If the cost of printing your digital photos is on the same order of magnitude as if you were shooting film, you're doing something wrong. You're either printing way too many photos or you're not shooting enough with the camera. With film, I could understand this. With digital, it's unforgivable. Shoot, shoot, shoot! What have you got to lose?
When I shot film, I'd say I was lucky to have 3 or 5 shots per roll (36s...I never shot 24s). Now that I've got digital, the number of keepers has gone up, but the percentage has gone down...now I judge maybe 5% as "keepers," (of course I keep all my shots, even the total losers...burn to DVD) and out of those I'd say only maybe 5% are worth printing.
The upshot is, if I were spending $1000 on film and processing before, I'm spending probably in the neighborhood of $25-50 on printing my digital images. So it's such a minor cost, it doesn't enter into it for me. And I get 'em printed professionally--I figured out the cost of doing my own prints at home, and it's not much cheaper for a shoddier product.
A pro sports photographer told me L series lenses are a waste of money on anything but a full-sized sensor in a DSLR. I believe it--I just picked up a 20D and had to buy the L-series 10-22 b/c that's the only game in town at that wide of an angle...but otherwise, I would've avoided it.
BTW, I did pick up the 50mm f/1.8...it was too cheap to pass up, and I'm thinking dropping down to f/1.4 for $200-250 just isn't worth the money for the type of shooting I do. Because of the 1.6x multiplier on the 20D, this will be a perfect portrait lens when combined with sneaker zoom.
I felt I could not let this slide without a response.:-)
They're huge. Slap a 28-100mm equivalent lens on and leave all the other stuff at home. You can get every shot you'd get with a point'n'shoot plus way, way more, you don't need a bag of equipment. You're not going to put it in your pocket, but so what--you're taking pictures, and the inside of a pocket's boring anyway.
They're heavy. The scenario I describe above is only 2 or 3 lbs hanging on your neckstrap. Not a bad tradeoff for the result.
You can't "sneak them in". You know why concert security lets people in with camera phones and point'n'shoots? Because it's too dark to take pictures with them. So while you can "sneak in" those cameras, the value of this is somewhat diminished when you realize you can't "sneak out" any pictures.:-)
They're complicated. I've yet to see a DSLR that doesn't have a fully auto mode.
No previews on the LCD. I'm sure some don't...but mine does. I've also seen point'n'shoots that have serious deficiencies...but I'd never label them all that way just because that one I saw had that one problem that one time.
No movie mode. This is true. No movie mode...if that matters to you. I'd rather have a compelling shot of wishing Grammy-maw a merry Christmas than a scratchy, lousy thirty second clip, but that's just me.
No gimmicks. Unless Sony has figured out a way to violate the laws of physics with the camera you mention, I'll bet dimes to dollars that I could take the same shots (well, maybe not the same exact shots that you're privy to, apparently) in the same conditions and have them turn out better with my DSLR.
...Excuse number 2. I think the fact that you've set aside two separate points on this topic itself is a bit creepy. But, since we're going there, let's go there. Are you arguing that Playboy and Hustler photographers use point'n'shoot cameras?
Ok, enough snarkiness.:-) To be perfectly honest, having said all that, you are completely correct for some people. Any one or more of these reasons might trump someone's list in terms of what kind of camera to get. These point'n'shoots exist for a reason--because they're the perfect solution for some folks' shooting style. All I'm really trying to do here is to get you to admit that they're not perfect for everyone's and that DSLRs have their place too (which you seem to be arguing against).
Actually, it's quite easy to take a picture that looks crystal clear sharp on an LCD until you upload it to your computer and see it on the screen in all its high-definition glory. I've had this happen countless times when using an LCD. Looking through the viewfinder, though, you can see camera shake as you're taking the picture even when the shot turns out crystal clear. So it's a huuuuuuge difference.
Soon (10 years?) we'll have cameras with no moving parts.
So, by saying this is one of the best applications of Flash you've seen, is that a statement in support of Flash or a slam on it? I, for one, can't tell...
