When future parents are awaiting their first child, I hope they spend some time to learn how to handle small children.
They can study it all they want, memorizing countless tomes of wisdom on parenting, and it still won't adequately prepare them for parenting. Nothing but the actual experience of raising a child yourself will prepare you for it, regardless of how intelligence you might be. This introduces a bit of a problem, as you probably interpret this idea to mean that no parent on this planet knows what they're doing until they learn from mistakes made along the way.
On that, you'd be absolutely right.
'I disagree - ability is simply the capacity accomplish something; performance is how well you apply your ability. High ability does not necessarily translate into superior performance.'
Almost right. Performance is how you perform relative to maximum performance possible, not relative to your own ability or lack thereof. Therefore while you are correct that high ability does not necessarily translate into superior performance it is also correct that low ability DOES always translate into poor performance. You can't perform if you lack the ability to perform.
Your conclusion (age is a valid discriminator for IT hiring) is still faulty since it's based on a false assumption (younger people have greater cognitive capabilities than older ones).
Ability is not equally distributed at any age level. So to say A has higher ability than B simply because A is younger is incorrect since B could have started at a higher level and still have greater ability than A even though it is less than it once was.
Even if cognitive skills decrease with age there is no fixed age to determine when or even if they fall below that needed to perform a job. Simply because skills decrease does not translate into low ability; they may be less than a person once had but more than adequate to the job and even higher than someone younger.
'You did say:...there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age; which is the point I disagree with since ability does not correlate with performance.'
Ability does relate to performance. Someone with ability can be trained to perform or may already be able to perform. Someone with lesser abilities can only try to compensate but could never match someone who is already at their peak in both areas.
But it is relative abilities that are important. Person A may be at their peak which is lower than B's even though B is older and has lost some ability due to aging.
Your conclusion is based on the faulty assumption that because a person's abilities lessen over time that a younger person automatically has more ability than an older. Since that is not true then age discrimination in hiring is not legitimate since age has no impact on a person's ability to perform the job.
Simply because there is a legitimate basis doesn't mean I agree with it. There is a legitimate basis for using a drug test, or a personality test for hiring purposes as well and I disagree with both practices.
I'm not sure why you keep bring up that you don't agree with using age to discriminate; I realize you never said you did. My issue is with your premise which I think is faulty. For something to be a valid test to discriminate between job applicants there should be a link between job performance and the standard used to vet a candidate.
'You're assuming cognitive ability translates into superior performance and therefore is a rational reason to discriminate.'
Yes, I am assuming cognitive ability translates into superior cognitive performance. I'm assuming nothing else
I disagree - ability is simply the capacity accomplish something; performance is how well you apply your ability. High ability does not necessarily translate into superior performance.
and no point claimed that hiring 22-27yr olds over someone older was actually a good idea.
You did say:...there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age; which is the point I disagree with since ability does not correlate with performance. As a result, age is not a good predictor of performance; and I did realize you did not say age discrimination is a good idea. But even absent such a claim your assumption is not valid and therefore you conclusion erroneous.
Something worth considering is that any such age-sharpness effect, rather than simply dulling the 20-something engineers, will actually have the effect of weeding out the less-good engineers, causing them to turn to management (or whatever). The engineers who become old engineers will be the better ones, and age will additionally equip them with much experience.
As an engineer (who no longer works as an engineer), I disagree with this statement. many engineers leave the profession not because they are not good engineers but for other reasons. For example,perhaps they've discovered something else that interests them more - a number of MD's I've worked with are engineers; as an example. Others want to move up in the organization because they plateau in terms of salary and authority in a company. Some become actors (Big Bird for example); others lawyers. Often it's not lack of skills but the same curiosity about things that drive them to branch out.
'Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.'
Recent research actually shows that mental faculties begin to decline as early in life as the 20's. Kids don't seem sharper, they ARE sharper. That isn't to say that there isn't more to being a good employee or that older individuals don't have their own advantages but there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age.
Staying up to date will never restore your cognitive abilities to the level they were at when you were 22 and they peaked or 27 when they begin to show a measurable decline.
You're assuming cognitive ability translates into superior performance and therefore is a rational reason to discriminate. The ability to do a job well depends not only on talent but on the ability to convert what one knows into a product. Experience provides the skills need to perform, especially when things go wrong or you encounter a slightly different situation; and the only way to gain experience is through experience.
