Sure. As I said it's been enhanced. Just as the photographer himself says it has. But it is not representing anything other than what was there at the moment the picture was taken. Nor has anything that was there been removed. There is no compositing. Nor compressing or stretching.
Half of the photographer's artistry always happened in the dark-room. Now it's done with computer. Anyone suggesting photos should be exactly as was captured in a digital camera is asking for photographers to do LESS than in the dark-room days!
McDonalds was chosen because it's bad food that children love, but many/most parents don't.
And I have a very good idea of what countries have bug eating as a common thing. Hint, your country probably does. As I mentioned earlier: cochineal.
Tense? They are already trying to introduce other edible bugs. Present tense. They aren't yet a common thing in western countries, therefore when they are, that will be in the future. Future tense.
There's no changing the nature of the discussion. My point is exactly the same as the highly modded post to which you first responded. I've had to rephrase it a few times because you seemed hooked on a misapprehension that I'd compared bugs to sugar, salt and fat.
Many? Ok, compare the number of people eating and feeding their kids at McDonald's ; with the number of people eating bugs and feeding their kids bugs.
Your question reeks:
a) Of American cultural imperialism. Not everyone is like you. In some countries "fermented milk" is disgusting. "American Cheese", i.e. fake cheese, even more so. In some countries eating beef is disgusting. Why on earth do you imagine they wouldn't find McDonald's disgusting.
b) Of conservatism. Small 'c'. My British grandmother (very conservative) thought curry was "foreign muck", and couldn't pronounce "pizza" properly. Yet they are now probably the most popular meals in Britain. Things change. McDonald's is relatively recent. "Bugs" may be something of the future. YOU can't get over the yuk factor, and I probably can't either. But that doesn't mean that future generations won't be eating them. They do already in plenty of other countries. And the mechanisms by which things change are not only there, and obvious if you look with a historical eye, they are unavoidable. In future decades, people won't have the same diet you have now.
Then why are they being compared to bugs, which have the yuck factor?
They're not. The mechanically recovered meat slurry patties are. The chocolate on chocolate covered bugs is being compared to added sugar, salt and fat in Mcdonald's burgers.
Yes because, as I said earlier, McDonald's doesn't have yuck factor, bugs do. So parents introduce kids to McDonald's, not to bugs.
McDonald's might not have the yuck factor to you. It does to many parents. Sorry, I wasn't trying to cater to your specific likes and dislikes. I don't know what they are.
Wikipedia agrees with you. If it's true, I've never heard of anything more ridiculous than converting a useful radial measure, into something that's just another multiple of a metre. The mile is already a multiple of the meter, so why waste the distinction that the nautical mile once had?
Sounds like an overreach by the SI units people. (The French).
I'll put it another way. Suppose a boat circumnavigated the earth. Then a plane retraced it's exact route, exactly above the route of the boat at all times. The distance that both boat and plane travelled in nautical miles would be the same. But in meters or miles, the plane would have travelled further than the boat.
Different poster here. It's not bollocks. A nautical mile is a radial measure, meaning that it is based on an angle from a central reference point. It cannot be used to measure a flat surface. If you tried what you'd actually be doing is converting a nautical mile at an arbitrary distance from the centre, to a distance measure, such as meters or miles, and then measuring a at a different distance from the centre. The number you end up with would be meaningless.
Of course a distance measure such as a mile can be used to measure flat or curved surfaces. But that doesn't mean a nautical mile can.
It corresponds with social behaviour towards family and tribe. And fear of the outsider. Fear of immigration. Racism. And other such fears of people being different.
If you look at a more general coverage of the functions of the Amygdala you'll find lots of references to it being the centre of the fear response, and precious little about creativity. The only reference to creativity here is the possibility as an explanation for "unique responses" to the Rorschach ink-blot test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala An explanation that fits in better with what else we know about the amygdala is that the "unique responses" were seeing images of mad axe-murderers, where most people would see butterflies.
(As for "fairness", grow up.)
There is nothing childish about preferring things that are fair to things that are unfair. Indeed, if you feel that, you're just revealing you're a nasty self-serving person.
McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food in a way that kids (and some adults) love. Why wouldn't that work with bugs?