Yea, I think it's safe to say that if that article is at your level of photography, don't bother wasting your money on DSLR unless you plan on getting a lot more educated *after* you've made the investment. A year ago, I would've said this would be stupid, but now you can pick up a Digital Rebel and some lenses for $800-$1k, which isn't too much I think given the cost of processing film (as a comparison). Provided the person is willing to carry around a slightly bigger camera with an extra lens or two, I think this is definitely doable even for those who aren't sure.
I didn't miss the "might". I simply thought it meant something along the lines of: "If you haven't yet realized your dream of defecating actual cash, DSLR *might* not be right for you."
This is the web. We don't get the benefit of intonation, facial expression, and other non-written cues. You actually have to say what you mean.
I totally agree with you. Slides are *definitely* the way to go--my family used to do the same exact thing. In this discussion, though, I think you and I are likely to be of the select few that would value such a process. Still, I believe it should be possible to have slides made as well as prints from digital. I'm not sure how good the quality would be though--perhaps buying a projector to hook to your computer would replicate the experience for digital? (Perhaps not...)
Anyone know anything about "printing" digital shots to slides? Care to educate me?
Oh, I forgot to mention...with film cameras I had to print all the pictures I shot because there was no other good way to see the images (I could have had contact sheets made, but have you ever tried to get an idea of what an image looks like on a thumbnail sized print under a loop? It's not the same...). With digital, I only print the shots I want, as I said above, less than 5% are worthy, and I find even out of the worthy shots, many I only exhibit on the web.
Hm. I have to bristle a bit at such a simple analysis...but I freely admit that such reasoning is rampant among people. Let's consider the costs of a middle-end DSLR vs. a $25 B/W manual film camera. (Yes, I'm serious.)
I just bought a Canon 20D (Merry Christmas to me!). With all the equipment and lenses and bags and tripod, etc, I probably tallied somewhere around $4500. Now let's pretend for a moment that I'm not fabulously wealthy (I'm not)...what would compel me to spend so much on a camera?
Let's consider my last two week trip to Hawaii. At that time I had a manual film camera, and I ran about 20 rolls of film through it. (I was on "normal" vacation, so I wasn't shooting as much as I usually do on a photo vacation...I'm not a photographer by trade, by the way. I'm what you'd probably call a "serious amateur".) After adding up the cost of film and processing, I spent about $450. I expect to shoot about 10k-20k pictures per year. At about 50 cents per print, and probably 75%+ (actually that's pretty conservative, it's probably more like 95%) of the pix I'd never print or look at again...digital is the only way to go for me.
So now the question is, which camera can I get that will last the longest time possible, yet still remain economical when amortized over the expected life? I found no possible way to beat the Canon 20D.
Does that mean this is the camera for everyone? Certainly not--you have to consider the shooting you'll do with it. For some people, if you can't fit it in a pocket you'll never use it, and it can't take good pictures from inside your closet...better to use a snapshot camera then. Other people would rather do an Ansel Adams-style expidition every time they go on vacation complete with pack mules to get the shots they want. You have to decide where you are and get the camera that's right. If you're shooting digital, I'd say anything under a couple of thousand is definitely justifiable (just the camera body, I'm talking) given the costs of film, especially if you shoot a lot. Over that, you probably ought to be making some money off your work unless money is no object to you.
Many people think about digital the way you do--they want to go totally paperless. That's me for the most part. Still, though, even I recognize that in order to truly see a photo, you need to print it.
I've often felt conflicted about this until I read in a photo rag that the human mind is able to see subtle differences (almost at the subconscious level) between different high rez shots. A very high res print will seem more 3D, the colors more saturated...more like you're there. The highest resolution a monitor can achieve is.25mm pitch.
Still, though, with digital the standard for what actually gets printed is allowed to go up a whole bunch.:-)
Quit getting all your info from books and then arguing with those who have real-world experience - go out and experience some things for yourself.
I believe this was the argument that was used to refute Galileo's idea that all things, regardless of weight, fall at the same rate. It, too, was wrong. (I knew if I just laid back for a while you'd see others who do have "real-world experience" that supports my point...also, do you think I don't know any Japanese people?)
Are people pretty much the same the world over? Yes, pretty much, that's true. But not in certain contexts. In the context we find ourselves in within this discussion, there are marked differences. This doesn't make Japanese people inferior or superior to Americans...it just makes them different. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm not quite sure why you're set on denying it.
