Well played sir! Brilliant rebuttal! Bravo! You've cleverly deduced that I meant Google *actually* offers people pennies to work. Your utterly literal interpretation is truely a wonder to behold.
Might I suggest you could have a brilliant future in fundamental theology?
So your're saying the WalM*rtization of America is a good thing? Yeah, we want cheap shoes and to hell with that 13 year old girl working 60 hrs. a week for $5 in Indonesia. Gotta have cheap goods, regardless of who's back yo u have to break to get 'em.
The economy is like water, seeking a lowest common level. When you do business with those who'd abuse their workforce, pay them pennies, place them in dangerous situations you invite it upon yourself. Think I'm crazy? That we're evolving into a service based economy is completly unrelated, right? If you believe the bottom line is all that matters, then the only way Americans can compete is to sink to the same level as that factory in China. And it's slowly happening; destruction of the middle class is no coincidence.
If you are interviewing a large number of unqualified candidates, then clearly your screening process needs to be fixed. It isn't that unqualified forign workers are being culled before reaching your doorstep while "the locals" aren't, is it?
Consider this:
Let's say there *is* a shortage of talented American IT professionals, regardless of income requirements. You are a politician hearing from companies about this shortage. Do you A) Go for the long haul and try to fix the education system to increase the number of qualified American candidates or do you B) Increase the number of low cost H1Bs available to the companies contributing large sums of money to your campaign?
If you can't find qualified Americans, you aren't looking hard enough. And where would the incentive to do that be if the H1Bs are willing to work for lesser compensation?
No. I meant what I meant. Ph.D. or Devry graduate is irrelevant. Generally, most companies complaining they can't find qualified American candidates really mean, 'We can't find qualified native candidates for the paltry compesation we're offering". No wonder considering the cost of higher education these days.
I work at a huge company with plenty of H1B holders. The ratio of talented to useless slob H1B holders is roughly the same as "home grown" employees here. It's just that the H1B folks COST LESS.
"The default state of a file on your computer is unshared"
Who's computer? What operating system? Who set the defaults? You've obviously have never experinced filesystem (in)security on university run multi-user systems.
Rechargeable batteries are inefficient for low current, long term storage applications in items like remote controls and wireless mice as they lose a far greater percentage of their charge just sitting around than the venerable alkaline.
Lets be crystal clear about this point. Guns are tools for killing/wounding, there can be no question about this.
The real question is, however, under what circumstance is wielding that power justified or even necessary? I believe it is my fundamental right, under clear and limited circumstances to kill another human being. I do not relish this right nor to I wish to ever have to exercise it. However, if in the course of my life I'm called to defend self or loved ones against grievous harm, the kind which justifies taking the life of another human, I want the tool proven most effective at killing. A gun.
I am not a muscular man nor schooled in hand to hand combat arts. However, I'm perfectly able to operate and maintain a firearm. The Constitution, beyond the 2nd amendment speaks of inalienable human rights (as well as government having no authority over them, enumerated or not). I contend it is my inalienable right to defend myself (and others) from harm, even if that means resorting to lethal force.
Though guns are specifically designed to kill/wound, they do not cause death/destruction. Simply put, it is the intent of the wielder of the weapon that gives cause to the act. I contend that for every gun related murder reported, thousands, if not millions of guns are responsibly owned and maintained my law abiding citizens with nary a single bullet ever directed towards a human.
It is already illegal to murder a person, but the crime still occurs. The argument that gun ownership makes it easier or predisposes one to commit murder is bunk. The type of person who considers murder as a viable option under any circumstance is not likely to be swayed by (a lack of) gun ownership. That person is a societal problem laws do not deter. Ban guns and now I, a law abiding citizen have a greatly reduced chance of repelling this person.
Since we don't live in a world of force fields and phasers, the most effective method/tool of stopping one who is bent on causing me and mine bodily harm is the kill them with a gun.
You may not be aware, but non-doppler radar is quite capable of detecting precipitation, just not velocity.
