If people are currently saying that analog photography is better than digital, and you don't agree, it is probably because they recognize details that you don't; it is not because they are describing figments of their imagination with terms like quality, tonality and vividness.
I DO agree right now; my point is, they'll still be saying that when digital really is better. And they'll still be saying that they just have better perception, just like the green marker crowd says right now.
CD was only marginally better than LP. Now we have SACD, which is so far beyond vinyl that it's not even funny, and people are still saying vinyl sounds better.
Using the same D/A converter, there are easily audible differences between different digital sources. Good one! Scary thing is, some people really think like that. It's a wonder executables ever run correctly off my $20 CD-R drive with the 26 gauge cable taking the data to the processor, what with all the errors that must introduce! (Yes, I know, jitter, we can't measure it with any existing o-scope but our ears are more sensitive;) See also, homeopathic medicine.)
Slide film captures the colour exactly as it was, whereas digital rounds it to the nearest bit.
Oh, dear.
Strangly, this too sounds like the guys who say that records sound "perfect" while CD's are limited by their bit rate. They're forgetting all the error inherent in the mass of the tonearm, distortion of the vinyl, etc, etc, etc.
The noise in analog systems is harder to quantify than the resolution based error of a digital system. That doesn't mean it's not there.
Uh, oh. Quality... tonality... vividness. Sounds suspiciously like the "LP is better than CD" arguments.
I guess this a look forward to what we can expect to hear when every $200 digicam from Walmart has a 16 megapixel Foveon sensor. "It just doesn't have the same warmth as analog!"
And perhaps if I run towards a bullet and hit it, I will stop and the bullet will shoot away at 300 mph.
Seriously. You can't just assume M2(Vf2) = 0. Remember to conserve energy too.
High school physics 1 can be a dangerous thing with no high school physics 2.
So it's either going to:
a) Fall straight down. Noise of ribbon hitting water traumatizes fish.
b) Fall sideways. Fluttering carbon ribbon mistaken for ticker tape parade.
Neither one seems like your typical "nightmare scenario" to me.
The people working on this seem to think that their ribbon will burn up / disintegrate if it falls.
But hey, what do they know?
Re:Good idea for nuclear waste?
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 1
Tacking may be difficult because photons are not viscous like air. You can expose more of less of the sail to the "wind" but the direction of the force is always going to be directly away from the sun.
Re:Easy target?
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Based on what the article said, the "crash" would be somewhat like a sheet of newspaper falling to the ground. Not too worrisome unless a large piece landed on your windshield while you were driving, perhaps blinding you.
Maybe this is a dumb point, but is this email official? I've never gotten a mass email from a large company like Dell with a grammar mistake in it, no matter how minor. (shrug)
It's technical software... the market is limited, yes, but it's not just about the support. We sell a $16,000 piece of software and there are 3 PhD theses worth of research behind the algorithms. It's a point and click program and most of our users get along with no tech support.
A lot of our buyers are universities, in some cases graduate students. If these guys could download our software on WinMX, they would. This kind of thing could put a small company like us out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
If people are currently saying that analog photography is better than digital, and you don't agree, it is probably because they recognize details that you don't; it is not because they are describing figments of their imagination with terms like quality, tonality and vividness.
;) See also, homeopathic medicine.)
I DO agree right now; my point is, they'll still be saying that when digital really is better. And they'll still be saying that they just have better perception, just like the green marker crowd says right now.
CD was only marginally better than LP. Now we have SACD, which is so far beyond vinyl that it's not even funny, and people are still saying vinyl sounds better.
Using the same D/A converter, there are easily audible differences between different digital sources.
Good one! Scary thing is, some people really think like that. It's a wonder executables ever run correctly off my $20 CD-R drive with the 26 gauge cable taking the data to the processor, what with all the errors that must introduce! (Yes, I know, jitter, we can't measure it with any existing o-scope but our ears are more sensitive
Slide film captures the colour exactly as it was, whereas digital rounds it to the nearest bit.
Oh, dear.
Strangly, this too sounds like the guys who say that records sound "perfect" while CD's are limited by their bit rate. They're forgetting all the error inherent in the mass of the tonearm, distortion of the vinyl, etc, etc, etc.
The noise in analog systems is harder to quantify than the resolution based error of a digital system. That doesn't mean it's not there.
Uh, oh. Quality... tonality... vividness. Sounds suspiciously like the "LP is better than CD" arguments.
I guess this a look forward to what we can expect to hear when every $200 digicam from Walmart has a 16 megapixel Foveon sensor. "It just doesn't have the same warmth as analog!"
And perhaps if I run towards a bullet and hit it, I will stop and the bullet will shoot away at 300 mph. Seriously. You can't just assume M2(Vf2) = 0. Remember to conserve energy too. High school physics 1 can be a dangerous thing with no high school physics 2.
What is there to "deal" with about people talking on phones? Do you also have to "deal" with people talking to the person next to them?
Are you just upset about only being able to eavesdrop on one side of the conversation?
There is a lot more information on the original master tapes / recordings than will fit on a redbook CD.
So it's either going to: a) Fall straight down. Noise of ribbon hitting water traumatizes fish. b) Fall sideways. Fluttering carbon ribbon mistaken for ticker tape parade. Neither one seems like your typical "nightmare scenario" to me.
The people working on this seem to think that their ribbon will burn up / disintegrate if it falls. But hey, what do they know?
Tacking may be difficult because photons are not viscous like air. You can expose more of less of the sail to the "wind" but the direction of the force is always going to be directly away from the sun.
Based on what the article said, the "crash" would be somewhat like a sheet of newspaper falling to the ground. Not too worrisome unless a large piece landed on your windshield while you were driving, perhaps blinding you.
While we're at it, I lied. This isn't a grammar error, it's a spelling error. The email author was clearly hooked on phonics.
FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well
Maybe this is a dumb point, but is this email official? I've never gotten a mass email from a large company like Dell with a grammar mistake in it, no matter how minor. (shrug)
mbs
Certainly not Liebeck... the linked summary makes it patently clear that she was sitting in the passenger side of a stopped vehicle.
If there _was_ anyone else in this field we wouldn't be able to get $16k for the software.
It's technical software... the market is limited, yes, but it's not just about the support. We sell a $16,000 piece of software and there are 3 PhD theses worth of research behind the algorithms. It's a point and click program and most of our users get along with no tech support. A lot of our buyers are universities, in some cases graduate students. If these guys could download our software on WinMX, they would. This kind of thing could put a small company like us out of business.