Since IT requires skills beyond cognitive ability I'd say that arguing age discrimination is reasonable is a non-starter.
The lawyer's job is NOT to evaluate your best course of action that balances your wishes to keep the material with your wishes not to be sued. The lawyer will only do two things: (1) advise you to minimize your risks; (2) represent you if you keep the material up.
After consulting the lawyer on this question, you'll be none the wiser but you'll be poorer.
Actually, such advice from a lawyer makes sense because they are limiting your potential liability if you lose without limiting your ability to fight.
You can still fight to keep it up; if you win you really lost nothing except visibility of the post while you were in court; if you lose you've taken actions to mitigate damages to the copyright holder.
A good lawyer may say "This isn't worth it - it'll cost a lot of money do you really want to proceed?, I think you'll lose and spend a lot of money in the process, or a court will probably order you take it down during the trial so it's better to do it now;" but that is part of their job - to explain the situation, possible outcomes and help you decide what to do
I love articles that proclaim the impending death of $TECHNOLOGY just because you can now use some other device as a half-assed supplement.
Yeah, I really want to be lying on the couch underneath a blanket, and fiddling with/rolling over onto my touchscreen smartphone. Also, show me a smartphone that has the battery life of a good old remote control that can last for months or more.
Not only that, but my universal remote has real buttons that I can navigate in the dark easily; doesn't walk out the room when I leave; and can be use by somebody else while I am on a call.
You are right - just because some new tech can sorta do what existing tech can does mean it will replace it. A IR smartpone could also replace you car key as a remote - I don't see that happening very soon either.
The other biggest problem with the Navy is the foolish insistence on having private shipyards build warships. The idea of having private shipyards is certainly sound - but ultimately, Naval warships are rather nothing like their civilian counterparts and so its not really right to say that privatization makes any sense. The Navy really does need to operate its own yards, take on its own construction, and just clear out some of the cost overruns and red tape as contractors want projects to overrun, but the Navy wants its ships sooner rather than later.
The Navy had it's own yards for years but eventually closed them. Political considerations aside; building ships is a very specialized skill and we build so few of them that it makes sense for the private sector to do it since their yards can also be used for commercial construction (very little) or emergency repairs to commercial vessels to help cover the huge fixed costs.
While I agree cost overruns are an issue; to a certain extent costs are hard to fix. A commercial ship comes in and says "fix my port hydraulic pump" - you can pretty accurately assess that cost. A naval vessel says - open and inspect; fix what is needed - so you don't know what will be needed until the ship gets in the yards. Or, the STE comes in and says "let's run the scheduled test" and for whatever reason the ship is not ready - someone got sick; is out on emergency leave; you've been up 40+ hours straight, fighting several fires at once and can't concentrate on the test like you should so you're not ready; or a piece of gear broke and you're late setting up - the Navy picks up the tab for the delay. Add in change orders and costs go up. I'm not saying cost overruns are always reasonable; just that to certain extent they are unavoidable.
Anybody who has served in the USN would know that anything which might have happened in 2003 to a given ship is completely irrelevant, since there is nearly zero change that anyone who had served on board that ship in 2003 would still be on board that same ship in 2009.
Actually, it is possible - leave the boat in 04 or 05, do two years ashore and then get orders back. Not likely, but you could probably convince a detailer to let you do it; especially if you reenlist.
Care to explain to a land rat, how this is even possible?
As far as I know, they always know exactly what their distance to the surroundings are, don't they? So did they ignore the displays? Are there proximity warnings that go off? Were they ignored?
Did they not know, that a large ship was above them? Really?
Or did they know, but not watch the distance?
Navigation at sea, in general is a much art as science. Maneuvering in close quarters, even in a calm sea, is very challenging because:
you really don't know exactly how close you are or the relative speeds of the two vessels
you don't know what the other guy will do next
add to that being submerged where all you have to go on is what you can determine from sonar and through a tiny periscope and you just magnify the problem. Then, be in waters where that are restricted in your ability to maneuver and stay away from other ships and well...
I wonder why both transited at the same time' perhaps the Straits of Hormuz are so busy that the choice was transit with a US Naval Vessel or take your chances with some random cargo vessel.