Previous to the introduction of the WSR-88D, all NWS radar sites(excepting research stations) were non-doppler and were quite often modified surplus military air search radars.
And yes, even a cheap marine radar can detect rain.
If you don't put a good filter on the water input of your machine, you're a total dipshit because:
A)Your products will taste like shit B) The impurities (minerals for those of you who need a roadmap) will ruin the machine. Carbonator pumps quickly die when they get scale buildup.
I installed a system at my friend's house, a la E-Bay and the soda tastes great using just a plain ol' G.E. icemaker water filter.
Installing the system was a joke, finding a syrup vendor who will sell to private individuals at a reasonable price is the real challenge.
Incidentally, I think the American version of SBY, "Star Blazers" (at least the first story arc), is one of the best dubbed translations around.
"Star Blazers" was the introduction to anime for an entire generation of kids (myself included); it predated the American release of Akira by at least a decade.
Oddly enough, plenty of music is still produced on vinyl and new turntables are being manufactured.
"but like it or not from this point on, the vast majority of consumer interest in photography will be in the digital medium"
So if the average Dorito munching, Bud Lite swilling Joe Sixpack consumer doesn't deem it interesting, it's dead? Shit, I'd better send a memo to my favorite "indy" rock station telling them they're dead because they don't play N'Sync. And hell, I'd better throw out my Moog sythesizer and replace it with a brand new digital Casio keyboard!
There's a whole world of creativity, thought and information beyond your knowlege base. Tap into it.
"Yes of course, I see consumers bgging everyday to by poor products. Digital photography wouldn't be gaining popularity, especially in the pro area, if it wasn't a better product"
How nieve can you be? Explain VHS, a clearly inferior format to BetaMax, winning in the end. Marketing.
Companies spend millions, if not billions to convince the american consumer he/she has to have the next great product, regardless of it's quality or lack thereof. They're trying to sell the cheapest piece of crap for the highest price possible.
Companies make their high end products and sell them at a lower profit margin to "professionals" to get their name out there. Your quote above proves the point.
Really, what the hell it "prosumer" anyway. It's just a marketing term designed to make amateurs feel like they're special for paying for an overly expensive product. Ever notice how "prosumer" cameras are cheap plastic while only the gear for professionals is made of metal?
In 1952, when Rollei was making twin lens reflex cameras, they had two main lines; the Rolleicord and the Rolleiflex. The Rolleiflex was for the professional and the Rolleicord for the amateur; there was no attempt to hide or blur this fact. Even so, the 'cords, while simpler, were built to the the same high standards as their more expensive siblings.
I can say without hesitation that my 1952 Rolleicord is smoother and better built than almost any camera sold in the past 25 years...and it was the company's cheap camera! Aside a cleaning and calibration in the 70's, it's been going strong for 50 years! Now, consumer cameras are built as cheaply as possible with no forethought for maintenence and repair. Build barely passable crap at a price point as such that repair isn't worthwile is the standard operating proceedure.
So does the customer *ask* for crappy equipment? No, of course not, but that's what they've been duped into buying. If digital cameras were undoubtedly superior to any film technology, but far less profitable, would they be pushed as hard?
How many prized photos have turned up in attics and basements after years of neglect?
You're forgetting that a large portion of the population is not computer savvy. Do you really expect your uncle who can't set the time on his VCR to rearchive his images every 5-10 years?
Think of the cost of all the equipment needed to update and rearchive images on a regular basis for the next 50 years. Then think of the archiving neccesary to maintain Kodachrome slides over that same period of time.
There is much to be said for storing/archiving information in the simplest form possible. We have Shakespeare's complete works available to us. Yes they have been copied over the years, but what would have happened over several centuries if they had been written in an obscure, lost language?
If you archive your images digitally, you'd better have the equivalent Rosetta Stone stored with them.
"It's painfully obvious you're really attached to your old tool, and I say: bravo. Hang on like grim death. But don't bitch about more options. Yeesh."
