Maybe I'm wrong, but like some "CDs" in the past that incorporated some copy protection and couldn't carry the CD logo/seal any longer on the cover, wouldn't the same thing apply here? Can Sony legimitately still call this thing a DVD anymore without being sued for fraud?
Perhaps the DVD-Video logo, but it's still a DVD. You can get software on DVDs. You can't play them in your video player, but they are still DVDs.
Actually, it's the same thing with CDs. CDs with copy protection are still CDs; they just can't carry the CDDA (CD Digital Audio) logo.
Um, all of the Linux computers in my CS dept. (you know, the ones people actually USE, not just servers) are all CentOS. I don't think people would be very happy if you took away X from them...
Re:Does anyone even use this OS?
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
About 75% of the University of Wisconsin Computer Science dept. (graduates + faculty + computer labs) uses CentOS. That's, I dunno, 400 computers?
Rep. Dan Eastman...believes competitive keyword advertising is the equivalent of corporate identity theft, causing searchers to be (in his words) 'carjacked' and 'shanghaied' by advertisers.
Well, at least he's not appropriating the name of an entire city to make his point.
If I'm forced to use Vista, I don't want to shell out $300 to upgrade to 4 gigs of ram to get a decent GUI experience.
You don't need to... that article was full of crap. Vista has issues, including performance and memory use issues, but it's not nearly THAT bad.
As for your question, I have no clue. I bought a gig (one stick) a year and a half ago for about $110, and it's only recently that prices have come below that. It seems that prices shot up I guess not long after that and have been declining since. I would like to know as well.
During the 3 1/2 and 4 hour things, that was in the car (I wasn't driving), and I had a power inverter I could have plugged into the cigarette lighter. The longer trips had layovers in places with power outlets.
Now, I wasn't actually using my computer most of that time (in particular, during large portions of these I was trying to sleep), but I did some of it, and I was coding, and there were times when I wished that I had internet access or had installed the MSDN library.
Seriously, have you ever found yourself away from an Internet connection lately?
Yes, during 22 hours of transit, then 3 1/2 hours of transit, then 3 1/2 hours of transit, then 4 hours of transit, then 9 hours of transit. And that's just in the last 8 days.
(Okay, so during at least a fair portion of that time I could have accessed, for instance, airport Wi-Fi. But a good part of that, without a cell phone with internet access, I would have got nothing.)
Well, actually, they have. (Okay, it's a whiteboard, but you get the idea.)
You couldn't outfit every classroom with this for that money yet though.
But that's really a strawman anyway. It's not an either-or situation: distribute iPods or not have anything the kids can take home. One of my H.S. teachers tape recorded his lectures on cassette tape. You could record the lectures and put them online to download and let kids listen to it on their computers at home, or on their own iPods. If someone is really financially disadvantaged enough that this isn't an option, the school could have some players that you could check out from the library.
There are plenty of ways to achieve about the same effect without being fiscally stupid.
- When you have to work with complex information which is in one application, while you have to work with it in another (or sometimes the same) application.
Such as API documentation and your code, or a description of your design and your code, etc.
I have the two monitor thing at "work" (i.e. grad school), and I feel frustrated now when I'm at home because I only have one.
How does, "she probably has insurance" make it any less of a crime?
It doesn't. All he's saying is that there was nothing of a personal or sensitive nature taken; it's just money. My physical computer is worth probably $500, and only that much 'cause it's got a huge monitor, a nice sound card, and what is still an obscene amount of hard drive space. Yet if it was stolen, I would pay FAR more than $500 to get it back, especially if whoever took it cleaned out my backup CDs too. If your water heater is stolen, you go buy a new water heater.
[I hope I'm not double posting here... I got a server 500 error my first submission.]
And why do you have to rotate the aperture ring? The Nikon lenses in automatic mode adjust the aperture directly, not using the ring.
If I'm reading this all correctly, this means that Nikon chose to go with what I gave as option 2, which lets the aperture and the fstop ring get out of sync in automatic modes. (So the ring is set to f/8, but the camera is in auto and chooses f/5.6 instead, or something like that.)
This is probably the best option, but it's still a little ugly.
You are assuming that intuitiveness and ease of operation is only for snapshots or amateur photographers. In reality, professional photographers need this just as much, or more than amateurs. Because pros are often working in high-pressure, "make or break" situations where they have to get the shot quickly - and failing to get the shot costs money. It's far better to have direct control than to have to wrestle control away from the camera when making a creative or technical decision.
