I started using Lynx at school in early NCSA Mosaic days when it was painfully slow to load a graphical browser in our "shared computing environment", and the graphical web wasn't that pretty anyway. When you're used to it, it's just so much simpler to do some quick browsing in Lynx so I've never stopped using it. I use Firefox about 90% of the time and Lynx 10% now. At times I've used Lynx when I didn't want it to be obvious I was using the web.
They shrunk the size by moving UI parts into a second unit.
By that logic I have a full blown PC the size of a USB memory stick. Just ignore the big beige box attached to the stick, that's only the power and reset buttons.
Besides the fact that it's stupid to equate to DVD equivalents (and how many elephents worth of volkswagons fill a football field of libraries of congress anyway?), they couldn't even to the math right for it.
8.4GB on each DVD time 250 DVDs, = 2.1TB. They're off by a factor of 5.
Not only is it just stupid to use DVD equivalents to give an idea of the size (how many elephants equals a libraries of congress anyway?), but they're off by an order of magnitude.
The last few phones I bought, I made sure they used a mini-USB connector to charge. It makes things a lot easier than having yet another adapter.
Even my Motorola blue tooth headset, uses the same charging interface.
The software of yester-year ran largely on single threaded operating systems, didn't have to interact with the internet or defend against attacks originating from it, had to manage miniscule feature and data sets, and was still buggy.
And the modern multi-threaded operating systems provide an API to do all of that for you. It's is no more complex for the programmer. That's like saying it's harder to drive now than it was 80 years ago because the car has so much onboard electronics, a more powerful engine, etc. When the truth is it's so much easier to drive now, you don't have to crank the engine, you have a radio, etc.
Complex systems have more bugs, modern systems are more complex.
Taking this as self-evidence is absolute BS. Complex systems *should* be compartmentalized and abstracted with each compartment and layer of abstraction properly tested.
But when it crashed your whole computer there was nothing to take down like there is today. There wasn't a difference between an app crashing and the computer crashing.
People make mistakes. Software needs to ship, preferably yesterday.
This attitude is the number one problem with software development. When all you care about is getting it out the door, you send garbage out the door.
Software today is so damn buggy. I spend hours a week just doing the work of getting my computer to work. And even then it has random slowdowns and crashes.
I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't like that. You'd run your program and it was ready in a second, you'd exit and it left no trace. Crashes were virtually unheard of. We have people where I work who only do data entry, and they still use wordperfect 4.2 on 386 hardware. I've seen their workflow and how fast it works for them and I can see if they "modernized" it would cripple their productivity.
And for the money at stake, what's so wrong with hiring a few Ph.D's to analyze code. Amortized over a few million copies, a few 6-digit salaries aren't so bad. And the losses the software shops suffer in bad-will when their products fail costs them more.
What the amateur and pro photographers need to learn is that the snapshot people aren't going to learn better, because for them those thoughts are true.
Very true, but what gets me is all these snapshot people who are spouting here that they know better than the pros and the pros are doing it the wrong way (like the AC on this thread). To continue your analogy, I know that I could not win a NASCAR race with an actual stock car and I know I can't build an actual NASCAR. Why do the snapshot people posting here think they know it better than the pros?
How does rsync help if you drop the laptop on the way home and destroy the hard drive? Wouldn't it be better to put it on the laptop and keep it on the SD card in case you lose the tiny SD card on the way home?
You're either deliberately or ignorantly missing the concept of a commercial environment.
The difference between a mid-range Nikon lens and any point-and-shoot is just stunning. There's no games like "maybe your eye can't see it but a photophile can". I understand if I mention the size of the lens, elements, etc and especially price I'll sound like one of the audio fools, so leave that aside. I wish I had some samples on line, but when I take a picture of my dog with a point and shoot, you can see it has fur, get a notion of the texture of the fur, etc, but the fine detail is mostly a blur. When I use my DSLR, I can see every strand of fur. With a portait of a person, I can zoom on the eye and see every eyelash and the pattern of the iris.
