I hate EVFs. It's hard to see anything in the dark, hard to do manual focusing, and if the camera has a decent LCD on it, then it's kinda redundant. I wish the DSLRs would use pivoting LCDs and offer an easy live preview option, then it would be the best of both worlds.
Everyone knows that IQ tests don't tests all types of intelligence, but I don't see how that makes these test results meaningless. Perhaps this gene is of benifit to males with other types of intelligence?
Why would it? Photoshop already has RAW support, so what does Apeture offer if it's main feature is RAW support? What is the point of a product the just supports RAW and does nothing else? That doesn't even make sense.
Funny, I didn't think the original article was supposed to be humorous. The point he makes is very important and not heard enough amougnst all the hype on each side.
Perhaps the obvious reason is that he bought the software not because he though it could magicly improve his photos, but because it can manage them well and has non-destructive editing?
AFAIK, Apeture is not just a RAW workflow program. Many newer programs are starting to support RAW, too. So by your logic, be shouldn't use any of these programs because they have a feature that he won't use.
Another clueless person who makes no sense. Why can you not make as many shots with a cheap camera as with a good one? Sounds like a stupid thing to say, esspecially in the digital age where everyone takes as many as they want.
Also, do you really thing that the ability to handle large imports is the only decent feature in Apeture?
No it isn't. It's like taking really good photos with an old Brownie Box camera. And perhaps there are other reasons to use Apeture besides RAW support? Also, do you think that all good photographers only own expensive cameras and never buy a cheap one that they can take around with them all the time?
OK. There we go. Are you trying to rell me that the Alfa Romeo team in the WTCC don't know what they are doing, or that they though that they were too fast so decided to whack a rear wing on the back to create some aerodynamic drag? Take a look at the other photos on that site (from the gallery link on the homepage) and you will notice that pretty much all the FWD cars have a rear wing.
What are you on about? Since when did I say that better roads didn't play a part in accidents? If you were driving down a controlled freeway at 80km/h, then you'd be even safer, correct? If so, you see the point that I'm making.
A FWD car has a tendency to understeer on power. Off power, it's all up to the weight distrubution, which probably still does put more weight over the front than a non FWD car, but that is different to main cause of the understeering characteristics of a FWD car since weight distrubution can easly be changed and varys from car to car anyway.
To say that the rear wheels do nothing but roll is a load of bollocks. 20% is a lot in racing. Not having the rear-end setup properly can give you a car who's ass will skate around the place.
Yes, a FWD car that has a tendency to have the rear slide out as much as a RWD car that is pretty much equal otherwise, probably isn't setup correctly. But that still doesn't change the fact that the rear end of a FWD still can slide out, and since racing cars are always driving on the limits of traction (amoungst other things), then it can become a problem, hence they put wings on the rear.
They don't play as a critical roll as a RWD, but they still play a roll in the handling of a racing car. It should be obvious to anyone who has a real knoledge of car dynamics that this is the case.
Just out of interest, how many years have you been racing cars professionally? Because even racing drivers can benifit from traction control systems (perhaps not the ones found in todays road cars). Turning off the traction control may get you quicker lap times, but I doubt your driving skills and state of mind when driving on the road are going to be better than a modern traction control system.
How about this: A father of serveral children doesn't believe in wearing seatbelts and dies in a crash because of this. Moral circumstances are a bit more complex than you make them out to be. If the law required people to wear a seatbelt, then there is more chance that the children would still have a father, and even if you don't care about them, it still affects other people. Other people involved in the accident have to deal with the fact that they might have killed someone. Not to mention the finacial and personal support that the family now needs. Perhaps the children also die because the father didn't think they needed to wear seatbelts.
Does being forced to wear a seatbelt really take that much away from your freedom? Does it totally violate your privacy? Does the general cost to society and you of being forced to wear seatbelts really outweigh the benifits?