From what I've seen the initial attempts to bring insects to western palates involve coating with chocolate or sugar glazing. Pretty similar idea.
Hell when I was a kid they used to sell "sweet cigarettes" to kids. Cigarettes made of candy. Don't know if they still do. I used to have them, though never with my parents knowledge or approval.
There's absolutely no reason way kids can't be introduced to eating bugs. It's something that won't happen over night though.
If local changes of contrast (or levels, saturization, exposure or similar adjustments) are allowed, then how do we define local?
We're not discussing an algorithm. Photography is an artistic field and photography competitions are therefore necessarily judged subjectively. Anyone who's qualified enough to judge the World Press Photo is qualified enough to judge whether changes are reasonable enhancements of what was there at the time, or presenting something that wasn't there.
Heaven forbid that that we end up with worse photography because of some misguided sense of purism.
If I dnate to a campaign I donate a few hundred bucks. I think ive gotten a lapel pin from my donations. If I could bribe them with my votes pot would be legal.
By now, it's possibly the situation that the majority of voters are in favour of decriminalising pot. However, most vocal supporters of pot don't give a few hundred bucks to any politician. Amongst the people that do donate to politicians, probably most of them are still opposed to pot.
So the reason your bribe don't work is that you've been out-bribed. And the democracy truly responded to peoples wishes, pot might be decriminalised already.
I see it's starting down the road to decriminalisation in a few states. Which even as a non-American I'm almost as happy about as you probably are. Are these Blue States by any chance?
Preferring things to be organised in a fairer was is not fear.
of climate change
Preferring the climate not the be fucked up is not fear.
of getting sick and not having health care
Fairness again.
of other people with guns
Everyone is fearful if they have a gun pointed in their face. But those in favour of gun control do so based on statistics mostly.
of not having all sorts of insurance provided for them, of cancer and toxins, of falling through the social safety net, etc.
Your grip on what fear is is getting ever more tenuous. Fear is a primal drive, not a reasoned argument.
Conservatism is the politics of fear. Always was. And in recent years the science has shown it top be true. Childish "well you're fearful too" responses won't change that.
So someone gets paid and they broadcast political information from all sides of the political spectrum, but you don't have political advertising?
Someone gets paid? Could you be any vaguer? Who gets paid by who? And under what, if any, conditions.
And if you can't tell the difference between political debate and interviews with non-tame interviewers on the one side and advertising on the other, then you're not really equipped to comment on what should be.
If you're just feigning ignorance, then that's of no use to anyone.
Does the BBC not seem to have a political opinion on anything? Never criticized for any sort of bias? How come people who work at the BBC get to give out their political opinion in Britain, but other people can't broadcast theirs?
Who says they can't? There are many other broadcasters other than the BBC.
But no political advertising on any of them.
It sounds to me more like you're looking at Britain and because you're ok with whose opinions get to be expressed, you're ok with blocking everyone else.
All sides of the political spectrum get expressed in Britain. That I agree with and that I disagree with. Political debate programmes. Newspapers. The internet. Public demonstrations. Flyers. etc etc. But we don't have political advertising on TV or radio. And the democracy is better for it.
I've pointed out that I don't hold the constitution as being the unbreakable religious document that you do. Not being American I wasn't brought up with it, and can see it as a list of rights, no different from any other list of rights. And being bound to it means that quite often Americans make the wrong decisions.
Rights are balanced one against another. And the constitution, picking out certain rights above others, means that Americans lose other rights that don't happen to have been put in the constitution. Such as the right to have a non-corrupt democracy.
Apparently you don't share my opinion that he is, in fact, trying to impress you. If he weren't, I believe he wouldn't be advertising his philanthropy, but would do so quietly. But judging by your response and the moderation on my comment, I can see that few other people agree with my opinion either.
On the one hand, someone as famous as Bill Gates is going to get invited to do interviews, and interviewers are going to ask him about his charity.
On the other hand every charity desperately wants to have celebrities associated with them that talk as much about them as possible.
On the (third!) hand Gates knows he can progress his charities aims by talking about them.
Yet despite the perfectly reasonable and innocent explanations for why he would be talking about his charity, you seek to find alternative ones where his motivations are selfish.