The reason I say no difference between 2 and 10 megapixel, when I zoom in a point and shoot 10 megapixel image, it gets blurry beyond recognition long before it pixelizes; the pixels are much finer than needed and only show that the lens fails. With my 12 megapixel DSLR, when I zoom, it's the pixelizing that breaks down the image and I can see the sharp image degenerating because of pixelization.
All that only talks about the lens itself. When you get into the body, a point and shoot has a typical 6x8mm sensor. A DSLR has an sensor around 18x24 for a prosumer or 24x36 for a professional model. The effect is that each pixel is physically larger on the sensor, so it can gather more light and be less affected by noise. The result is a picture that's more vibrant and sharper.
Then there's a lot of other factors, like the dinky flash on a point and shoot (and front light is the worst kind too - it makes an image look flat), I have a wireless external flash, I usually put it around 60 degrees from me and it brings out side shadows that emphasize surface texture and make the picture pop. Or I can put the flash 20 feet away pointing at the background -- ever take a flash picture of a person and have the background come out black?
How about because you're doing a professional photoshoot and taking thousands of picture in one day? And you don't want them all on one card anyway because you don't want to risk losing a whole shoot (and thousnads of dollars and your repuation) to a static spark as you take the card out of the camera? And for similar reasons you want to keep the images on the card until the project you took the pictures for is completed? And with this much money on the table the cost of the card is laughably close to 0 anyway? And for that matter, we're talking $100 cards, not $10 ones because speed counts.
Unless of course the files got corrupt in copying, you have a virus, you're in such a hurry you accidently pull the card out before it's done in the excitement of the shoot, or a hundred other reasons your PC files might not be reliable. We are not talking about vacation snapshots at the end of the day here. We're talking a professional shoot with thousands of dollars and the photographer's reputation at stake.
And for that matter, how does your script sort out which shoot the files belong to. That's a stupidly vague statement. Oh, I don't need to organize my cards, I use Elements organizer.
So just get the largest cards you can afford and you won't need to have lots of extra ones lying around
You just get the fastest cards you can afford. Capacity is irrelevant (well unless you have a cheap point and shoot to take on vacation, then you're fine with the 512 meg card you bought when you bought the camera -- and if you have one of those you're also too stupid to realize that in that kind of camera there's no diference between 2 and 10 megapixels because the optical quality is garbage).
I find it hilarious that you say it's not rocket science and yet you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about or what the issues are. The only thing you mention is capacity and capacity is a complete non-issue.
Your 8 gig cards are garbage to any real photographer. Not even getting into reliability they're too slow. Think cameras that are writing 20 megabyte+ image files and can shoot 6+ frames per second.
Suggesting bigger cards is just stupid. A photographer is not going to put a whole shoot on one card because they are not going to risk losing an entire shoot when one card fails.
When you're being paid $2500 for a shoot, you really don't care if you pay $15 or $150 for a card, you get whatever is best for the job. When are you going to start spouting off how we should back up to 15 cent DVD media? The media I use is about $3 each and the reflective layer is 24k gold. I know I should stop. $3 is just so expensive to store the images for $2500 shoot. I should really risk my reputation to save a few dollars.
I *really* need raw mode, and I also bring my notebook with me everywhere for backups during a shoot. 2 cards and the hard drive device works perfectly.
The bottle idea isn't so good because you have to remember which shoot those full cards are from. And your microSD super cheap cards are so slow I wouldn't even think of putting them in my camera (and my camera will buffer 8 raw images before memory speed is even an issue).
Slashdot Mirror
Prediction for next week,
Four legs good - two legs better.
Unfortunately, this includes offering download access to previously purchased Wizards of the Coast titles.
Why do these arrogant companies think they can take back what they've sold without compensation? This is ripe for a lawsuit.
You pay with your soul every time you boot Vista.
I started using Lynx at school in early NCSA Mosaic days when it was painfully slow to load a graphical browser in our "shared computing environment", and the graphical web wasn't that pretty anyway. When you're used to it, it's just so much simpler to do some quick browsing in Lynx so I've never stopped using it. I use Firefox about 90% of the time and Lynx 10% now. At times I've used Lynx when I didn't want it to be obvious I was using the web.