Not at all. I do love my old tool (that sounds wierd, wouln't you agree?), but throughout this thread, I've been saying there's a right tool for the job. Digital is clearly superior in certain situations, but to say film is dead is horribly shortsighted.
I get upset when I see people spouting marketing slogans as if they were the God's honest truth. My favorite is "the quality of digital cable (T.V.)". People have been feed the "digital is better" mantra for so long that they accept it as a matter of fact. I've watched enough digital cable television to know that maybe 10 channels *are* better looking, but the rest are are lower quality than regular analog broadcasts and are full of artifacts because at a lower bandwidth, the company can maximize the usage of it's existing infrastructure
Do you have any doubts that the only reason digital imaging technology is being pushed so hard is that it has a greater PROFIT potential? It is nieve to think companies do anything for the good of the consumer.
I take exeption to the term "semi-pro" because it is meaningless. That it is part of the cultural lexicon does not make it any more useful.
Consider this, if I was a doctor, how would you feel if I told you I had virtually never been sued for gross negligence in the last year?
For the sake of this minor arguement, let us say that I'm an advanced semi-amateur photographer. What does it mean? Have I ever been paid during my photographic endeavors?
If professional means you've collected income, then you either have or haven't. How often you've collected it or why is of little consequence. If you're loose, you're a slut, if you've made a buck at it, you're a prostitute. I guess it's okay if you're a "semi-pro" hooker.
I'll concede that it's a matter of personal preference and leave it at that.
You're missing an important point of the zone system. The whole reason the zone system exists is to decide what part of the subject is important to you and to fit it within the range that is recordable.
After the print is exposed, then we have development and printing which also effect the final image.
Since photo paper has a range of 3-5 stops, the point on the Zone system is to compress the selected shadows and highlights into a range that can be recorded by the paper.
The zone system is RELETIVE to the film being used, where 0 is dmin (density minimum) and 10 is dmax. How smoothly the shadows and highlights are recorded and imaged within this range is what true photography is all about. The dynamic range of any film or CCD can be expressed with the zone system. It is the fidelity within this range that film allows for more control and therefore quality (beyond such simple terms as resolution).
Slide film has a contrast range of about 5-6 STOPS, color print film about 7-9 and B&W 8-11. Where the latest digital cameras fit in, I don't know, but generally they fall apart at the extremes of the range more catastrophicly than film.
I use the word "professional" to denote my attitude and skill level. You can be paid and not be a professional.
"Professional: Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job."
No where in the dictionary can I find any mention of professional meaning having only ONE career. You can be a professional at many jobs at the same time. When did "professional" pick up the connotation of "main job"
You just don't get it do you? "Film is dead" is such a rediculous statement. Years ago, when photography was invented, it was declared that painting is dead. Funny how there are still many painters, eh? Paining as a commercial venture may be very diminished, but it is far from dead. Besides, there are many endeavors worth persuing outside the commercial world.
There is a reality beyond the tiny sphere in which you reside.
"Also consider the environmental impact of film photography. I cannot stand to even go into the town of Longview Texas, where the Eastman Kodak factory spews the waste products of film manufacturing. It literally makes me ill to breath the "air" for MILES around the plant. They claim their emissions are safe (but nobody should ever have to breathe air that smells this horrible). According to my sources, that town has the highest proportion of ancephalic babies in the country, and it is very common for kids to be ADHD. I can't make a credible correlation, but I can say with certainty that it is not a place where I would ever choose to set foot again."
As we all know, plastic and semiconductor plants have no waste products of any real impact. Get real, will you. There is a trade of for each process.
Think of the entire chain for film, being the camera, film, paper, chemicals to develop, etc. Now think of your digital camera, pc, cd-rs,printer, ink, memory cards, etc. Which is dirtier to produce? How much film could you buy and process before it's enviromental impact exceeded a new computer system every 1.5 years?
What exactly ARE your sources? If you can't make a credible correlation, why did you bring it up? You might as well be quoting fiction.
"Film is dead. As a semi-pro photographer, and someone who has been doing it for a VERY long time, I can say: film is dead."