My point was that if you've taken the time to learn what the aperture is and how its settings affect your photos, and you've gotten the feel of how to use it to your shot's advantage, then aside from a short retraining period, a change in interface is not very important. For instance, moving the aperture control from the ring on the lens to the back of the camera takes all of 10 minutes to learn -- look up "manual mode" or "fstop" in the index probably, then a few days of getting used to if you shoot regularily. Maybe a little longer if you're changing back and forth between old and new cameras. (Perhaps in much the same manner that changing between QWERTY and Dvorak keyboards works -- I can use either, but when sitting down at a computer I sometimes start typing with the wrong on before realizing my error.)
As for the lens mounts, no, I don't use the old lenses (though I might have tried to mooch off my parents' lenses if either Canon or Minolta had retained backwards compatibility) because I only got into it as a little bit of a hobby very recently, so I'm not one of these people who had thousands invested. I appreciate backwards compatibility; I find the fact that IBM's zSeries still runs s/390 binaries compiled in 1970 very impressive. But at the same time, I have a hard time faulting Canon, because there are times when maintaining compatibility isn't worth it. If adding AF to 1970s lenses makes the mechanics more complicated and thus more expensive and more prone to failure, that's an okay excuse to not support it. (I don't know if that's actually the case; I don't know the mechanics of Canon's lenses. But it could, for instance, mean the difference between having to choose between putting the AF mechanism and each lens or putting it in the body and having a backwards-compatible interlink to it, or making a clean mechanism to put it in the body. Not that Canon does this; I do know that AF is lens-specific. It's just an example.)
And it's not like they are doing this every few years or anything; it changed two decades ago. The (almost) original Canon AF lenses use the same mount as the new DSLRs (well almost; the DSLRs are a slightly different but still backwards-compatible mount). I mean look at Olympus; when they started with the DSLRs, they completely changed their lens format to something specifically made for digital. I belive this means that you can't even get a digital and film body from them and use the same lenses. You can at least still do that with Canon.
Oops, that was supposed to say electronic control of the aperture. Because it seems that then one of three things has to happen:
1. There needs to be a motor to rotate the ring so it remains in sync with what the electronics choose for the fstop, which adds an additional point of failure,
2. The lens needs to be able to ignore the fstop ring and just use the setting the camera says, which means that the ring is only right when in Av or manual mode, or
3. The fstop ring becomes sort of a differential thing instead of a positional one, so rotating the ring will change the fstop but the absolute position means nothing (like at least most DSLRs)
None are deal breakers, but it seems that you either need to change the interface slightly anyway or add complexity to the lens. Just out of curiosity, what does Nikon do?
So the question is what is better: in-depth papers that don't make sure the person knows what they're talking about despite the fact the work is all their own or a demonstration on the concept that is more superficial but much more likely to prove an understanding of the knowledge given all of the work is their own.
I don't think it's an either-or choice. Have exams for the prove-you-know-it things and have the papers.
BTW, your programming assignments that you mention are subject to the same problems -- if not moreso -- than paper writing. It's just as easy to copy those (unless you test the understanding of someone's program separately) as it is an assignment, and harder to distinguish plagarism from non-plagarism. If you ask 10 people to write a paragraph describing how to tie a shoe, you'll get 10 entirely different answers. But I've had assignments in which I think that you *wouldn't* get 10 different answers, at least modulo trivial issues like variable names, spacing, indentation, etc.
It isn't that hard to employ analogic reasoning and infer that by "polygenesis" the OP probably means "independent formulation of identical conclusions by separate researchers"
Right, but even still, the independent researchers aren't going to write the same thing, so if a teacher sees that the wording is non-trivially the same between two sources, it's not going to be polygenesis.
Though now that I'm writing this instead of just thinking it, I guess that there's the other side of plagarism which is just including information from a source without citing it (as opposed to quoting it).
I know this joke has been used a few times here... but I laughed. If I didn't want to post in the topic, I would mod you funny.
(That's the problem with the mod system here; the topics I read enough to moderate I also want to post on. I think I've only used up all my points once...)
What you say is highly subject-sensitive though. For instance, I had to write a paper (a literature survey) in my computer architecture course on superpipelining. Others in that class did superscalar processors, VLIW/EPIC, etc. Each of these papers went much more in depth in the given topic than anything we did in class. So if not the paper, what should we have done? In any of these cases anything demonstration-line I can think of would have been well beyond the scope of what you can do in a semester, especially in an undergrad class.
I especially like the "polygenesis[?]" as if the submitter's not sure if that's the right word or not.