They shrunk the size by moving UI parts into a second unit.
By that logic I have a full blown PC the size of a USB memory stick. Just ignore the big beige box attached to the stick, that's only the power and reset buttons.
Besides the fact that it's stupid to equate to DVD equivalents (and how many elephents worth of volkswagons fill a football field of libraries of congress anyway?), they couldn't even to the math right for it.
8.4GB on each DVD time 250 DVDs, = 2.1TB. They're off by a factor of 5.
Not only is it just stupid to use DVD equivalents to give an idea of the size (how many elephants equals a libraries of congress anyway?), but they're off by an order of magnitude.
8.4GB * 250 = 2.1TB, not 10TB.
The last few phones I bought, I made sure they used a mini-USB connector to charge. It makes things a lot easier than having yet another adapter. Even my Motorola blue tooth headset, uses the same charging interface.
Alan Cox does assure us that Linux is now working on 64-bit time, and the UNIX epoch 'roll-over' would happen about the time that the sun burnt out
That's fine for the people who believed 640k ought to be enough for anyone.
The software of yester-year ran largely on single threaded operating systems, didn't have to interact with the internet or defend against attacks originating from it, had to manage miniscule feature and data sets, and was still buggy.
And the modern multi-threaded operating systems provide an API to do all of that for you. It's is no more complex for the programmer. That's like saying it's harder to drive now than it was 80 years ago because the car has so much onboard electronics, a more powerful engine, etc. When the truth is it's so much easier to drive now, you don't have to crank the engine, you have a radio, etc.
Complex systems have more bugs, modern systems are more complex.
Taking this as self-evidence is absolute BS. Complex systems *should* be compartmentalized and abstracted with each compartment and layer of abstraction properly tested.
But when it crashed your whole computer there was nothing to take down like there is today. There wasn't a difference between an app crashing and the computer crashing.
It does seem reasonable, since it gives you the ability to do whatever you want with your music.
But, what happens if your iPod is stolen, your music retrieved from it by making the iPod act as a hard drive and your files shared?
And what is your liability if you give your friend a copy of your song (yes, I know you're not supposed to), and they put it on a p2p network?
People make mistakes. Software needs to ship, preferably yesterday.
This attitude is the number one problem with software development. When all you care about is getting it out the door, you send garbage out the door.
Software today is so damn buggy. I spend hours a week just doing the work of getting my computer to work. And even then it has random slowdowns and crashes.
I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't like that. You'd run your program and it was ready in a second, you'd exit and it left no trace. Crashes were virtually unheard of. We have people where I work who only do data entry, and they still use wordperfect 4.2 on 386 hardware. I've seen their workflow and how fast it works for them and I can see if they "modernized" it would cripple their productivity.
And for the money at stake, what's so wrong with hiring a few Ph.D's to analyze code. Amortized over a few million copies, a few 6-digit salaries aren't so bad. And the losses the software shops suffer in bad-will when their products fail costs them more.
Smashing the hard drive is not good security it's way to easy to read your data. The only way to be sure is to melt it into slag.
What the amateur and pro photographers need to learn is that the snapshot people aren't going to learn better, because for them those thoughts are true. Very true, but what gets me is all these snapshot people who are spouting here that they know better than the pros and the pros are doing it the wrong way (like the AC on this thread). To continue your analogy, I know that I could not win a NASCAR race with an actual stock car and I know I can't build an actual NASCAR. Why do the snapshot people posting here think they know it better than the pros?
Exactly. Then we've recursively circled back to the original article.
How does rsync help if you drop the laptop on the way home and destroy the hard drive? Wouldn't it be better to put it on the laptop and keep it on the SD card in case you lose the tiny SD card on the way home?
You're either deliberately or ignorantly missing the concept of a commercial environment.