Painting is dead. As a semi-pro photograper, and someone who has been doing it for a long time, I can say; painting is dead.
Hmm. Does that sound short sighted and assinine?
What a load of crap. First, lets get one thing straight. You can be no more "semi-pro" than you can be "kind of pregnant". You either are or aren't.
For mass produced, K-Mart style, get 'em in and out type photography, digital as a medium kills film. There is however, the right tool for a particular job. If you wan't to project HIGH quality images or make archival prints, digital looses (don't give me crap about the new epson inks, they haven't been proven and still can't hold a candle to platinum prints).
"It was Mac laptops. Actually watch the movie...."
You're thinking of when Jeff Goldblume hacked the alien network in "ID4" with his Powerbook.
Sadly, I did watch it and semi-enjoyed it in a self destructive sort of way. I had free tickets to a test screening, and then again saw it on Cable and yet again as a rental. In the movie, they were not Mac laptops; there was a whole sequence describing their RAM and processors, most decidedly Intel(ish). The laptops were never really identified as any specifict type, considering they had Hollywood GUIs and spraypainted cammo patterns. Hell, the main character's machine was a lunchbox; Apple/Mac never made one of those.
The computers in the school/fire sprinkler scene were Macs, however.
Please get your story straight before you start accusing people. Otherwise, your ignorace is only made that much more obvious. Besides that dinkus, my post was only a joke.
To hell with Nostradamus, this is just like in the movie "Hackers" when the evil Di Vinci virus took over the oil supertankers, but the heros stopped it by overloading the Gibson supercomputer with Windows laptops!
How dare CableVision impair my ability, nary my HUMAN RIGHT to copy this movie!
Slashdot Mirror
Well played sir! Brilliant rebuttal! Bravo! You've cleverly deduced that I meant Google *actually* offers people pennies to work. Your utterly literal interpretation is truely a wonder to behold.
Might I suggest you could have a brilliant future in fundamental theology?
So your're saying the WalM*rtization of America is a good thing? Yeah, we want cheap shoes and to hell with that 13 year old girl working 60 hrs. a week for $5 in Indonesia. Gotta have cheap goods, regardless of who's back yo u have to break to get 'em.
The economy is like water, seeking a lowest common level. When you do business with those who'd abuse their workforce, pay them pennies, place them in dangerous situations you invite it upon yourself. Think I'm crazy? That we're evolving into a service based economy is completly unrelated, right? If you believe the bottom line is all that matters, then the only way Americans can compete is to sink to the same level as that factory in China. And it's slowly happening; destruction of the middle class is no coincidence.
If you are interviewing a large number of unqualified candidates, then clearly your screening process needs to be fixed. It isn't that unqualified forign workers are being culled before reaching your doorstep while "the locals" aren't, is it?
Consider this:
Let's say there *is* a shortage of talented American IT professionals, regardless of income requirements. You are a politician hearing from companies about this shortage. Do you A) Go for the long haul and try to fix the education system to increase the number of qualified American candidates or do you B) Increase the number of low cost H1Bs available to the companies contributing large sums of money to your campaign?
If you can't find qualified Americans, you aren't looking hard enough. And where would the incentive to do that be if the H1Bs are willing to work for lesser compensation?
No. I meant what I meant. Ph.D. or Devry graduate is irrelevant. Generally, most companies complaining they can't find qualified American candidates really mean, 'We can't find qualified native candidates for the paltry compesation we're offering". No wonder considering the cost of higher education these days.
I work at a huge company with plenty of H1B holders. The ratio of talented to useless slob H1B holders is roughly the same as "home grown" employees here. It's just that the H1B folks COST LESS.
And by "qualifications", they mean, "willing to work for pennies"
"The default state of a file on your computer is unshared"
Who's computer? What operating system? Who set the defaults? You've obviously have never experinced filesystem (in)security on university run multi-user systems.
Pyramid
Most people are stupid. Why is this surprising?