I don't get it... Sorry...
In my mind, I always have this picture of a really drunk crew, with an even more drunk captain. And as far as I know, military people (at least in Germany and Poland) drink in every free minute. ^^
I'd love to be shown how wrong I am.:)
The US Navy is a dry Navy - no booze at sea. We can thank Josephus Daniels who issued General Order 99; and is credited with being the namesake for a "cup of Joe" i.e. hot coffee being the strongest drink at sea.
Then full 24x36 frame sensors on a tiny compact cameras (they used to fit such a film sensor, plus a roll, plus the winding space in much smaller cameras than the current crop of 7x9mm sensors).
Cost - both in sensor and lens would drive most P&S with such a setup out of the market. The P&S market is aimed at the casual shooter who wants to something that is easy to carry and can take decent snapshots; and is cheap.
Film cameras did that because 35mm was a standard size readily available and the price of film, unlike a sensor, was not included in the camera price so manufacturers did not have to worry about that cost when consumers made a buying choice.
As was the case in the 35mm film days, the cameras that are best are the ones with the good lenses and good auto focus mechanisms. Secondary are good light meters. The pixel density is definitely high enough at 12M. At the start of digital photography, the CCD was definitely the primary bottleneck for picture quality. But those days are definitively over.
I disaggre - good light metering is critical to get a good shot; but I can manually set focus by setting the DOF via f-stop and let the light meter take care of shutter speed.
Alternatively, I can set shutter speed and f-stop to get the desired DOF and not worry about focus.
Either situation allows for thows shots where you don't have time to fiddle with settings - prefocus on a spot, set DOF and go to town.
Yeah, the D-300 sounds sweet and would handle very well anything that I would ever want to do with a camera. But at a minimum of $600 for the camera body plus $600 for each lens -- well, let's just say it's a little out of my budget right now. I know many pro photographers swear by the Nikon, but can't I take as good a quality of picture for less money with a Canon digital camera body and lenses? (I'm talking price/performance here, please no Nikon vs. Canon religious wars.) The problem is, once you choose one manufacturer, you are stuck with them because as far as I know the lenses and other accessories are not interchangeable between manufacturers.
Either system is good - I happen to use Canon because the dREB was the first dSLR I could afford.
There's a lot of good used stuff out there; a number of my lens are used and work just fine. www.keh.com is a good place to get an idea of prices, B&HPhoto and Adorama are also reliable sources.
I'd advise the same people who buy $1000 cameras to buy a book on photography or a 2 hour lesson on the basics. I've seen people carrying and using big-money cameras; I've seen them position people in front of windows with the sun pouring in and witnessed the black siloette pictures they produce. It seems such a waste.
Excellent point - any tool is useless if you don't know how to properly use it. Some basic understanding of the fundamentals of photography will make a big difference in the results
I'd also recommend going to the library and looking at magazines that feature the type of photography you plan to do. Study the composition, lighting, etc. so you get some ideas of what works and then try that in your shots.
A person who understands what they are doing can get great pictures from $300 glass. Not pro quality, but damn good. The problem is people who invest in this setup and assume it will solve all of their problems automatically.
I agree, in the end it is the photographer that makes the difference; not the camera. It wasn't a knock at someone with an inexpensive lens. I've been there when all I could afford was an inexpensive lens.
\
A great lens in the hands of a poor photographer won't result in better pictures; the reverse will.
My point was I often see people buying an expensive body and then scrimp on the lens; I think it is better to spend more on a lens and less on the body.
One thing the Intertubes has done is allow people to fact check for themselves and ferret out myths and hoaxes, I would think it would be a tendency of involved jurors to do the same for information presented to them at trial.
Yes, the web is such a great collection of verified information and reliable sources that we can all rely on to ensure we are informed
I think the people who would drop a K on the biggest MP number are also most likely to be the ones taking pictures of junior's T-ball games and birthday parties, and probably not people who especially care about the quality of the picture in the same terms that a "prosumer" photog would.
I'm amazed at the number of people I see with an 1K dSLR body and a $300 lens (usually a 50 - 300 zoom); and then complain about the quality of their pictures.
Of course, those are generally the same people that see my setup and say "What a nice camera; I bet it takes great pictures."
