So saving money by buying only the songs you want (I assume it's like iTunes, etc, where you pay per song instead of buying a whole album) is laziness?
Get off your high horse, if you could order something and get it instantly (or within a few seconds/minutes) instead of going out to a store to get it, you would too.
Now that I've actually read the article instead of making a lame attempt at a first post, I have a question.
The article mentions the service is free (well, included "free" in tuition) and anyone on campus is eligble to use it. It then goes on to say that for a fee you can burn it to CD. So... is it free to download the music and play it on your computer, and you only pay to burn it to CD? And if so, what kind of format are they using and also what kind of DRM?
This is old news, I was using Napster years ago. And back then it was free! Of course, we had to walk 15 miles uphill both ways in snow to get our music over a 9600 baud connection...
I don't know how to use Photoshop eh? I've only been using it for over 7 years, both as a hobby and professionally. I find that actually developing film and enlarging prints is more of an artform than bringing it into the computer where you can play with it all you like without having to sacrifice costs.
I used the terms "Brightness/contrast, levels, etc" as a generalization. While professional (or anyone who knows what they're doing) digital photographers would know better, the average consumer who might touch up their photos in PS aren't going to know how to work them. And please, tell me, how can you extract more quality from film by going digital? You lose quality going from film -> digital. Plain and simple. (not to mention film also contains MUCH more info than any consumer available (ie, under at least $1,000USD) than any digital camera). Also, my point was that the "darkroom" is a more hands on approach. Working with hardcopy requires that you know quite a bit more, BECAUSE THERE IS NO UNDO. You could lose a whole roll of film due to improper development procedure. Same with enlarging (though you lose paper, not the negatives, which can be just as costly).
I never said digital photography is an invalid medium, so I didn't fall into any trap. I've used Photoshop and I've done film development and enlarging just as long, so I'm pretty qualified to say I know what I'm talking about.
I never delete my spam. Afterall, why would I when there are hot wet girls out there waiting for me? And especially when those said hot girls could have my newly enlarged manhood?
Okay, I don't really get your post. You seem to claim film will be gone, but then you go on to talk about negative experiences with digital. Shouldn't that help the cause of film? That's one reason professionals and artists still use film, they don't have to dick around with technology changing every couple of months.
Kodak knows where the money is to be made - that's why they are killing the film line.
No, they're killing THEIR film CAMERA line. Not their film line, or film in general. They're just one of many companies that make film and film cameras. (And they make poor film and paper if you ask me)
They may be imprecise, but they do exist. It's just hard to explain what makes film superior (in my mind).
I happen to find black and white superior to color photography. With black and white you have to worry more about form, lighting, and whatnot. That's personal opinion, and there are MANY out there who share that opinion, so you can't argue that your "camera with tunable spectral response from ULF radio to X-rays, with spatial resolution sufficient for holography and a dynamic range exceeding the human eye" is better than a 35 mm camera shooting black and white because it's all opinion. And as long as there is opinion, various options (film, digital, etc) will be available.
Good point. A point many people don't realise. Also, digital cameras often get an unnatural tint to their pictures, some yellow, some blueish, etc. The yellow tint on my digital camera does not add warmth but instead just makes the picture appear dirty.
I personally do not care for Kodak film. (Well, black and white film at least).
It seemed to be a bit more grainy and also seemed to lack the contrast of what I'm used to (Ilford HP5).
Anyone else think the same? Or can suggest some alternative (I'm always looking for something new) film I might like given that I like Ilford HP5?
I couldn't agree more.
For day to day photography and the average consumer, digital is the way to go.
However, for more "artistic" photography, film is a great way to go. It's not just about the actual taking of the pictures, but also the developing of the film and the enlarging of prints. I for one enjoy the process, and it takes quite a bit more skill than just dumping the pictures into Photoshop and adjusting brightness/contrast, levels and colors and whatnot. It's also quite a bit more hands on, which I like. It's also quite a bit more expensive in the long run (cost of film, paper, developing chemicals, enlarging equipment, etc), which is why digital is superior for your average pictures of say, parties, family gatherings, and the like.