Rechargeable batteries are inefficient for low current, long term storage applications in items like remote controls and wireless mice as they lose a far greater percentage of their charge just sitting around than the venerable alkaline.
We (undoubtedly) Americans know this.
Pyramid
Lets be crystal clear about this point. Guns are tools for killing/wounding, there can be no question about this.
The real question is, however, under what circumstance is wielding that power justified or even necessary? I believe it is my fundamental right, under clear and limited circumstances to kill another human being. I do not relish this right nor to I wish to ever have to exercise it. However, if in the course of my life I'm called to defend self or loved ones against grievous harm, the kind which justifies taking the life of another human, I want the tool proven most effective at killing. A gun.
I am not a muscular man nor schooled in hand to hand combat arts. However, I'm perfectly able to operate and maintain a firearm. The Constitution, beyond the 2nd amendment speaks of inalienable human rights (as well as government having no authority over them, enumerated or not). I contend it is my inalienable right to defend myself (and others) from harm, even if that means resorting to lethal force.
Though guns are specifically designed to kill/wound, they do not cause death/destruction. Simply put, it is the intent of the wielder of the weapon that gives cause to the act. I contend that for every gun related murder reported, thousands, if not millions of guns are responsibly owned and maintained my law abiding citizens with nary a single bullet ever directed towards a human.
It is already illegal to murder a person, but the crime still occurs. The argument that gun ownership makes it easier or predisposes one to commit murder is bunk. The type of person who considers murder as a viable option under any circumstance is not likely to be swayed by (a lack of) gun ownership. That person is a societal problem laws do not deter. Ban guns and now I, a law abiding citizen have a greatly reduced chance of repelling this person.
Since we don't live in a world of force fields and phasers, the most effective method/tool of stopping one who is bent on causing me and mine bodily harm is the kill them with a gun.
Pyramid
You may not be aware, but non-doppler radar is quite capable of detecting precipitation, just not velocity.
Previous to the introduction of the WSR-88D, all NWS radar sites(excepting research stations) were non-doppler and were quite often modified surplus military air search radars.
And yes, even a cheap marine radar can detect rain.
Pyramid
If you don't put a good filter on the water input of your machine, you're a total dipshit because:
A)Your products will taste like shit
B) The impurities (minerals for those of you who need a roadmap) will ruin the machine. Carbonator pumps quickly die when they get scale buildup.
I installed a system at my friend's house, a la E-Bay and the soda tastes great using just a plain ol' G.E. icemaker water filter.
Installing the system was a joke, finding a syrup vendor who will sell to private individuals at a reasonable price is the real challenge.
Pyramid
Incidentally, I think the American version of SBY, "Star Blazers" (at least the first story arc), is one of the best dubbed translations around.
"Star Blazers" was the introduction to anime for an entire generation of kids (myself included); it predated the American release of Akira by at least a decade.
Pyramid
"Vinyl is dead"
Oddly enough, plenty of music is still produced on vinyl and new turntables are being manufactured.
"but like it or not from this point on, the vast majority of consumer interest in photography will be in the digital medium"
So if the average Dorito munching, Bud Lite swilling Joe Sixpack consumer doesn't deem it interesting, it's dead? Shit, I'd better send a memo to my favorite "indy" rock station telling them they're dead because they don't play N'Sync. And hell, I'd better throw out my Moog sythesizer and replace it with a brand new digital Casio keyboard!
There's a whole world of creativity, thought and information beyond your knowlege base. Tap into it.
Pyramid
"Yes of course, I see consumers bgging everyday to by poor products. Digital photography wouldn't be gaining popularity, especially in the pro area, if it wasn't a better product"
How nieve can you be? Explain VHS, a clearly inferior format to BetaMax, winning in the end. Marketing.
Companies spend millions, if not billions to convince the american consumer he/she has to have the next great product, regardless of it's quality or lack thereof. They're trying to sell the cheapest piece of crap for the highest price possible.
Companies make their high end products and sell them at a lower profit margin to "professionals" to get their name out there. Your quote above proves the point.