I advise people to spend 2/3's of their budget on glass and the rest on a body; especially since glass is an investment beyond the body. I suggest last year's dSLR body at fire sale prices is a better bet since you can always upgrade later; and most year or two old bodies are good enough for most uses. Heck, my original dReb is still a great camera.
The megapixel wars may be drawing to a close, but they sure aren't doing it at 12 mp. Canon's 50D prvides 15mp in an APS-C sensor size, which is pretty tight, but users are achieving excellent results at that density... it just takes decent lenses, of which there are plenty in the Canon line.
15mp in APS-C format is a square sensel of about 4.6 m.
Canon's 5DmkII, on the other hand, is a full frame sensor, and it sports a whopping 21 mp... and does so by only going to 6.4 m, so there's quite a bit of room left there.
The 50D's got some noise issues, but the 5DmkII is a quiet design and they've clearly got some room to go.
So I think Olympus is actually saying that they can't, or don't want to, compete in the remaining space in the megapixel wars; withdrawal, if you will, rather than an actual end.
I think what they are saying is the image quality is to the point that even a serious hobbyist is not going to see much difference between 12mp and higher densities; especially with noise tradeoffs inherent in such designs.
\\
Instead, they are focusing on things like dynamic range, noise reduction and color accuracy to produce results that will have a noticeable impact on the end result.
I tend to agree with them. My 40d has enough pixel density crops show no noticeable pixelation. Higher dynamic range and better high ISO noise performance would be valuable and add some versatility to the camera.
Sensor density will increase; but it'll probably be at the high end pro level where you see increased density simply because off their needs and willingness to pay a premium for the sensor quality needed to give the desired results. That's a different market than the hobbyist or even normal working pro doing studio work and maybe high school sports where price is a serious consideration.
Translation: Control is more important than productivity.
I think it would be a lot harder for this guy to have made his point without such an extreme example.
While I agree the example was extreme, the point was valid.
It's not about control but about creating a product that is sustainable over the course of its life. That requires code that can be understood and troubleshot by others; not just the author. As was pointed out in TFA; Josh's code may have been the casue of teh problem from teh start.
The ability to write code that works quickly is not genius, it's the mark of an idiot savant. Real genius is writing tight code that works and can be understood by others.
Despite the pain of rewriting the code once Josh left I bet the company was better off in the long run because they had fewer customer complaints and when they did they could actually fix the problem without dealing with Josh.
The "Josh" you're referring to has management pissing in their pants.
They let him get away without documenting one program and he'll keep his job forever.
He purposely obfuscates his work to prevent anyone else from doing it. Management knows he holds the keys and they are scared of him.
Management doesn't know much about programming.
On the flip-side, should you really maintain documentation that will make it easier for someone else to do your job? Professionally, yes. But the way employers treat programmers, I'd say Josh was ensuring his job security.
Maybe, but it also means the first chance they have to fire him they will; and nobody will argue he should be kept.
If he is in fact harassing other employees they may find it necessary to fire him just to avoid a lawsuit.
Sounds like Dr. House for developers. People think because they are smart and/or great at their craft they can basically do anything they want. This ties back to the/. article about the younger generation being more narcissistic than ever. Shows like 'House' glorify it and apparently make people think it is okay to be an asshole as long as you get the job done.
What those people don't realize is as soon as the organization perceives their value is less than their douchbaggery they are curt lose. I've seen it happen, an guess what - the organization survives just fine and the rest of the staff is grateful.
Very few people truly have the rare talents that lets them get away with such crap for an extended period of time.
While it is nice to have the genius that can perform wonders; the truth is most organizations can be quite successful with a set of bright, hardworking people who like what they do, are rewarded for good work and treated fairly.
Despite the stereotypes of managers perpetuated on/., many realize that their role is to help their employees succeed and deliver quality work. The really good ones want people on their team that are the brightest and best (and play nice together or at least fake it well); because that makes their job easier and everyone wins.
Slashdot Mirror
When future parents are awaiting their first child, I hope they spend some time to learn how to handle small children.
They can study it all they want, memorizing countless tomes of wisdom on parenting, and it still won't adequately prepare them for parenting. Nothing but the actual experience of raising a child yourself will prepare you for it, regardless of how intelligence you might be. This introduces a bit of a problem, as you probably interpret this idea to mean that no parent on this planet knows what they're doing until they learn from mistakes made along the way. On that, you'd be absolutely right.