I'm totally making this up, but it also seems to me that it's cheaper to introduce wireless in the Japanese markets. Look at America, all big and open. It takes tens of thousands of microwave towers to target the urban areas. In Japan, assuming it could handle the bandwidth, you could probably throw up a single tower on the highest peak and get coverage of half the country and nearly the entire population.
What does everyone else think about this? Anyone willing to do the research to prove me wrong?:-)
I think you missed my point.:-) The premise of the article is that Americans desire these toys, yet we don't have access to them. That's just wrong. We don't desire them, and we wouldn't buy them if we did have access to them.
To some extent, you could even argue that the "cool toys" Americans want (and get) are houses, and the Japanese would probably much rather have those instead of their latest digital whiz-bang.
Don't confuse their lack of personal space and tolerance for each other's constant intrusive presence as "outgoing-ness". The Japanese culture is more socially introverted than American culture...so say the social scientists I've read. They just live on top of each other, so a lot of what would pass for social interaction in America is actually social ritual and protocol there...and it just doesn't count as a real, personal connection.
It's things like this that lead us to false conclusions about each other--much of the time in East Asian cultures, you have to understand not only what's being said, but what's not being said, and in your case it sounds like you weren't privy to either in your observations. (This isn't a slam, sorry if it sounds like one.)
I don't accept the premise of this/. article on its face. The main point rests on the idea that Japan gets the coolest gadgets before they reach the US, or else they never get here at all, which I don't see. This makes me want to get in my way-back machine and remember a time when I first came out the California, a simpler time when people were much more humble and thoughtful...all the way back to the year 2000...
I worked for a startup then whose business model was based on the idea of location-based offerings. (This sounds like spam, but it isn't.) As a customer, you'd go to their portal on the web and register an account. Then, later, you'd log in and enter information that you were going to be in the city on Saturday night, and you're looking to eat Italian food. You'd specify how you want to be contacted by the automated call system: cell, PDA, home phone, etc...and the hours, number of calls, etc.
Then, on Saturday night, let's say an Italian restaurant owner is looking at a half-empty restaurant. He might subscribe to the service...so he'd log in on his end and enter in a 2-for-1 entree special. The site would match up your preferences with the business offering and call you to book a reservation.
Surprisingly, this startup didn't fail (at least not right away...it lived several years). However, it did move...to Hong Kong. The funding source did some market research and discovered that we were likely never to make a go of this business by marketing it in the US. Americans get one or two calls that don't interest them from an automated service and turn the service off, saying they don't want to be contacted again. In Tokyo and Hong Kong, they found in their research that people will oftentimes walk around in public with the cell phone to their ear even though they're not on a call...it's a social status thing. They can't get enough calls over there.
So, they packed it up and moved to HK. The point of this story is that, though by and large people are more or less the same the world over, there are cultural differences that manifest in surprising and unexpected ways. Americans tend to want technology that serves them, is quick and easy to use, and isn't too intrusive. Japanese, from what I can see, tend not to care about intrusiveness and are more interested in projecting a message about themselves through the use of personal technology devices. The more these devices intrude on their daily lives, in fact, the more they view it as a sign of being needed or desirable to others. (They even let technology make matchmaking decisions--have you heard about the pager-like device that they have over there? They enter their preferences for a perfect mate in it, and when they get within 25 feet of someone that meets their criteria, if that person has one too, they light up and buzz so the people can choose to meet each other. Again, this would never work in the US.)
The upshot is, Americans get what we think is cool, and Japanese get what they think is cool. The Japanese philosophy tends to be oriented more towards the flashy whiz-bang type of stuff, like digital toilets and Internet-enabled refrigerators, whereas Americans would consider these devices as putting too much emphasis on activities we'd rather not think about, and definitely don't want hackers to have access to. (I'm convinced a good part of this cultural divide comes from the differences between Americans and Japanese opinions about personal privacy rights and expectations. Also, the anti-intellectual attitude in America doesn't help ingratiate technology into our daily lives either...think about it. In this country, one of the stock insults in grade schools and high schools is "you're a nerd". In other countries, like Japan, the insult would be "you're stupid".) This, combined with the fact that Americans always expect to have the latest, greatest, bestest, etc, means that we tend to look at the flashy whiz-bang stuff over there, which we don't want, and say, hey, how come we don't have that here?