Really, what the hell it "prosumer" anyway. It's just a marketing term designed to make amateurs feel like they're special for paying for an overly expensive product. Ever notice how "prosumer" cameras are cheap plastic while only the gear for professionals is made of metal?
In 1952, when Rollei was making twin lens reflex cameras, they had two main lines; the Rolleicord and the Rolleiflex. The Rolleiflex was for the professional and the Rolleicord for the amateur; there was no attempt to hide or blur this fact. Even so, the 'cords, while simpler, were built to the the same high standards as their more expensive siblings.
I can say without hesitation that my 1952 Rolleicord is smoother and better built than almost any camera sold in the past 25 years...and it was the company's cheap camera! Aside a cleaning and calibration in the 70's, it's been going strong for 50 years! Now, consumer cameras are built as cheaply as possible with no forethought for maintenence and repair. Build barely passable crap at a price point as such that repair isn't worthwile is the standard operating proceedure.
So does the customer *ask* for crappy equipment? No, of course not, but that's what they've been duped into buying. If digital cameras were undoubtedly superior to any film technology, but far less profitable, would they be pushed as hard?
Pyramid
Thanks for pointing out my typographical error. Does your penis seem bigger now?
Phreon
How many prized photos have turned up in attics and basements after years of neglect?
You're forgetting that a large portion of the population is not computer savvy. Do you really expect your uncle who can't set the time on his VCR to rearchive his images every 5-10 years?
Think of the cost of all the equipment needed to update and rearchive images on a regular basis for the next 50 years. Then think of the archiving neccesary to maintain Kodachrome slides over that same period of time.
There is much to be said for storing/archiving information in the simplest form possible. We have Shakespeare's complete works available to us. Yes they have been copied over the years, but what would have happened over several centuries if they had been written in an obscure, lost language?
If you archive your images digitally, you'd better have the equivalent Rosetta Stone stored with them.
Pyramid
"It's painfully obvious you're really attached to your old tool, and I say: bravo. Hang on like grim death. But don't bitch about more options. Yeesh."
Not at all. I do love my old tool (that sounds wierd, wouln't you agree?), but throughout this thread, I've been saying there's a right tool for the job. Digital is clearly superior in certain situations, but to say film is dead is horribly shortsighted.
I get upset when I see people spouting marketing slogans as if they were the God's honest truth. My favorite is "the quality of digital cable (T.V.)". People have been feed the "digital is better" mantra for so long that they accept it as a matter of fact. I've watched enough digital cable television to know that maybe 10 channels *are* better looking, but the rest are are lower quality than regular analog broadcasts and are full of artifacts because at a lower bandwidth, the company can maximize the usage of it's existing infrastructure
Do you have any doubts that the only reason digital imaging technology is being pushed so hard is that it has a greater PROFIT potential? It is nieve to think companies do anything for the good of the consumer.
Pyramid
I take exeption to the term "semi-pro" because it is meaningless. That it is part of the cultural lexicon does not make it any more useful.
Consider this, if I was a doctor, how would you feel if I told you I had virtually never been sued for gross negligence in the last year?
For the sake of this minor arguement, let us say that I'm an advanced semi-amateur photographer. What does it mean? Have I ever been paid during my photographic endeavors?
If professional means you've collected income, then you either have or haven't. How often you've collected it or why is of little consequence. If you're loose, you're a slut, if you've made a buck at it, you're a prostitute. I guess it's okay if you're a "semi-pro" hooker.
I'll concede that it's a matter of personal preference and leave it at that.
Pyramid
You're missing an important point of the zone system. The whole reason the zone system exists is to decide what part of the subject is important to you and to fit it within the range that is recordable.
After the print is exposed, then we have development and printing which also effect the final image.
Since photo paper has a range of 3-5 stops, the point on the Zone system is to compress the selected shadows and highlights into a range that can be recorded by the paper.
The zone system is RELETIVE to the film being used, where 0 is dmin (density minimum) and 10 is dmax. How smoothly the shadows and highlights are recorded and imaged within this range is what true photography is all about. The dynamic range of any film or CCD can be expressed with the zone system. It is the fidelity within this range that film allows for more control and therefore quality (beyond such simple terms as resolution).