Personally, I'm not sure what he's supposed to be saying (as the only dictionary entry for that word is "Derivation of a species or type from more than one ancestor or germ cell"), so I suspect not...
I don't think dropping the paper is a good idea, as it's the project-type things that are really the best indicators barring this sort of cheating.
But maybe you could do something like spend 15 minutes with everyone (this would take a while, I know) and ask them questions about what they wrote, or have them give a presentation on the topic. That way even if they cheated on the paper itself, at least you know it wasn't a case of just downloading it and handing it in, and that they actually know the material.
I've thought about this in the context of, say, an intro CS class. I think that a good way to do the evaluations would be to let people work in groups, but then for each assignment randomly choose 5 or 10 people who you ask about their design and implementation, "if the question changed in this way, how would that affect your solution", etc.
But if you drop the paper, what's left? Tests? They aren't really a good indication. Heck, I had a semester-long class in high school that only met formally a few times and effectively had one assigment: write and present a paper.
There's a validity result there though, in addition to what the other two responses said. If it's a hacked copy of Vista, then there's already something to make it do things that it's not supposed to do. I would be more skeptical of this result if it came from a hacked final copy than from RC2.
Why's that? NT is just as architecture independent as Linux is. At one time or another, there have been versions that run on x86, x64, Itanium, PPC, and the DEC Alpha.
Because that uses very valuable die real estate. These days x86 is already converted into micro-ops, which is like another instruction set altogether, which can be more easily re-ordered to be made more efficient.
Which is one of the arguments I bring against x86. Or maybe "evidence" is better. When the inventor of a given ISA decides that it's harder to implement a chip that runs instructions from that ISA than it is to implement a hardware compiler that translates it to another, you know there are issues.
Actually though, that brings up an opportunity that I was thinking about just a day or two ago. I think you could possibly implement a parallel ISA with a relatively modest investment in chip space. What you would need to do is implement just a second decoder that translates the second ISA into micro ops. It could then use the same cache and core of the chip as x86.
You could even possibly use micro ops themselves as the parallel ISA, though from what I've heard they wouldn't be too amenable to that.
Two more comments. First, I don't think that the intuitiveness of how to adjust the fstop matters. If you want using a camera to be intuitive, you're probably shooting in an automatic mode.
Second, I should probably say that I think I would prefer if the aperture control was on the lens. My point is more that I don't think it's the switch to digital that is making cameras harder to use; I think it predates that. And it does in the case of Canons at least.
In fact, it's not just an analogy, the movement of the aperture ring is directly linked to the aperture.
Though not impossible, that becomes harder with electronic control of the focus.
With the control on the camera body, the wheel moves in a different plane to the actual aperture and the lens barrel - not to mention it not being located anywhere near where the aperture is.
That probably depends on the camera, but on the Rebel XT the wheel that controls both shutter and aperture is in the same plane as the original fstop control. In fact, I believe (though beyond looking at one photo of one lens) that the direction that the wheel is turned is the same as the direction you would rotate the fstop ring on the old lenses.
The better cameras have the wheel on the back of the camera, but it's still the same plane and probably turned the same way as the fstop rings.
What? The Nikon F3 has a manual film advance where it should be, or the option of making it disappear with a motordrive.Thes self-timer was in the usual place. The ISO setting is where it belongs. The aperture setting is where it belongs.
The F3 is still a little before the era I was talking about there. The Canon Elan 7 has no manual film advance, puts the ISO setting in a place that I'm not sure I would be able to access without the manual, and puts the fstop wheel on the back of the camera. The self-timer is modal in the sense that once a picture is taken with it on it doesn't revert to one-shot, but there's a physical switch as opposed to the Rebel XT's mode-changing button.
These were cameras from the 80s and 90s, and they still had a proper aperture ring, which didn't disappear on Nikons until the digital age.
Hmm, I probably should have said that I'm biased in that most of my limited (I'm young and have photography just as a hobby) experience is from (as you can tell) Canons. From what I can tell, Canon had moved control of the aperture to the body at least as an option as early as 1989 on the EOS-1.
How is totally losing light metering with manual focus lenses "about the same way" as doing it on an AF 35mm SLR, where they worked just fine?
This may again just be a Canon thing, but I don't think I could put a manual lens on my Elan 7 any more than on the Rebel.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm wrong, but like some "CDs" in the past that incorporated some copy protection and couldn't carry the CD logo/seal any longer on the cover, wouldn't the same thing apply here? Can Sony legimitately still call this thing a DVD anymore without being sued for fraud?