It's not the wrong wheels. Look at WTCC or BTCC races. Pretty much all the FWD cars have a rear spoiler. It prevents the rear-end sliding out. It's just that it has less of an effect on-power compared to a RWD or 4WD. But when the power is off, and weight is transfered to the front, the rear wheels will still want to switch ends.
The internet is a big hippie commune. It's about the only media that isn't totally domintated by commerce.
And I'm not sure I get the part about the US having to pay for the internet connection of some 3rd world country, not that it would be a bad thing or cost much, anyway.
But this ignores the simple fact that crashes will always happen, and that you are much more likely to survive a low speed crash than a higher one. Have you any idea of the difference between 100km/h and 150km/h, let alone 100km/h and 250km/h? Things increase expodentially. Speed is dangerous, because mistakes will always happen, and the faster you go, the more amplified they will be.
Did you read the part about how it was harder to press the pedal, not impossible? If you really need to, you could still press it. Infact, with all the adrenaline, you probably wouldn't even notice it.
Of course, this ignores the obvious question of if this will prevent more accident that it causes. It's a bit like those idiots who don't wear a seatbelt because in situation X, it's more likely to get you killed, dispite the fact that situation X is rare, and that seatbelts generally save more lives than they take.
Perhaps if we were only talking about motorcycles, you would have a point.
The problem is that in a real free market of telecom industries, a startup company would need to spend billions laying copper etc on every street in the country to even have a chance. Then the existing companies make it very undesirable to switch because you'd loose your phone number etc.
The telecom industry needs to be regulated simply for competition to have a chance.
As for improved airline safty, you have got to be kidding me. Remeber the part cost of recalls vs settlements from Fight Club? This applies to airlines aswell. Have you any idea how much money it costs to ground a whole lot of aircraft and inspect/replace parts just because there is a small chance it may fail? From a business sence, it simply makes sence to take the risk. And in business, that's all that matters. And since insurance companies are businesses, they will support the airlines (if there was a low risk) because otherwise, they wouldn't get any business. As for the consumer, they don't have the time to track all this, so they just go with the cheapist.
Perhaps you should have read the artical? The face must be taking from a living person. What happens on the unlikly chance the doner recovers after they have had their face remove? Would you mind some doctor asking if they could hack off your loved one's face just after you've been told they're brain dead? Humans are not considered to be the same as animals in this way; dead or brain dead people are not considered to be a hunk of meat to cut up like at the butchers.
I still think it's different. As I said before, CCTV doesn't allow them to do anything that anyone else can't already do. There is no privacy in a public place. It's very different from informers.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate EVFs. It's hard to see anything in the dark, hard to do manual focusing, and if the camera has a decent LCD on it, then it's kinda redundant. I wish the DSLRs would use pivoting LCDs and offer an easy live preview option, then it would be the best of both worlds.
Everyone knows that IQ tests don't tests all types of intelligence, but I don't see how that makes these test results meaningless. Perhaps this gene is of benifit to males with other types of intelligence?
Why would it? Photoshop already has RAW support, so what does Apeture offer if it's main feature is RAW support? What is the point of a product the just supports RAW and does nothing else? That doesn't even make sense.
That's a stupid anulogy, but you're probably too stupid to figure out why.
Funny, I didn't think the original article was supposed to be humorous. The point he makes is very important and not heard enough amougnst all the hype on each side.
No, you're an idiot. RAW support is just a feature of Apeture. It's not it's main function.
Perhaps the obvious reason is that he bought the software not because he though it could magicly improve his photos, but because it can manage them well and has non-destructive editing?
Apeture is not a RAW converter.
It is you that needs to get a clue.
Also, do you really thing that the ability to handle large imports is the only decent feature in Apeture?
No it isn't. It's like taking really good photos with an old Brownie Box camera. And perhaps there are other reasons to use Apeture besides RAW support? Also, do you think that all good photographers only own expensive cameras and never buy a cheap one that they can take around with them all the time?