Slide film has a contrast range of about 5-6 STOPS, color print film about 7-9 and B&W 8-11. Where the latest digital cameras fit in, I don't know, but generally they fall apart at the extremes of the range more catastrophicly than film.
Pyramid
Nice ad-hominem attack.
I use the word "professional" to denote my attitude and skill level. You can be paid and not be a professional.
"Professional: Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job."
No where in the dictionary can I find any mention of professional meaning having only ONE career. You can be a professional at many jobs at the same time. When did "professional" pick up the connotation of "main job"
You just don't get it do you? "Film is dead" is such a rediculous statement. Years ago, when photography was invented, it was declared that painting is dead. Funny how there are still many painters, eh? Paining as a commercial venture may be very diminished, but it is far from dead. Besides, there are many endeavors worth persuing outside the commercial world.
There is a reality beyond the tiny sphere in which you reside.
Pyramid
"Also consider the environmental impact of film photography. I cannot stand to even go into the town of Longview Texas, where the Eastman Kodak factory spews the waste products of film manufacturing. It literally makes me ill to breath the "air" for MILES around the plant. They claim their emissions are safe (but nobody should ever have to breathe air that smells this horrible). According to my sources, that town has the highest proportion of ancephalic babies in the country, and it is very common for kids to be ADHD. I can't make a credible correlation, but I can say with certainty that it is not a place where I would ever choose to set foot again."
As we all know, plastic and semiconductor plants have no waste products of any real impact. Get real, will you. There is a trade of for each process.
Think of the entire chain for film, being the camera, film, paper, chemicals to develop, etc. Now think of your digital camera, pc, cd-rs,printer, ink, memory cards, etc. Which is dirtier to produce? How much film could you buy and process before it's enviromental impact exceeded a new computer system every 1.5 years?
What exactly ARE your sources? If you can't make a credible correlation, why did you bring it up? You might as well be quoting fiction.
Pyramid
"Film is dead. As a semi-pro photographer, and someone who has been doing it for a VERY long time, I can say: film is dead."
Painting is dead. As a semi-pro photograper, and someone who has been doing it for a long time, I can say; painting is dead.
Hmm. Does that sound short sighted and assinine?
What a load of crap. First, lets get one thing straight. You can be no more "semi-pro" than you can be "kind of pregnant". You either are or aren't.
For mass produced, K-Mart style, get 'em in and out type photography, digital as a medium kills film. There is however, the right tool for a particular job. If you wan't to project HIGH quality images or make archival prints, digital looses (don't give me crap about the new epson inks, they haven't been proven and still can't hold a candle to platinum prints).
I guess I should throw out all my vinyl too, huh?
Pyramid
"It was Mac laptops. Actually watch the movie...."
You're thinking of when Jeff Goldblume hacked the alien network in "ID4" with his Powerbook.
Sadly, I did watch it and semi-enjoyed it in a self destructive sort of way. I had free tickets to a test screening, and then again saw it on Cable and yet again as a rental. In the movie, they were not Mac laptops; there was a whole sequence describing their RAM and processors, most decidedly Intel(ish). The laptops were never really identified as any specifict type, considering they had Hollywood GUIs and spraypainted cammo patterns. Hell, the main character's machine was a lunchbox; Apple/Mac never made one of those.
The computers in the school/fire sprinkler scene were Macs, however.
Please get your story straight before you start accusing people. Otherwise, your ignorace is only made that much more obvious. Besides that dinkus, my post was only a joke.
To hell with Nostradamus, this is just like in the movie "Hackers" when the evil Di Vinci virus took over the oil supertankers, but the heros stopped it by overloading the Gibson supercomputer with Windows laptops!
How dare CableVision impair my ability, nary my HUMAN RIGHT to copy this movie!
Mmmm... a young, nubile Angelina Jolie
Ween.
'Nuff said.