The difference between a mid-range Nikon lens and any point-and-shoot is just stunning. There's no games like "maybe your eye can't see it but a photophile can". I understand if I mention the size of the lens, elements, etc and especially price I'll sound like one of the audio fools, so leave that aside. I wish I had some samples on line, but when I take a picture of my dog with a point and shoot, you can see it has fur, get a notion of the texture of the fur, etc, but the fine detail is mostly a blur. When I use my DSLR, I can see every strand of fur. With a portait of a person, I can zoom on the eye and see every eyelash and the pattern of the iris.
The reason I say no difference between 2 and 10 megapixel, when I zoom in a point and shoot 10 megapixel image, it gets blurry beyond recognition long before it pixelizes; the pixels are much finer than needed and only show that the lens fails. With my 12 megapixel DSLR, when I zoom, it's the pixelizing that breaks down the image and I can see the sharp image degenerating because of pixelization.
All that only talks about the lens itself. When you get into the body, a point and shoot has a typical 6x8mm sensor. A DSLR has an sensor around 18x24 for a prosumer or 24x36 for a professional model. The effect is that each pixel is physically larger on the sensor, so it can gather more light and be less affected by noise. The result is a picture that's more vibrant and sharper.
Then there's a lot of other factors, like the dinky flash on a point and shoot (and front light is the worst kind too - it makes an image look flat), I have a wireless external flash, I usually put it around 60 degrees from me and it brings out side shadows that emphasize surface texture and make the picture pop. Or I can put the flash 20 feet away pointing at the background -- ever take a flash picture of a person and have the background come out black?
I never used the term directory. Why do you bring it up? How about namespace?
How about because you're doing a professional photoshoot and taking thousands of picture in one day? And you don't want them all on one card anyway because you don't want to risk losing a whole shoot (and thousnads of dollars and your repuation) to a static spark as you take the card out of the camera? And for similar reasons you want to keep the images on the card until the project you took the pictures for is completed? And with this much money on the table the cost of the card is laughably close to 0 anyway? And for that matter, we're talking $100 cards, not $10 ones because speed counts.
Unless of course the files got corrupt in copying, you have a virus, you're in such a hurry you accidently pull the card out before it's done in the excitement of the shoot, or a hundred other reasons your PC files might not be reliable. We are not talking about vacation snapshots at the end of the day here. We're talking a professional shoot with thousands of dollars and the photographer's reputation at stake. And for that matter, how does your script sort out which shoot the files belong to. That's a stupidly vague statement. Oh, I don't need to organize my cards, I use Elements organizer.
So just get the largest cards you can afford and you won't need to have lots of extra ones lying around
You just get the fastest cards you can afford. Capacity is irrelevant (well unless you have a cheap point and shoot to take on vacation, then you're fine with the 512 meg card you bought when you bought the camera -- and if you have one of those you're also too stupid to realize that in that kind of camera there's no diference between 2 and 10 megapixels because the optical quality is garbage).
I find it hilarious that you say it's not rocket science and yet you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about or what the issues are. The only thing you mention is capacity and capacity is a complete non-issue.
Your 8 gig cards are garbage to any real photographer. Not even getting into reliability they're too slow. Think cameras that are writing 20 megabyte+ image files and can shoot 6+ frames per second.
Suggesting bigger cards is just stupid. A photographer is not going to put a whole shoot on one card because they are not going to risk losing an entire shoot when one card fails.
When you're being paid $2500 for a shoot, you really don't care if you pay $15 or $150 for a card, you get whatever is best for the job. When are you going to start spouting off how we should back up to 15 cent DVD media? The media I use is about $3 each and the reflective layer is 24k gold. I know I should stop. $3 is just so expensive to store the images for $2500 shoot. I should really risk my reputation to save a few dollars.
800 seems a bit low actually but if you've got the skill to make them count it's a good number.
I just hope the padding material in your altoids tin is conductive so you don't have an electrostatic problem destorying cards.
I *really* need raw mode, and I also bring my notebook with me everywhere for backups during a shoot. 2 cards and the hard drive device works perfectly.
The bottle idea isn't so good because you have to remember which shoot those full cards are from. And your microSD super cheap cards are so slow I wouldn't even think of putting them in my camera (and my camera will buffer 8 raw images before memory speed is even an issue).