And they will never again say:
"My child will never do that..."
Crow, it tastes so good...
'I disagree - ability is simply the capacity accomplish something; performance is how well you apply your ability. High ability does not necessarily translate into superior performance.'
Almost right. Performance is how you perform relative to maximum performance possible, not relative to your own ability or lack thereof. Therefore while you are correct that high ability does not necessarily translate into superior performance it is also correct that low ability DOES always translate into poor performance. You can't perform if you lack the ability to perform.
Your conclusion (age is a valid discriminator for IT hiring) is still faulty since it's based on a false assumption (younger people have greater cognitive capabilities than older ones).
Ability is not equally distributed at any age level. So to say A has higher ability than B simply because A is younger is incorrect since B could have started at a higher level and still have greater ability than A even though it is less than it once was.
Even if cognitive skills decrease with age there is no fixed age to determine when or even if they fall below that needed to perform a job. Simply because skills decrease does not translate into low ability; they may be less than a person once had but more than adequate to the job and even higher than someone younger.
'You did say: ...there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age; which is the point I disagree with since ability does not correlate with performance.'
Ability does relate to performance. Someone with ability can be trained to perform or may already be able to perform. Someone with lesser abilities can only try to compensate but could never match someone who is already at their peak in both areas.
But it is relative abilities that are important. Person A may be at their peak which is lower than B's even though B is older and has lost some ability due to aging.
Your conclusion is based on the faulty assumption that because a person's abilities lessen over time that a younger person automatically has more ability than an older. Since that is not true then age discrimination in hiring is not legitimate since age has no impact on a person's ability to perform the job.
Simply because there is a legitimate basis doesn't mean I agree with it. There is a legitimate basis for using a drug test, or a personality test for hiring purposes as well and I disagree with both practices.
I'm not sure why you keep bring up that you don't agree with using age to discriminate; I realize you never said you did. My issue is with your premise which I think is faulty. For something to be a valid test to discriminate between job applicants there should be a link between job performance and the standard used to vet a candidate.
'You're assuming cognitive ability translates into superior performance and therefore is a rational reason to discriminate.'
Yes, I am assuming cognitive ability translates into superior cognitive performance. I'm assuming nothing else
I disagree - ability is simply the capacity accomplish something; performance is how well you apply your ability. High ability does not necessarily translate into superior performance.
and no point claimed that hiring 22-27yr olds over someone older was actually a good idea.
You did say: ...there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age; which is the point I disagree with since ability does not correlate with performance. As a result, age is not a good predictor of performance; and I did realize you did not say age discrimination is a good idea. But even absent such a claim your assumption is not valid and therefore you conclusion erroneous.
Something worth considering is that any such age-sharpness effect, rather than simply dulling the 20-something engineers, will actually have the effect of weeding out the less-good engineers, causing them to turn to management (or whatever). The engineers who become old engineers will be the better ones, and age will additionally equip them with much experience.
As an engineer (who no longer works as an engineer), I disagree with this statement. many engineers leave the profession not because they are not good engineers but for other reasons. For example,perhaps they've discovered something else that interests them more - a number of MD's I've worked with are engineers; as an example. Others want to move up in the organization because they plateau in terms of salary and authority in a company. Some become actors (Big Bird for example); others lawyers. Often it's not lack of skills but the same curiosity about things that drive them to branch out.
'Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.'
Recent research actually shows that mental faculties begin to decline as early in life as the 20's. Kids don't seem sharper, they ARE sharper. That isn't to say that there isn't more to being a good employee or that older individuals don't have their own advantages but there is a basis for IT discrimination based on age.
Staying up to date will never restore your cognitive abilities to the level they were at when you were 22 and they peaked or 27 when they begin to show a measurable decline.
You're assuming cognitive ability translates into superior performance and therefore is a rational reason to discriminate. The ability to do a job well depends not only on talent but on the ability to convert what one knows into a product. Experience provides the skills need to perform, especially when things go wrong or you encounter a slightly different situation; and the only way to gain experience is through experience.
Since IT requires skills beyond cognitive ability I'd say that arguing age discrimination is reasonable is a non-starter.