I don't even think they're interested in collecting this kind of data. Of course I'm not arguing against transparency, but we simply have to give the program the ability to measure progress. We just make sure that they're keeping data that says more about the high schools/elementary schools than the college.
All they really need to figure this out is to divide up the universities into 20 bands, top 5%, top 10%, etc. Then, they track which school districts college students attended through high school, and which band they wind up in. That's all the data they need, and that's totally reasonable for them to collect.
If they want more specific data than they can reasonably justify, I'm with you. But if we just dig in our heels and say, no you can't measure the progress of this program that we're paying millions/billions of dollars for, then the joke's on us either way.
As I indicated above, I didn't investigate it that closely. However, Scribus does have some kind of color management system, so it might provide the functionality as far as color management goes that the poster is looking for. I dunno...maybe not...it's the only thing I could find that had to do with color management other than the GIMP.
Graphics software does seem to be the one area where the commercial business model (not OS commercial, but big bad greedy corporation commercial) seems to be more capable of producing a superior product.
Why don't advertisers track *sales* that come in through google as a separate channel from the rest of the web? Then, google gets a percentage of the stuff that's actually sold. I think that's fair, and it would do away with fraud altogether.
Whenever there's fraud like this going on, the first question I ask myself is, where's the money flowing? The disconnect here is that advertisers are expecting some percentage of click-thrus to generate revenue, and the fraudsters are taking advantage of that by artificially inflating the click-thru-but-don't-buys. Do away with the assumption, and the fraudsters would have no way to attack it.
Couldn't a company simply lie and say that it sold less of its products via the google than it actually did? I guess...but who's trusting who right now to keep accurate track of the click-thrus?
This is amazing. Even when MS files suit against spammers, they can't make you people happy. Hating MS is definitely knee-jerk 'round these parts. When you don't get one iota of credit even for doing something good, that's just...bent.
Let me guess. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a conspiracy too, right?
Slashdot Mirror
If the cost of printing your digital photos is on the same order of magnitude as if you were shooting film, you're doing something wrong. You're either printing way too many photos or you're not shooting enough with the camera. With film, I could understand this. With digital, it's unforgivable. Shoot, shoot, shoot! What have you got to lose?
When I shot film, I'd say I was lucky to have 3 or 5 shots per roll (36s...I never shot 24s). Now that I've got digital, the number of keepers has gone up, but the percentage has gone down...now I judge maybe 5% as "keepers," (of course I keep all my shots, even the total losers...burn to DVD) and out of those I'd say only maybe 5% are worth printing.
The upshot is, if I were spending $1000 on film and processing before, I'm spending probably in the neighborhood of $25-50 on printing my digital images. So it's such a minor cost, it doesn't enter into it for me. And I get 'em printed professionally--I figured out the cost of doing my own prints at home, and it's not much cheaper for a shoddier product.
A pro sports photographer told me L series lenses are a waste of money on anything but a full-sized sensor in a DSLR. I believe it--I just picked up a 20D and had to buy the L-series 10-22 b/c that's the only game in town at that wide of an angle...but otherwise, I would've avoided it.
BTW, I did pick up the 50mm f/1.8...it was too cheap to pass up, and I'm thinking dropping down to f/1.4 for $200-250 just isn't worth the money for the type of shooting I do. Because of the 1.6x multiplier on the 20D, this will be a perfect portrait lens when combined with sneaker zoom.
I felt I could not let this slide without a response. :-)
They're huge. Slap a 28-100mm equivalent lens on and leave all the other stuff at home. You can get every shot you'd get with a point'n'shoot plus way, way more, you don't need a bag of equipment. You're not going to put it in your pocket, but so what--you're taking pictures, and the inside of a pocket's boring anyway.
They're heavy. The scenario I describe above is only 2 or 3 lbs hanging on your neckstrap. Not a bad tradeoff for the result.
You can't "sneak them in". You know why concert security lets people in with camera phones and point'n'shoots? Because it's too dark to take pictures with them. So while you can "sneak in" those cameras, the value of this is somewhat diminished when you realize you can't "sneak out" any pictures. :-)
They're complicated. I've yet to see a DSLR that doesn't have a fully auto mode.