Perhaps the DVD-Video logo, but it's still a DVD. You can get software on DVDs. You can't play them in your video player, but they are still DVDs.
Actually, it's the same thing with CDs. CDs with copy protection are still CDs; they just can't carry the CDDA (CD Digital Audio) logo.
Um, all of the Linux computers in my CS dept. (you know, the ones people actually USE, not just servers) are all CentOS. I don't think people would be very happy if you took away X from them...
About 75% of the University of Wisconsin Computer Science dept. (graduates + faculty + computer labs) uses CentOS. That's, I dunno, 400 computers?
Rep. Dan Eastman...believes competitive keyword advertising is the equivalent of corporate identity theft, causing searchers to be (in his words) 'carjacked' and 'shanghaied' by advertisers.
Well, at least he's not appropriating the name of an entire city to make his point.
If I'm forced to use Vista, I don't want to shell out $300 to upgrade to 4 gigs of ram to get a decent GUI experience.
You don't need to... that article was full of crap. Vista has issues, including performance and memory use issues, but it's not nearly THAT bad.
As for your question, I have no clue. I bought a gig (one stick) a year and a half ago for about $110, and it's only recently that prices have come below that. It seems that prices shot up I guess not long after that and have been declining since. I would like to know as well.
During the 3 1/2 and 4 hour things, that was in the car (I wasn't driving), and I had a power inverter I could have plugged into the cigarette lighter. The longer trips had layovers in places with power outlets.
Now, I wasn't actually using my computer most of that time (in particular, during large portions of these I was trying to sleep), but I did some of it, and I was coding, and there were times when I wished that I had internet access or had installed the MSDN library.
Seriously, have you ever found yourself away from an Internet connection lately?
Yes, during 22 hours of transit, then 3 1/2 hours of transit, then 3 1/2 hours of transit, then 4 hours of transit, then 9 hours of transit. And that's just in the last 8 days.
(Okay, so during at least a fair portion of that time I could have accessed, for instance, airport Wi-Fi. But a good part of that, without a cell phone with internet access, I would have got nothing.)
Well, actually, they have. (Okay, it's a whiteboard, but you get the idea.)
You couldn't outfit every classroom with this for that money yet though.
But that's really a strawman anyway. It's not an either-or situation: distribute iPods or not have anything the kids can take home. One of my H.S. teachers tape recorded his lectures on cassette tape. You could record the lectures and put them online to download and let kids listen to it on their computers at home, or on their own iPods. If someone is really financially disadvantaged enough that this isn't an option, the school could have some players that you could check out from the library.
There are plenty of ways to achieve about the same effect without being fiscally stupid.
- When you have to work with complex information which is in one application, while you have to work with it in another (or sometimes the same) application.
Such as API documentation and your code, or a description of your design and your code, etc.
I have the two monitor thing at "work" (i.e. grad school), and I feel frustrated now when I'm at home because I only have one.
How does, "she probably has insurance" make it any less of a crime?
It doesn't. All he's saying is that there was nothing of a personal or sensitive nature taken; it's just money. My physical computer is worth probably $500, and only that much 'cause it's got a huge monitor, a nice sound card, and what is still an obscene amount of hard drive space. Yet if it was stolen, I would pay FAR more than $500 to get it back, especially if whoever took it cleaned out my backup CDs too. If your water heater is stolen, you go buy a new water heater.
[I hope I'm not double posting here... I got a server 500 error my first submission.]
And why do you have to rotate the aperture ring? The Nikon lenses in automatic mode adjust the aperture directly, not using the ring.
If I'm reading this all correctly, this means that Nikon chose to go with what I gave as option 2, which lets the aperture and the fstop ring get out of sync in automatic modes. (So the ring is set to f/8, but the camera is in auto and chooses f/5.6 instead, or something like that.)
This is probably the best option, but it's still a little ugly.
You are assuming that intuitiveness and ease of operation is only for snapshots or amateur photographers. In reality, professional photographers need this just as much, or more than amateurs. Because pros are often working in high-pressure, "make or break" situations where they have to get the shot quickly - and failing to get the shot costs money. It's far better to have direct control than to have to wrestle control away from the camera when making a creative or technical decision.