The lawyer's job is NOT to evaluate your best course of action that balances your wishes to keep the material with your wishes not to be sued. The lawyer will only do two things: (1) advise you to minimize your risks; (2) represent you if you keep the material up.
After consulting the lawyer on this question, you'll be none the wiser but you'll be poorer.
Actually, such advice from a lawyer makes sense because they are limiting your potential liability if you lose without limiting your ability to fight.
You can still fight to keep it up; if you win you really lost nothing except visibility of the post while you were in court; if you lose you've taken actions to mitigate damages to the copyright holder.
A good lawyer may say "This isn't worth it - it'll cost a lot of money do you really want to proceed?, I think you'll lose and spend a lot of money in the process, or a court will probably order you take it down during the trial so it's better to do it now;" but that is part of their job - to explain the situation, possible outcomes and help you decide what to do
Proof that Europe sucks and anyone of intelligence should move to the US.
Do they still charge to receive texts in America?
Not beyond the basic per month charge for unlimited texting - is texting included free in Europe now?
I love articles that proclaim the impending death of $TECHNOLOGY just because you can now use some other device as a half-assed supplement.
Yeah, I really want to be lying on the couch underneath a blanket, and fiddling with/rolling over onto my touchscreen smartphone. Also, show me a smartphone that has the battery life of a good old remote control that can last for months or more.
Not only that, but my universal remote has real buttons that I can navigate in the dark easily; doesn't walk out the room when I leave; and can be use by somebody else while I am on a call.
You are right - just because some new tech can sorta do what existing tech can does mean it will replace it. A IR smartpone could also replace you car key as a remote - I don't see that happening very soon either.
I
The other biggest problem with the Navy is the foolish insistence on having private shipyards build warships. The idea of having private shipyards is certainly sound - but ultimately, Naval warships are rather nothing like their civilian counterparts and so its not really right to say that privatization makes any sense. The Navy really does need to operate its own yards, take on its own construction, and just clear out some of the cost overruns and red tape as contractors want projects to overrun, but the Navy wants its ships sooner rather than later.
The Navy had it's own yards for years but eventually closed them. Political considerations aside; building ships is a very specialized skill and we build so few of them that it makes sense for the private sector to do it since their yards can also be used for commercial construction (very little) or emergency repairs to commercial vessels to help cover the huge fixed costs.
While I agree cost overruns are an issue; to a certain extent costs are hard to fix. A commercial ship comes in and says "fix my port hydraulic pump" - you can pretty accurately assess that cost. A naval vessel says - open and inspect; fix what is needed - so you don't know what will be needed until the ship gets in the yards. Or, the STE comes in and says "let's run the scheduled test" and for whatever reason the ship is not ready - someone got sick; is out on emergency leave; you've been up 40+ hours straight, fighting several fires at once and can't concentrate on the test like you should so you're not ready; or a piece of gear broke and you're late setting up - the Navy picks up the tab for the delay. Add in change orders and costs go up. I'm not saying cost overruns are always reasonable; just that to certain extent they are unavoidable.
Anybody who has served in the USN would know that anything which might have happened in 2003 to a given ship is completely irrelevant, since there is nearly zero change that anyone who had served on board that ship in 2003 would still be on board that same ship in 2009.
Actually, it is possible - leave the boat in 04 or 05, do two years ashore and then get orders back. Not likely, but you could probably convince a detailer to let you do it; especially if you reenlist.
Care to explain to a land rat, how this is even possible?
As far as I know, they always know exactly what their distance to the surroundings are, don't they? So did they ignore the displays? Are there proximity warnings that go off? Were they ignored?
Did they not know, that a large ship was above them? Really? Or did they know, but not watch the distance?
Navigation at sea, in general is a much art as science. Maneuvering in close quarters, even in a calm sea, is very challenging because:
you really don't know exactly how close you are or the relative speeds of the two vessels
you don't know what the other guy will do next
add to that being submerged where all you have to go on is what you can determine from sonar and through a tiny periscope and you just magnify the problem. Then, be in waters where that are restricted in your ability to maneuver and stay away from other ships and well...
I wonder why both transited at the same time' perhaps the Straits of Hormuz are so busy that the choice was transit with a US Naval Vessel or take your chances with some random cargo vessel.