No previews on the LCD. I'm sure some don't...but mine does. I've also seen point'n'shoots that have serious deficiencies...but I'd never label them all that way just because that one I saw had that one problem that one time.
No movie mode. This is true. No movie mode...if that matters to you. I'd rather have a compelling shot of wishing Grammy-maw a merry Christmas than a scratchy, lousy thirty second clip, but that's just me.
No gimmicks. Unless Sony has figured out a way to violate the laws of physics with the camera you mention, I'll bet dimes to dollars that I could take the same shots (well, maybe not the same exact shots that you're privy to, apparently) in the same conditions and have them turn out better with my DSLR.
Ok, enough snarkiness. :-) To be perfectly honest, having said all that, you are completely correct for some people. Any one or more of these reasons might trump someone's list in terms of what kind of camera to get. These point'n'shoots exist for a reason--because they're the perfect solution for some folks' shooting style. All I'm really trying to do here is to get you to admit that they're not perfect for everyone's and that DSLRs have their place too (which you seem to be arguing against).
Actually, it's quite easy to take a picture that looks crystal clear sharp on an LCD until you upload it to your computer and see it on the screen in all its high-definition glory. I've had this happen countless times when using an LCD. Looking through the viewfinder, though, you can see camera shake as you're taking the picture even when the shot turns out crystal clear. So it's a huuuuuuge difference.
Soon (10 years?) we'll have cameras with no moving parts.
So, by saying this is one of the best applications of Flash you've seen, is that a statement in support of Flash or a slam on it? I, for one, can't tell...
Yea, I think it's safe to say that if that article is at your level of photography, don't bother wasting your money on DSLR unless you plan on getting a lot more educated *after* you've made the investment. A year ago, I would've said this would be stupid, but now you can pick up a Digital Rebel and some lenses for $800-$1k, which isn't too much I think given the cost of processing film (as a comparison). Provided the person is willing to carry around a slightly bigger camera with an extra lens or two, I think this is definitely doable even for those who aren't sure.
I didn't miss the "might". I simply thought it meant something along the lines of: "If you haven't yet realized your dream of defecating actual cash, DSLR *might* not be right for you."
This is the web. We don't get the benefit of intonation, facial expression, and other non-written cues. You actually have to say what you mean.
--begin flame war-- ;-)
I totally agree with you. Slides are *definitely* the way to go--my family used to do the same exact thing. In this discussion, though, I think you and I are likely to be of the select few that would value such a process. Still, I believe it should be possible to have slides made as well as prints from digital. I'm not sure how good the quality would be though--perhaps buying a projector to hook to your computer would replicate the experience for digital? (Perhaps not...)
Anyone know anything about "printing" digital shots to slides? Care to educate me?
Oh, I forgot to mention...with film cameras I had to print all the pictures I shot because there was no other good way to see the images (I could have had contact sheets made, but have you ever tried to get an idea of what an image looks like on a thumbnail sized print under a loop? It's not the same...). With digital, I only print the shots I want, as I said above, less than 5% are worthy, and I find even out of the worthy shots, many I only exhibit on the web.
Hm. I have to bristle a bit at such a simple analysis...but I freely admit that such reasoning is rampant among people. Let's consider the costs of a middle-end DSLR vs. a $25 B/W manual film camera. (Yes, I'm serious.)
I just bought a Canon 20D (Merry Christmas to me!). With all the equipment and lenses and bags and tripod, etc, I probably tallied somewhere around $4500. Now let's pretend for a moment that I'm not fabulously wealthy (I'm not)...what would compel me to spend so much on a camera?
Let's consider my last two week trip to Hawaii. At that time I had a manual film camera, and I ran about 20 rolls of film through it. (I was on "normal" vacation, so I wasn't shooting as much as I usually do on a photo vacation...I'm not a photographer by trade, by the way. I'm what you'd probably call a "serious amateur".) After adding up the cost of film and processing, I spent about $450. I expect to shoot about 10k-20k pictures per year. At about 50 cents per print, and probably 75%+ (actually that's pretty conservative, it's probably more like 95%) of the pix I'd never print or look at again...digital is the only way to go for me.