WTCRC
OK. There we go. Are you trying to rell me that the Alfa Romeo team in the WTCC don't know what they are doing, or that they though that they were too fast so decided to whack a rear wing on the back to create some aerodynamic drag? Take a look at the other photos on that site (from the gallery link on the homepage) and you will notice that pretty much all the FWD cars have a rear wing.
What are you on about? Since when did I say that better roads didn't play a part in accidents? If you were driving down a controlled freeway at 80km/h, then you'd be even safer, correct? If so, you see the point that I'm making.
To say that the rear wheels do nothing but roll is a load of bollocks. 20% is a lot in racing. Not having the rear-end setup properly can give you a car who's ass will skate around the place.
Yes, a FWD car that has a tendency to have the rear slide out as much as a RWD car that is pretty much equal otherwise, probably isn't setup correctly. But that still doesn't change the fact that the rear end of a FWD still can slide out, and since racing cars are always driving on the limits of traction (amoungst other things), then it can become a problem, hence they put wings on the rear.
They don't play as a critical roll as a RWD, but they still play a roll in the handling of a racing car. It should be obvious to anyone who has a real knoledge of car dynamics that this is the case.
Anyone making such remarks doesn't really know anything about real-world car dynamics.
How about this: A father of serveral children doesn't believe in wearing seatbelts and dies in a crash because of this. Moral circumstances are a bit more complex than you make them out to be. If the law required people to wear a seatbelt, then there is more chance that the children would still have a father, and even if you don't care about them, it still affects other people. Other people involved in the accident have to deal with the fact that they might have killed someone. Not to mention the finacial and personal support that the family now needs. Perhaps the children also die because the father didn't think they needed to wear seatbelts.
Does being forced to wear a seatbelt really take that much away from your freedom? Does it totally violate your privacy? Does the general cost to society and you of being forced to wear seatbelts really outweigh the benifits?
It's not the wrong wheels. Look at WTCC or BTCC races. Pretty much all the FWD cars have a rear spoiler. It prevents the rear-end sliding out. It's just that it has less of an effect on-power compared to a RWD or 4WD. But when the power is off, and weight is transfered to the front, the rear wheels will still want to switch ends.
And I'm not sure I get the part about the US having to pay for the internet connection of some 3rd world country, not that it would be a bad thing or cost much, anyway.
And if this thing works on average speeds, then you should have no problems overtaking, then going back to the speed limit.
But this ignores the simple fact that crashes will always happen, and that you are much more likely to survive a low speed crash than a higher one. Have you any idea of the difference between 100km/h and 150km/h, let alone 100km/h and 250km/h? Things increase expodentially. Speed is dangerous, because mistakes will always happen, and the faster you go, the more amplified they will be.
Of course, this ignores the obvious question of if this will prevent more accident that it causes. It's a bit like those idiots who don't wear a seatbelt because in situation X, it's more likely to get you killed, dispite the fact that situation X is rare, and that seatbelts generally save more lives than they take.
Perhaps if we were only talking about motorcycles, you would have a point.
The telecom industry needs to be regulated simply for competition to have a chance.
As for improved airline safty, you have got to be kidding me. Remeber the part cost of recalls vs settlements from Fight Club? This applies to airlines aswell. Have you any idea how much money it costs to ground a whole lot of aircraft and inspect/replace parts just because there is a small chance it may fail? From a business sence, it simply makes sence to take the risk. And in business, that's all that matters. And since insurance companies are businesses, they will support the airlines (if there was a low risk) because otherwise, they wouldn't get any business. As for the consumer, they don't have the time to track all this, so they just go with the cheapist.
Perhaps you should have read the artical? The face must be taking from a living person. What happens on the unlikly chance the doner recovers after they have had their face remove? Would you mind some doctor asking if they could hack off your loved one's face just after you've been told they're brain dead? Humans are not considered to be the same as animals in this way; dead or brain dead people are not considered to be a hunk of meat to cut up like at the butchers.
I still think it's different. As I said before, CCTV doesn't allow them to do anything that anyone else can't already do. There is no privacy in a public place. It's very different from informers.