. Also - offer to help select products - by providing impartial third party advice - for afloat fee - you may be able to build a business there; but be aware people will expect "free" support - make it clear what they are buying.
Find a small, cheap location where you can set up half a dozen systems while you work on them, get some biz cards made, and put out your shingle.
Be very careful about renting space - that is a cash flow problem you can't easily make go away; unlike working form home via cell phone. Start with a phone based business to test the waters - you can even hire an answering service to handle calls so people don't interrupt you while on site. Conserve cash however you can.
I am a fan of DVDCatalyst (www.tools4movies.com). It will rip and convert DVD files to various formats; has batch renaming so you can use various databases to pull information; experimental Blu-Ray support; and is inexpensive. The developer responds fast to questions (sometimes I wonder if he sleeps). I've been a fan of it for many years.
If you did any of your own darkroom work back in the wet film days, then you remember making careful adjustments to the enlarger, deciding just which paper to use, and giving due consideration to how long to leave the paper in the developer bath before the fix. And so on.
Far to well. You can still chose papers in today' s digital age.
But either you or a machine was doing the post-processing that we now can do so much better in today's software. You should really look into what Gimp can do for you with its unsharp mask (the digital equivalent of focusing the enlarger), and its HSV settings (equivalent to choosing different papers and development timings). Not to mention using masks to process different parts of the image differently, and do not get me started on the wonder of layers.
The photo that comes straight out of the camera is an unfinished work. It might be adequate for some purposes, but it is never as good as it could be.
Some of your comments made me interpret your point as "don't worry about such things as composition, lighting, etc. since you can fix all of that in post-processing." While I agree with you that post-processing is part of the overall process; it's not a substitute for creating a good image when pressing the shutter. Understanding composition, lighting, DOF and other fundamentals are as, if not more, important than post processing. Today's digital systems makes it to easy to gun off a bunch of images in hopes of getting one good one or leaving you to try to fix it in photoshop; when a little bit of skill at the start would result in a far better picture.
I'm not a big GIMP fan; the Mac has a number of inexpensive products that have a much better interface than the GIMP, IMHO. Layers and curves are cool; but for minor tweaks, not wholesale fixes of bad images.
The photo that comes straight out of the camera is an unfinished work. It might be adequate for some purposes, but it is never as good as it could be.
Sure, just as a selective light dodge or burn, or getting the right paper and exposure in the dark room, helps a film image; digital post-processing helps a digital image (without the need to mix chemicals). We're probably in closer agreement than this exchange would indicate; if I misunderstand your position mea culpa.
A decent photo is one that can you work with in Photoshop (or the Gimp, which is better for everything except a few types of professional work). The kinds of things you want to be able to do are cropping and rescaling, selective blurring of background distractions, selective sharpening with the "unsharp" capability, often some tweaking of colors. In this day and age, a photo is not finished until it has been photoshopped at least a little bit.
I disagree here - if you have to do all of that to get a great picture you really need to work on composition and exposure on the front end. True, photoshop can fix some errors or improve a picture; especially with good cropping, but nothing beats getting it right at the moment of exposure.
I may be old school because I started out with film, where you were forced to setup the equipment and shot right at the start; and you learned basic rules of thumb for exposure, depth of field, composition because fixing things in the darkroom was hard and time consuming. End the end, however, you developed an instinct for what was needed at the moment you pushed the shutter button; something the run and gn and photoshop later crowd is missing out on, IMHO.
Now, GET OFF MY LAWN>
2) take lots of pictures. if you get a one good picture out of 20-36 exposures, you're doing well.
Your advice is good - although I'd add a few comments:
1. Digital cameras have made it easy to shoot hundreds of pictures in hopes of getting one good one. The problem with that is people never learn composition, lighting, etc. - things film forced you to consider due to cost and limited exposures per roll. Sure - take lots of pictures but read up on the basics of exposure and composition - learn the rule of thirds. light zones, etc. Experiment with different settings - aperture, shutter speed to see what happens. Look at photos and decide what you like about them. Learn to look behind the subject - 30 photos with a branch growing out of someone's ear doesn't do you much good. Ultimately, it's the brain behind the lens that makes the difference.
2. The biggest advantage you get from a dSLR is depth of field - but it's not worth it if you leave your camera at home. I have a number of dSLRs and a bevy of lenses; but 80% of the time it's a 5 year old Canon point and shot that I have on me, simply because fit early fits in a pocket or briefcase.
3. Consider a ruggedized point and shot - one that you can take to the beach or in a pool. Buy extra batteries. Buy several smaller memory cards instead of one really large one. You can swap them out and if one dies you don't lose everything.
4. Don't get caught in the hype over megapixels or zoom length. Every name brand point and shot today has a good quality sensor and lens that will work just fine for a hobbyist photographer.As with any hobby, some people spend more time measurabating over specifications than actually enjoying the hobby.