So now the question is, which camera can I get that will last the longest time possible, yet still remain economical when amortized over the expected life? I found no possible way to beat the Canon 20D.
Does that mean this is the camera for everyone? Certainly not--you have to consider the shooting you'll do with it. For some people, if you can't fit it in a pocket you'll never use it, and it can't take good pictures from inside your closet...better to use a snapshot camera then. Other people would rather do an Ansel Adams-style expidition every time they go on vacation complete with pack mules to get the shots they want. You have to decide where you are and get the camera that's right. If you're shooting digital, I'd say anything under a couple of thousand is definitely justifiable (just the camera body, I'm talking) given the costs of film, especially if you shoot a lot. Over that, you probably ought to be making some money off your work unless money is no object to you.
Just my thoughts...
Many people think about digital the way you do--they want to go totally paperless. That's me for the most part. Still, though, even I recognize that in order to truly see a photo, you need to print it.
I've often felt conflicted about this until I read in a photo rag that the human mind is able to see subtle differences (almost at the subconscious level) between different high rez shots. A very high res print will seem more 3D, the colors more saturated...more like you're there. The highest resolution a monitor can achieve is .25mm pitch.
Still, though, with digital the standard for what actually gets printed is allowed to go up a whole bunch. :-)
I just can't help thinking I left something behind...the oven? Check...the lights? Check...hmm...oh well, I guess I've got everything. Let's go!
Are people pretty much the same the world over? Yes, pretty much, that's true. But not in certain contexts. In the context we find ourselves in within this discussion, there are marked differences. This doesn't make Japanese people inferior or superior to Americans...it just makes them different. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm not quite sure why you're set on denying it.
I didn't say it wasn't good...it's pretty good in the US too. It's just more expensive to cover vast areas.
I'm totally making this up, but it also seems to me that it's cheaper to introduce wireless in the Japanese markets. Look at America, all big and open. It takes tens of thousands of microwave towers to target the urban areas. In Japan, assuming it could handle the bandwidth, you could probably throw up a single tower on the highest peak and get coverage of half the country and nearly the entire population.
What does everyone else think about this? Anyone willing to do the research to prove me wrong? :-)
I think you missed my point. :-) The premise of the article is that Americans desire these toys, yet we don't have access to them. That's just wrong. We don't desire them, and we wouldn't buy them if we did have access to them.
To some extent, you could even argue that the "cool toys" Americans want (and get) are houses, and the Japanese would probably much rather have those instead of their latest digital whiz-bang.
Don't confuse their lack of personal space and tolerance for each other's constant intrusive presence as "outgoing-ness". The Japanese culture is more socially introverted than American culture...so say the social scientists I've read. They just live on top of each other, so a lot of what would pass for social interaction in America is actually social ritual and protocol there...and it just doesn't count as a real, personal connection.
It's things like this that lead us to false conclusions about each other--much of the time in East Asian cultures, you have to understand not only what's being said, but what's not being said, and in your case it sounds like you weren't privy to either in your observations. (This isn't a slam, sorry if it sounds like one.)
I don't accept the premise of this /. article on its face. The main point rests on the idea that Japan gets the coolest gadgets before they reach the US, or else they never get here at all, which I don't see. This makes me want to get in my way-back machine and remember a time when I first came out the California, a simpler time when people were much more humble and thoughtful...all the way back to the year 2000...
I worked for a startup then whose business model was based on the idea of location-based offerings. (This sounds like spam, but it isn't.) As a customer, you'd go to their portal on the web and register an account. Then, later, you'd log in and enter information that you were going to be in the city on Saturday night, and you're looking to eat Italian food. You'd specify how you want to be contacted by the automated call system: cell, PDA, home phone, etc...and the hours, number of calls, etc.
Then, on Saturday night, let's say an Italian restaurant owner is looking at a half-empty restaurant. He might subscribe to the service...so he'd log in on his end and enter in a 2-for-1 entree special. The site would match up your preferences with the business offering and call you to book a reservation.