I am however, waiting for the price of the digital SLR cameras to go down in price, as now that I am not in school, I don't have access to a darkroom and all the enlarging equipment/chemicals. I have a Canon AT1, and all the lenses I have would be compatible with the Canon EOS Rebel Digital. Just more cost efficient, even though I'd lose the fun of developing and enlarging, but I'm sure more serious photographers would gladly take the cost hit to develop and enlarge.
Re:And here I thought it was going to be about...
on
Growing Up With Lucy
·
· Score: 1
I was hoping it'd be about Lucy, that fossil they found awhile back.
In Milwaukee it's 50 for Road Runner (cable) if you don't have cable TV, and it's 40 if you do have some sort of cable TV service. No contract, just monthly. I think it's 15 dollars a month extra per additional IP.
Erm, if someone on Slashdot (or any normal person) thought of this idea, do you really think they DIDN'T consider it?
I mean for the love of god, as someone already said, how can you call people who sent a semi-autonomous robot through space to land on another planet stupid? (Which might I add, entails strapping a machine with sensitive equipment onto a massive, giant, firework. It then has to survive extremely violent vibrations during launch, which involves igniting thousands and thousands of pounds of propellant. Then it needs to survive radation and other nasties out in space. Then it has to go through an atmosphere (a weaker one than ours, but an atmosphere nonetheless) and survive extreme heat buildup, only to have a parachute be released which produces a short burst of extreme G's (or whatever you'd get from a quick, violent slowdown, and I could be wrong, I just assume it would be pretty violent), and then, on top of all that, it could bounce on inflated airbags for miles until it finally comes to a rest near, if not on the target zone, unfolds, and then sends pictures and other data back to Earth? Yeah, they're stupid allright.)
Perhaps wipers would have scratched dust or the equivelant of sand across the solar panels worse than just the wind. Or maybe the wind is enough to keep them operating until other parts of the machine fail.
I used to have the same problem. I trained myself however by staring at a wall at least twice as far away as the actual image you want to look at. Keep staring at the wall for a bit until you can sort of "feel" the position of your eyes. That may sound kind of confusing but think of it just as you know what direction you're looking even though the eyes are closed, only this is for more of what you're trying to focus on. I find if you can sort of feel the position ( as in focusing) your eyes are in you can have more control over them. Then, try and think about something else as you slowly slide the image in front of your eyes, all the while trying to maintain your eye position. You'll have to play around a bit with distances of the wall, image and whatnot, but that's how I trained myself.
As for smiling and stuff, I can fake it, but it looks horribly unnatural, as is the case with most people, I can almost always tell when they're faking a smile or some other emotion. Are you saying you actually cannot physically form the smile shape of your mouth? That I've never heard of. Also, for the hot stove, I used to be the same way. We were making a fire once in an indoor fireplace (it was actually one of those cylindrical ones that aren't stone or built into the wall) when the logs started falling and hit the gate, knocking it off the fireplace. I had to reach the gate, and hold it in place (basically just pushing on it with my palms) while the fire and burning embers starting hitting my palms. Finally my friend got something to keep the gate in place so that we could put out the fire. I got some minor burns on my hand, nothing to go the hospital over, so it wasn't too bad. Ever since then, I've been able to consciencly put my hand on a hot stove (though I don't, it's just an analogy).
What about sending back thumbnailed or greyscale images and then having the option of telling it which to send back? Is that currently in use? Sure, you're using bandwidth, but maybe it would still be more efficient?
Slashdot Mirror
So saving money by buying only the songs you want (I assume it's like iTunes, etc, where you pay per song instead of buying a whole album) is laziness?
Get off your high horse, if you could order something and get it instantly (or within a few seconds/minutes) instead of going out to a store to get it, you would too.
I've been trolled.
Now that I've actually read the article instead of making a lame attempt at a first post, I have a question.