I don't get it... Sorry... In my mind, I always have this picture of a really drunk crew, with an even more drunk captain. And as far as I know, military people (at least in Germany and Poland) drink in every free minute. ^^
I'd love to be shown how wrong I am. :)
The US Navy is a dry Navy - no booze at sea. We can thank Josephus Daniels who issued General Order 99; and is credited with being the namesake for a "cup of Joe" i.e. hot coffee being the strongest drink at sea.
Then full 24x36 frame sensors on a tiny compact cameras (they used to fit such a film sensor, plus a roll, plus the winding space in much smaller cameras than the current crop of 7x9mm sensors).
Cost - both in sensor and lens would drive most P&S with such a setup out of the market. The P&S market is aimed at the casual shooter who wants to something that is easy to carry and can take decent snapshots; and is cheap.
Film cameras did that because 35mm was a standard size readily available and the price of film, unlike a sensor, was not included in the camera price so manufacturers did not have to worry about that cost when consumers made a buying choice.
As was the case in the 35mm film days, the cameras that are best are the ones with the good lenses and good auto focus mechanisms. Secondary are good light meters. The pixel density is definitely high enough at 12M. At the start of digital photography, the CCD was definitely the primary bottleneck for picture quality. But those days are definitively over.
I disaggre - good light metering is critical to get a good shot; but I can manually set focus by setting the DOF via f-stop and let the light meter take care of shutter speed.
Alternatively, I can set shutter speed and f-stop to get the desired DOF and not worry about focus.
Either situation allows for thows shots where you don't have time to fiddle with settings - prefocus on a spot, set DOF and go to town.
Yeah, the D-300 sounds sweet and would handle very well anything that I would ever want to do with a camera. But at a minimum of $600 for the camera body plus $600 for each lens -- well, let's just say it's a little out of my budget right now. I know many pro photographers swear by the Nikon, but can't I take as good a quality of picture for less money with a Canon digital camera body and lenses? (I'm talking price/performance here, please no Nikon vs. Canon religious wars.) The problem is, once you choose one manufacturer, you are stuck with them because as far as I know the lenses and other accessories are not interchangeable between manufacturers.
Either system is good - I happen to use Canon because the dREB was the first dSLR I could afford.
There's a lot of good used stuff out there; a number of my lens are used and work just fine. www.keh.com is a good place to get an idea of prices, B&HPhoto and Adorama are also reliable sources.
I'd advise the same people who buy $1000 cameras to buy a book on photography or a 2 hour lesson on the basics. I've seen people carrying and using big-money cameras; I've seen them position people in front of windows with the sun pouring in and witnessed the black siloette pictures they produce. It seems such a waste.
Excellent point - any tool is useless if you don't know how to properly use it. Some basic understanding of the fundamentals of photography will make a big difference in the results
I'd also recommend going to the library and looking at magazines that feature the type of photography you plan to do. Study the composition, lighting, etc. so you get some ideas of what works and then try that in your shots.
A person who understands what they are doing can get great pictures from $300 glass. Not pro quality, but damn good. The problem is people who invest in this setup and assume it will solve all of their problems automatically.
I agree, in the end it is the photographer that makes the difference; not the camera. It wasn't a knock at someone with an inexpensive lens. I've been there when all I could afford was an inexpensive lens.
\
A great lens in the hands of a poor photographer won't result in better pictures; the reverse will.
My point was I often see people buying an expensive body and then scrimp on the lens; I think it is better to spend more on a lens and less on the body.
One thing the Intertubes has done is allow people to fact check for themselves and ferret out myths and hoaxes, I would think it would be a tendency of involved jurors to do the same for information presented to them at trial.
Yes, the web is such a great collection of verified information and reliable sources that we can all rely on to ensure we are informed
as a long time rocketeer, it's nice to see us win one.
And, to take it one step further, buy a zoom for convenience, but prime lenses (i.e. one focal length) for quality and learn how to use them.
I agree - I have a couple of nice primes, but find my 80-200 F.8L is so good that I rarely use my 100; but at 55 you can't beat a good prime.
I think the people who would drop a K on the biggest MP number are also most likely to be the ones taking pictures of junior's T-ball games and birthday parties, and probably not people who especially care about the quality of the picture in the same terms that a "prosumer" photog would.