My point was that if you've taken the time to learn what the aperture is and how its settings affect your photos, and you've gotten the feel of how to use it to your shot's advantage, then aside from a short retraining period, a change in interface is not very important. For instance, moving the aperture control from the ring on the lens to the back of the camera takes all of 10 minutes to learn -- look up "manual mode" or "fstop" in the index probably, then a few days of getting used to if you shoot regularily. Maybe a little longer if you're changing back and forth between old and new cameras. (Perhaps in much the same manner that changing between QWERTY and Dvorak keyboards works -- I can use either, but when sitting down at a computer I sometimes start typing with the wrong on before realizing my error.)
As for the lens mounts, no, I don't use the old lenses (though I might have tried to mooch off my parents' lenses if either Canon or Minolta had retained backwards compatibility) because I only got into it as a little bit of a hobby very recently, so I'm not one of these people who had thousands invested. I appreciate backwards compatibility; I find the fact that IBM's zSeries still runs s/390 binaries compiled in 1970 very impressive. But at the same time, I have a hard time faulting Canon, because there are times when maintaining compatibility isn't worth it. If adding AF to 1970s lenses makes the mechanics more complicated and thus more expensive and more prone to failure, that's an okay excuse to not support it. (I don't know if that's actually the case; I don't know the mechanics of Canon's lenses. But it could, for instance, mean the difference between having to choose between putting the AF mechanism and each lens or putting it in the body and having a backwards-compatible interlink to it, or making a clean mechanism to put it in the body. Not that Canon does this; I do know that AF is lens-specific. It's just an example.)
And it's not like they are doing this every few years or anything; it changed two decades ago. The (almost) original Canon AF lenses use the same mount as the new DSLRs (well almost; the DSLRs are a slightly different but still backwards-compatible mount). I mean look at Olympus; when they started with the DSLRs, they completely changed their lens format to something specifically made for digital. I belive this means that you can't even get a digital and film body from them and use the same lenses. You can at least still do that with Canon.
Oops, that was supposed to say electronic control of the aperture. Because it seems that then one of three things has to happen:
1. There needs to be a motor to rotate the ring so it remains in sync with what the electronics choose for the fstop, which adds an additional point of failure,
2. The lens needs to be able to ignore the fstop ring and just use the setting the camera says, which means that the ring is only right when in Av or manual mode, or
3. The fstop ring becomes sort of a differential thing instead of a positional one, so rotating the ring will change the fstop but the absolute position means nothing (like at least most DSLRs)
None are deal breakers, but it seems that you either need to change the interface slightly anyway or add complexity to the lens. Just out of curiosity, what does Nikon do?
So the question is what is better: in-depth papers that don't make sure the person knows what they're talking about despite the fact the work is all their own or a demonstration on the concept that is more superficial but much more likely to prove an understanding of the knowledge given all of the work is their own.
I don't think it's an either-or choice. Have exams for the prove-you-know-it things and have the papers.
BTW, your programming assignments that you mention are subject to the same problems -- if not moreso -- than paper writing. It's just as easy to copy those (unless you test the understanding of someone's program separately) as it is an assignment, and harder to distinguish plagarism from non-plagarism. If you ask 10 people to write a paragraph describing how to tie a shoe, you'll get 10 entirely different answers. But I've had assignments in which I think that you *wouldn't* get 10 different answers, at least modulo trivial issues like variable names, spacing, indentation, etc.
It isn't that hard to employ analogic reasoning and infer that by "polygenesis" the OP probably means "independent formulation of identical conclusions by separate researchers"
Right, but even still, the independent researchers aren't going to write the same thing, so if a teacher sees that the wording is non-trivially the same between two sources, it's not going to be polygenesis.
Though now that I'm writing this instead of just thinking it, I guess that there's the other side of plagarism which is just including information from a source without citing it (as opposed to quoting it).
I think the reason kdawson used "cut-and-pate" is because the article used "cut-and-paste" and he didn't want to plagiarize it.
I know this joke has been used a few times here... but I laughed. If I didn't want to post in the topic, I would mod you funny.
(That's the problem with the mod system here; the topics I read enough to moderate I also want to post on. I think I've only used up all my points once...)
As student in computer engineering...
What you say is highly subject-sensitive though. For instance, I had to write a paper (a literature survey) in my computer architecture course on superpipelining. Others in that class did superscalar processors, VLIW/EPIC, etc. Each of these papers went much more in depth in the given topic than anything we did in class. So if not the paper, what should we have done? In any of these cases anything demonstration-line I can think of would have been well beyond the scope of what you can do in a semester, especially in an undergrad class.
I especially like the "polygenesis[?]" as if the submitter's not sure if that's the right word or not.