The article mentions the service is free (well, included "free" in tuition) and anyone on campus is eligble to use it. It then goes on to say that for a fee you can burn it to CD. So... is it free to download the music and play it on your computer, and you only pay to burn it to CD? And if so, what kind of format are they using and also what kind of DRM?
This is old news, I was using Napster years ago. And back then it was free! Of course, we had to walk 15 miles uphill both ways in snow to get our music over a 9600 baud connection...
Bah, I got nothing.
I don't know how to use Photoshop eh? I've only been using it for over 7 years, both as a hobby and professionally. I find that actually developing film and enlarging prints is more of an artform than bringing it into the computer where you can play with it all you like without having to sacrifice costs.
I used the terms "Brightness/contrast, levels, etc" as a generalization. While professional (or anyone who knows what they're doing) digital photographers would know better, the average consumer who might touch up their photos in PS aren't going to know how to work them. And please, tell me, how can you extract more quality from film by going digital? You lose quality going from film -> digital. Plain and simple. (not to mention film also contains MUCH more info than any consumer available (ie, under at least $1,000USD) than any digital camera). Also, my point was that the "darkroom" is a more hands on approach. Working with hardcopy requires that you know quite a bit more, BECAUSE THERE IS NO UNDO. You could lose a whole roll of film due to improper development procedure. Same with enlarging (though you lose paper, not the negatives, which can be just as costly).
I never said digital photography is an invalid medium, so I didn't fall into any trap. I've used Photoshop and I've done film development and enlarging just as long, so I'm pretty qualified to say I know what I'm talking about.
I never delete my spam. Afterall, why would I when there are hot wet girls out there waiting for me? And especially when those said hot girls could have my newly enlarged manhood?
Okay, I don't really get your post. You seem to claim film will be gone, but then you go on to talk about negative experiences with digital. Shouldn't that help the cause of film? That's one reason professionals and artists still use film, they don't have to dick around with technology changing every couple of months.
Kodak knows where the money is to be made - that's why they are killing the film line.
No, they're killing THEIR film CAMERA line. Not their film line, or film in general. They're just one of many companies that make film and film cameras. (And they make poor film and paper if you ask me)
(and many other imprecise, emotional adjectives)
They may be imprecise, but they do exist. It's just hard to explain what makes film superior (in my mind).
I happen to find black and white superior to color photography. With black and white you have to worry more about form, lighting, and whatnot. That's personal opinion, and there are MANY out there who share that opinion, so you can't argue that your "camera with tunable spectral response from ULF radio to X-rays, with spatial resolution sufficient for holography and a dynamic range exceeding the human eye" is better than a 35 mm camera shooting black and white because it's all opinion. And as long as there is opinion, various options (film, digital, etc) will be available.
Give it another year.
And what'll happen in another year? Film will still be around and people like you will be saying "Give it another year".
I don't even know what film is.
It's that stuff that forms on the top of your pudding if it's been sitting around for a bit. And I call dibs on your film.
Good point. A point many people don't realise. Also, digital cameras often get an unnatural tint to their pictures, some yellow, some blueish, etc. The yellow tint on my digital camera does not add warmth but instead just makes the picture appear dirty.
I personally do not care for Kodak film. (Well, black and white film at least).
It seemed to be a bit more grainy and also seemed to lack the contrast of what I'm used to (Ilford HP5).
Anyone else think the same? Or can suggest some alternative (I'm always looking for something new) film I might like given that I like Ilford HP5?
I couldn't agree more.
For day to day photography and the average consumer, digital is the way to go.
However, for more "artistic" photography, film is a great way to go. It's not just about the actual taking of the pictures, but also the developing of the film and the enlarging of prints. I for one enjoy the process, and it takes quite a bit more skill than just dumping the pictures into Photoshop and adjusting brightness/contrast, levels and colors and whatnot. It's also quite a bit more hands on, which I like. It's also quite a bit more expensive in the long run (cost of film, paper, developing chemicals, enlarging equipment, etc), which is why digital is superior for your average pictures of say, parties, family gatherings, and the like.