Surprisingly, this startup didn't fail (at least not right away...it lived several years). However, it did move...to Hong Kong. The funding source did some market research and discovered that we were likely never to make a go of this business by marketing it in the US. Americans get one or two calls that don't interest them from an automated service and turn the service off, saying they don't want to be contacted again. In Tokyo and Hong Kong, they found in their research that people will oftentimes walk around in public with the cell phone to their ear even though they're not on a call...it's a social status thing. They can't get enough calls over there.
So, they packed it up and moved to HK. The point of this story is that, though by and large people are more or less the same the world over, there are cultural differences that manifest in surprising and unexpected ways. Americans tend to want technology that serves them, is quick and easy to use, and isn't too intrusive. Japanese, from what I can see, tend not to care about intrusiveness and are more interested in projecting a message about themselves through the use of personal technology devices. The more these devices intrude on their daily lives, in fact, the more they view it as a sign of being needed or desirable to others. (They even let technology make matchmaking decisions--have you heard about the pager-like device that they have over there? They enter their preferences for a perfect mate in it, and when they get within 25 feet of someone that meets their criteria, if that person has one too, they light up and buzz so the people can choose to meet each other. Again, this would never work in the US.)
The upshot is, Americans get what we think is cool, and Japanese get what they think is cool. The Japanese philosophy tends to be oriented more towards the flashy whiz-bang type of stuff, like digital toilets and Internet-enabled refrigerators, whereas Americans would consider these devices as putting too much emphasis on activities we'd rather not think about, and definitely don't want hackers to have access to. (I'm convinced a good part of this cultural divide comes from the differences between Americans and Japanese opinions about personal privacy rights and expectations. Also, the anti-intellectual attitude in America doesn't help ingratiate technology into our daily lives either...think about it. In this country, one of the stock insults in grade schools and high schools is "you're a nerd". In other countries, like Japan, the insult would be "you're stupid".) This, combined with the fact that Americans always expect to have the latest, greatest, bestest, etc, means that we tend to look at the flashy whiz-bang stuff over there, which we don't want, and say, hey, how come we don't have that here?
I don't even think they're interested in collecting this kind of data. Of course I'm not arguing against transparency, but we simply have to give the program the ability to measure progress. We just make sure that they're keeping data that says more about the high schools/elementary schools than the college.
All they really need to figure this out is to divide up the universities into 20 bands, top 5%, top 10%, etc. Then, they track which school districts college students attended through high school, and which band they wind up in. That's all the data they need, and that's totally reasonable for them to collect.
If they want more specific data than they can reasonably justify, I'm with you. But if we just dig in our heels and say, no you can't measure the progress of this program that we're paying millions/billions of dollars for, then the joke's on us either way.
As I indicated above, I didn't investigate it that closely. However, Scribus does have some kind of color management system, so it might provide the functionality as far as color management goes that the poster is looking for. I dunno...maybe not...it's the only thing I could find that had to do with color management other than the GIMP.
Graphics software does seem to be the one area where the commercial business model (not OS commercial, but big bad greedy corporation commercial) seems to be more capable of producing a superior product.
Ok, maybe I should've done a bit more reading before posting the parent...scribus is apparently open source. I found a few other links too...
Hope there's something useful in all of that...
Is color management something that the open source community has just not gotten around to yet? I'd be surprised if that were the case...
In any event, I did find this: Scribus. I don't know if it's OS or what, couldn't be bothered to look. :-)
Why don't advertisers track *sales* that come in through google as a separate channel from the rest of the web? Then, google gets a percentage of the stuff that's actually sold. I think that's fair, and it would do away with fraud altogether.
Whenever there's fraud like this going on, the first question I ask myself is, where's the money flowing? The disconnect here is that advertisers are expecting some percentage of click-thrus to generate revenue, and the fraudsters are taking advantage of that by artificially inflating the click-thru-but-don't-buys. Do away with the assumption, and the fraudsters would have no way to attack it.
Couldn't a company simply lie and say that it sold less of its products via the google than it actually did? I guess...but who's trusting who right now to keep accurate track of the click-thrus?
This is amazing. Even when MS files suit against spammers, they can't make you people happy. Hating MS is definitely knee-jerk 'round these parts. When you don't get one iota of credit even for doing something good, that's just...bent.
Let me guess. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a conspiracy too, right?