Personally, I'm not sure what he's supposed to be saying (as the only dictionary entry for that word is "Derivation of a species or type from more than one ancestor or germ cell"), so I suspect not...
I don't think dropping the paper is a good idea, as it's the project-type things that are really the best indicators barring this sort of cheating.
But maybe you could do something like spend 15 minutes with everyone (this would take a while, I know) and ask them questions about what they wrote, or have them give a presentation on the topic. That way even if they cheated on the paper itself, at least you know it wasn't a case of just downloading it and handing it in, and that they actually know the material.
I've thought about this in the context of, say, an intro CS class. I think that a good way to do the evaluations would be to let people work in groups, but then for each assignment randomly choose 5 or 10 people who you ask about their design and implementation, "if the question changed in this way, how would that affect your solution", etc.
But if you drop the paper, what's left? Tests? They aren't really a good indication. Heck, I had a semester-long class in high school that only met formally a few times and effectively had one assigment: write and present a paper.
There's a validity result there though, in addition to what the other two responses said. If it's a hacked copy of Vista, then there's already something to make it do things that it's not supposed to do. I would be more skeptical of this result if it came from a hacked final copy than from RC2.
It's completely arbitrary and based on a naive world view. If Diebold is bad, their competition HAS to be good.
/.ers screaming "M$! OMG TEH EV1L!11!!"
To be fair, hasn't that been the US's foreign policy for, like, half a century at least?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
So it's not just
but I doubt MS would move any time soon
Why's that? NT is just as architecture independent as Linux is. At one time or another, there have been versions that run on x86, x64, Itanium, PPC, and the DEC Alpha.
Because that uses very valuable die real estate. These days x86 is already converted into micro-ops, which is like another instruction set altogether, which can be more easily re-ordered to be made more efficient.
Which is one of the arguments I bring against x86. Or maybe "evidence" is better. When the inventor of a given ISA decides that it's harder to implement a chip that runs instructions from that ISA than it is to implement a hardware compiler that translates it to another, you know there are issues.
Actually though, that brings up an opportunity that I was thinking about just a day or two ago. I think you could possibly implement a parallel ISA with a relatively modest investment in chip space. What you would need to do is implement just a second decoder that translates the second ISA into micro ops. It could then use the same cache and core of the chip as x86.
You could even possibly use micro ops themselves as the parallel ISA, though from what I've heard they wouldn't be too amenable to that.
Two more comments. First, I don't think that the intuitiveness of how to adjust the fstop matters. If you want using a camera to be intuitive, you're probably shooting in an automatic mode.
Second, I should probably say that I think I would prefer if the aperture control was on the lens. My point is more that I don't think it's the switch to digital that is making cameras harder to use; I think it predates that. And it does in the case of Canons at least.
In fact, it's not just an analogy, the movement of the aperture ring is directly linked to the aperture.
Though not impossible, that becomes harder with electronic control of the focus.
With the control on the camera body, the wheel moves in a different plane to the actual aperture and the lens barrel - not to mention it not being located anywhere near where the aperture is.
That probably depends on the camera, but on the Rebel XT the wheel that controls both shutter and aperture is in the same plane as the original fstop control. In fact, I believe (though beyond looking at one photo of one lens) that the direction that the wheel is turned is the same as the direction you would rotate the fstop ring on the old lenses.
The better cameras have the wheel on the back of the camera, but it's still the same plane and probably turned the same way as the fstop rings.
What? The Nikon F3 has a manual film advance where it should be, or the option of making it disappear with a motordrive.Thes self-timer was in the usual place. The ISO setting is where it belongs. The aperture setting is where it belongs.
The F3 is still a little before the era I was talking about there. The Canon Elan 7 has no manual film advance, puts the ISO setting in a place that I'm not sure I would be able to access without the manual, and puts the fstop wheel on the back of the camera. The self-timer is modal in the sense that once a picture is taken with it on it doesn't revert to one-shot, but there's a physical switch as opposed to the Rebel XT's mode-changing button.
These were cameras from the 80s and 90s, and they still had a proper aperture ring, which didn't disappear on Nikons until the digital age.
Hmm, I probably should have said that I'm biased in that most of my limited (I'm young and have photography just as a hobby) experience is from (as you can tell) Canons. From what I can tell, Canon had moved control of the aperture to the body at least as an option as early as 1989 on the EOS-1.
How is totally losing light metering with manual focus lenses "about the same way" as doing it on an AF 35mm SLR, where they worked just fine?
This may again just be a Canon thing, but I don't think I could put a manual lens on my Elan 7 any more than on the Rebel.