I am however, waiting for the price of the digital SLR cameras to go down in price, as now that I am not in school, I don't have access to a darkroom and all the enlarging equipment/chemicals. I have a Canon AT1, and all the lenses I have would be compatible with the Canon EOS Rebel Digital. Just more cost efficient, even though I'd lose the fun of developing and enlarging, but I'm sure more serious photographers would gladly take the cost hit to develop and enlarge.
I was hoping it'd be about Lucy, that fossil they found awhile back.
Erm, it's 0. Pi is exactly 3.
But do you like big butts? And if so, are you capable of lying?
In Milwaukee it's 50 for Road Runner (cable) if you don't have cable TV, and it's 40 if you do have some sort of cable TV service. No contract, just monthly. I think it's 15 dollars a month extra per additional IP.
They're only campers if they wait in the same spot for a whole round and then kill you. PWNED!@#(@!
Well, if you want a close up view just piss off the Godfather galaxy. I hear he once put the horsehead nebula on a now defunct galaxy's pillow.
Erm, if someone on Slashdot (or any normal person) thought of this idea, do you really think they DIDN'T consider it?
I mean for the love of god, as someone already said, how can you call people who sent a semi-autonomous robot through space to land on another planet stupid? (Which might I add, entails strapping a machine with sensitive equipment onto a massive, giant, firework. It then has to survive extremely violent vibrations during launch, which involves igniting thousands and thousands of pounds of propellant. Then it needs to survive radation and other nasties out in space. Then it has to go through an atmosphere (a weaker one than ours, but an atmosphere nonetheless) and survive extreme heat buildup, only to have a parachute be released which produces a short burst of extreme G's (or whatever you'd get from a quick, violent slowdown, and I could be wrong, I just assume it would be pretty violent), and then, on top of all that, it could bounce on inflated airbags for miles until it finally comes to a rest near, if not on the target zone, unfolds, and then sends pictures and other data back to Earth? Yeah, they're stupid allright.)
Perhaps wipers would have scratched dust or the equivelant of sand across the solar panels worse than just the wind. Or maybe the wind is enough to keep them operating until other parts of the machine fail.
So.... they can run away faster or farther?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I used to have the same problem. I trained myself however by staring at a wall at least twice as far away as the actual image you want to look at. Keep staring at the wall for a bit until you can sort of "feel" the position of your eyes. That may sound kind of confusing but think of it just as you know what direction you're looking even though the eyes are closed, only this is for more of what you're trying to focus on. I find if you can sort of feel the position ( as in focusing) your eyes are in you can have more control over them. Then, try and think about something else as you slowly slide the image in front of your eyes, all the while trying to maintain your eye position. You'll have to play around a bit with distances of the wall, image and whatnot, but that's how I trained myself.
As for smiling and stuff, I can fake it, but it looks horribly unnatural, as is the case with most people, I can almost always tell when they're faking a smile or some other emotion. Are you saying you actually cannot physically form the smile shape of your mouth? That I've never heard of. Also, for the hot stove, I used to be the same way. We were making a fire once in an indoor fireplace (it was actually one of those cylindrical ones that aren't stone or built into the wall) when the logs started falling and hit the gate, knocking it off the fireplace. I had to reach the gate, and hold it in place (basically just pushing on it with my palms) while the fire and burning embers starting hitting my palms. Finally my friend got something to keep the gate in place so that we could put out the fire. I got some minor burns on my hand, nothing to go the hospital over, so it wasn't too bad. Ever since then, I've been able to consciencly put my hand on a hot stove (though I don't, it's just an analogy).
Because they shouldn't have to, they offered it as a service, not as a product guaranteed to work on every package.
Also, are you positive you're not doing something wrong? Why don't you check out #maestro on irc.freenode.net as they say on their site?
Regarding your sig: Life is not a boolean value, nothing is solidly true or false.
So your sig isn't completely true nor is it completely false?
They better wear oven mits!
/rimshot
What about sending back thumbnailed or greyscale images and then having the option of telling it which to send back? Is that currently in use? Sure, you're using bandwidth, but maybe it would still be more efficient?