I'm amazed at the number of people I see with an 1K dSLR body and a $300 lens (usually a 50 - 300 zoom); and then complain about the quality of their pictures.
Of course, those are generally the same people that see my setup and say "What a nice camera; I bet it takes great pictures."
I advise people to spend 2/3's of their budget on glass and the rest on a body; especially since glass is an investment beyond the body. I suggest last year's dSLR body at fire sale prices is a better bet since you can always upgrade later; and most year or two old bodies are good enough for most uses. Heck, my original dReb is still a great camera.
The megapixel wars may be drawing to a close, but they sure aren't doing it at 12 mp. Canon's 50D prvides 15mp in an APS-C sensor size, which is pretty tight, but users are achieving excellent results at that density... it just takes decent lenses, of which there are plenty in the Canon line.
15mp in APS-C format is a square sensel of about 4.6 m.
Canon's 5DmkII, on the other hand, is a full frame sensor, and it sports a whopping 21 mp... and does so by only going to 6.4 m, so there's quite a bit of room left there.
The 50D's got some noise issues, but the 5DmkII is a quiet design and they've clearly got some room to go.
So I think Olympus is actually saying that they can't, or don't want to, compete in the remaining space in the megapixel wars; withdrawal, if you will, rather than an actual end.
I think what they are saying is the image quality is to the point that even a serious hobbyist is not going to see much difference between 12mp and higher densities; especially with noise tradeoffs inherent in such designs.
\\
Instead, they are focusing on things like dynamic range, noise reduction and color accuracy to produce results that will have a noticeable impact on the end result.
I tend to agree with them. My 40d has enough pixel density crops show no noticeable pixelation. Higher dynamic range and better high ISO noise performance would be valuable and add some versatility to the camera.
Sensor density will increase; but it'll probably be at the high end pro level where you see increased density simply because off their needs and willingness to pay a premium for the sensor quality needed to give the desired results. That's a different market than the hobbyist or even normal working pro doing studio work and maybe high school sports where price is a serious consideration.
Translation: Control is more important than productivity.
I think it would be a lot harder for this guy to have made his point without such an extreme example.
While I agree the example was extreme, the point was valid.
It's not about control but about creating a product that is sustainable over the course of its life. That requires code that can be understood and troubleshot by others; not just the author. As was pointed out in TFA; Josh's code may have been the casue of teh problem from teh start.
The ability to write code that works quickly is not genius, it's the mark of an idiot savant. Real genius is writing tight code that works and can be understood by others.
Despite the pain of rewriting the code once Josh left I bet the company was better off in the long run because they had fewer customer complaints and when they did they could actually fix the problem without dealing with Josh.
The "Josh" you're referring to has management pissing in their pants.
They let him get away without documenting one program and he'll keep his job forever.
He purposely obfuscates his work to prevent anyone else from doing it. Management knows he holds the keys and they are scared of him.
Management doesn't know much about programming.
On the flip-side, should you really maintain documentation that will make it easier for someone else to do your job? Professionally, yes. But the way employers treat programmers, I'd say Josh was ensuring his job security.
Maybe, but it also means the first chance they have to fire him they will; and nobody will argue he should be kept.
If he is in fact harassing other employees they may find it necessary to fire him just to avoid a lawsuit.
Sounds like Dr. House for developers. People think because they are smart and/or great at their craft they can basically do anything they want. This ties back to the /. article about the younger generation being more narcissistic than ever. Shows like 'House' glorify it and apparently make people think it is okay to be an asshole as long as you get the job done.
What those people don't realize is as soon as the organization perceives their value is less than their douchbaggery they are curt lose. I've seen it happen, an guess what - the organization survives just fine and the rest of the staff is grateful.
Very few people truly have the rare talents that lets them get away with such crap for an extended period of time.
While it is nice to have the genius that can perform wonders; the truth is most organizations can be quite successful with a set of bright, hardworking people who like what they do, are rewarded for good work and treated fairly.
Despite the stereotypes of managers perpetuated on /., many realize that their role is to help their employees succeed and deliver quality work. The really good ones want people on their team that are the brightest and best (and play nice together or at least fake it well); because that makes their job easier and everyone wins.
your right, I had considered them, but in a pressurized vessel the corners would be a stress riser
True,but why would a sewer be pressurized?