5. Visit some photography web sites. I like Fred Miranda's site (fredmiranda.com) - posters will give good advice and critiques of your work, no flaming or gear wars; just a group of people interested in photography.
6. Start saving money because once you get hooked...
I think you're conflating several related but different ideas. Average != median. Some != many != most. Btw my karma went form positive to terrible in one day. I didn't even know you could have terrible karma!
I meant to say 2x the median US income; which it is (intact it is more than 2x but 2x is enough to make my point.
As for many vs one vs most when you have a buying profile that is significantly more affluent than the median consumer I'd say that means your item is too expensive for most buyers. Not all; but certain a significant enough % to say "most."
Not sure who is modding you down but the mod makes no sense to me.
Well my household income is less than 100k, and I have THREE iPads! My subjective experience trumps your anecdotal estimation.
Sorry, but your evidence is anecdotal - my estimation is based on economic realities and data.
which just gets to my point that tablets are still too expensive for most people.
Ah, the infinite loop. Once again, [[citation needed]]
According to BlueKai, median household income is over $100,000 a year for the iPad buyers. Given that is 2x the average US household incomes, the demographics show it is too expensive for most buyer. I do not have exact numbers, but I'd guess that group is roughly 15% of the population.
The Spy Museum in DC is interesting and a publicly aces sable alternative to the CIA museum.
As is the B&O Museum in Baltimore.
Be sure to call places to see what is open to public. Many places that essentially had open access have clamped down on visitors.
As for recommendations, what to see depends on what you're really interested. Any of the Smithsonian exhibits and the Ester-Hazy at Dulles are great for aerospace or industry buffs.
Most NASA sites have museums; even better if you know someone who works there and can give you a behind the scenes tour.
As a side note, there are also interesting things beyond the usual in most cities - Chicago has some of the world's greatest architecture as well as the best pizza anywhere.
METRA. Runs from downtown and drops you off right by the museum. Very safe and quick.
The only person that can resolve this for you is the government contracting officer. They will have to review the requirements and decide what is an acceptable solution. You can offer up solutions, including keeping the drives in place since the equipment is staying there anyway, but they must make the call.
There hands may be tied by regulations that require physical destruction; in which case you have no choice. They may be able to approve keeping the drives. In the end, they will do whatever keeps them out of trouble; which often is to simply enforce the existing contract requirements. In that case, find a place that meets the destruction requirements. They may want to avoid that but if gov't contracting requirements require it they will do it.
It may sound ridiculous, but whatever you spend on new drives is a lot cheaper in the long run than making life difficult for the contracting officer.
The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" in its own words, and is intended to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" -- i.e. individuals. That individuals "don't have standing" to bring Constitutional issues to the courts is an idea popularized recently by the birther lawsuits, but individual standing wasn't an issue until 1922 -- within the "Constitution dying over the past century" that I mentioned.
Actually, the court has wrestled with this issue long before that. However, it makes perfect constitutional sense to argue that unless the person(s) suing have suffered an injury or loss directly attributable to the actions of the state then they have no standing to sue. To do otherwise gives the court the power to legislate form the bench by deciding policy issues; something left to the Executive and legislative branches. Hence, the concept of standing, as it has evolved, is not a weakening of the Constitution but completely inline with its requirements.
Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.
Except, per your reference, the judge did none of that. He simply stated the lawmakers bringing suit had no standing to do so; they did it as private citizens. The case was not a test of Constitutional powers (which would go to the supremes) but yet another simple case of individuals using the courts to further their agenda.
While the question of what rights does the President have to send troops, in his role of CiC and as a furtherance of his diplomatic powers, and what powers does Congress have to limit such actions is interesting; this was not a test case for that.
This will become yet one more thing some parents use to put unrealistic expectations on their kids. Sure, physical traits determine one's aptitude for sport (DUH); but almost all of us will never play at a level that has any financial impact on our lives; let alone at that elite pro level. Even at the top pro level the competition is so tough that few make a viable career of it.
So now some parents will ratchet up their expectations and further push their kids towards an unrealistic goal. Instead of playing a sport because you enjoy it and reaping the benefits of that, they will be pushed into what they are good at.
Real ability is a lucky combination of physical gifts, mental gifts and hard work. Even within a family one person may have it and another will be at best a journeyman player. Even so, as other's have pointed out a better marker may be having parent and grandparent or two that were world class athletes. Even then, you may just be a regression towards the mean.
Of course, no one ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American public or on the sports parent's willingness to shell out for any edge.
I truly feel sorry for the kids - sports should be fun and a way to socialize; not yet another thing you must compete at and win for your parent's sake.
Now, "GET OFF MY GRASS!!!"
I see that you've conceded your original point, that tablets are too expensive for most people. You even admit you're getting ready to buy one yourself, as soon as the newest, fanciest, most expensive one comes out!!!
thank you for agreeing with me that you were incorrect before.
Nice try, but really wanting something and buying it are two different things; which just gets to my point that tablets are still too expensive for most people.
But thanks for playing anyway, HAND.