Look, I understand your hatred. I hated Microsoft and their abuse of monopoly and other dirty tricks, and the bad effect they had on the industry. And of course I rightly blamed Gates for that. And there's no forgiveness from me on that score. But that doesn't mean we have to hate him to the grave, even when he does good things, like trying to solve the world's malaria problem. I say good. I'm happy that he changed his life around from doing bad things to doing good. For sure he can afford to be charitable. But an awful lot of other rich people do not devote the second half of their life to charity.
Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.
Strong is your subjective judgement. But I'll accept there would be a bias towards incumbents. But is that a bad thing? If there's little to choose between two candidates, why not keep the one who's already gone through through the learning curve.
Odd that you see a bias towards incumbents as a bad thing, but are OK with a bias towards rich people. Sounds very self serving. Are you a Republican thinking about an incumbent Democrat at the moment? Try to lift yourself above your contemporaneous desires and think more long term and generically.
That would widen the number of candidates that can realistically become candidates. But it would do little to stop the bribery element of campaign donations. 50%+ is still going to the candidate that's being bribed.
so I tend to take a "fundamentalist" approach to the constitution.
So I hit the nail on the head with the comment about it being like a religion.
Well, youve gone from "congress shall make no law..." to "except when its speech by classes we dont like on topics that we think are harmful".
Huh? I've already explained that a blanket ban on TV advertising doesn't give anyone choice, so how can it possibly be "except when its speech by classes we dont like".
It seems that you are not rationally discussing the suggestion, but just wildly throwing things out there because you only have gut-feel to say I'm wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like Amazon's monopoly was broken. What's the problem with that again?
Sure. As I said it's been enhanced. Just as the photographer himself says it has. But it is not representing anything other than what was there at the moment the picture was taken. Nor has anything that was there been removed. There is no compositing. Nor compressing or stretching.
Half of the photographer's artistry always happened in the dark-room. Now it's done with computer. Anyone suggesting photos should be exactly as was captured in a digital camera is asking for photographers to do LESS than in the dark-room days!
McDonalds was chosen because it's bad food that children love, but many/most parents don't.
And I have a very good idea of what countries have bug eating as a common thing. Hint, your country probably does. As I mentioned earlier: cochineal.
Tense? They are already trying to introduce other edible bugs. Present tense. They aren't yet a common thing in western countries, therefore when they are, that will be in the future. Future tense.
There's no changing the nature of the discussion. My point is exactly the same as the highly modded post to which you first responded. I've had to rephrase it a few times because you seemed hooked on a misapprehension that I'd compared bugs to sugar, salt and fat.
Many? Ok, compare the number of people eating and feeding their kids at McDonald's ; with the number of people eating bugs and feeding their kids bugs.
Your question reeks:
a) Of American cultural imperialism. Not everyone is like you. In some countries "fermented milk" is disgusting. "American Cheese", i.e. fake cheese, even more so. In some countries eating beef is disgusting. Why on earth do you imagine they wouldn't find McDonald's disgusting.
b) Of conservatism. Small 'c'. My British grandmother (very conservative) thought curry was "foreign muck", and couldn't pronounce "pizza" properly. Yet they are now probably the most popular meals in Britain. Things change. McDonald's is relatively recent. "Bugs" may be something of the future. YOU can't get over the yuk factor, and I probably can't either. But that doesn't mean that future generations won't be eating them. They do already in plenty of other countries. And the mechanisms by which things change are not only there, and obvious if you look with a historical eye, they are unavoidable. In future decades, people won't have the same diet you have now.
I was the one that brought up the science in the first place. You're the one that's spend many postings rejecting it.
Then why are they being compared to bugs, which have the yuck factor?
They're not. The mechanically recovered meat slurry patties are. The chocolate on chocolate covered bugs is being compared to added sugar, salt and fat in Mcdonald's burgers.
Yes because, as I said earlier, McDonald's doesn't have yuck factor, bugs do. So parents introduce kids to McDonald's, not to bugs.
McDonald's might not have the yuck factor to you. It does to many parents. Sorry, I wasn't trying to cater to your specific likes and dislikes. I don't know what they are.
Wikipedia agrees with you. If it's true, I've never heard of anything more ridiculous than converting a useful radial measure, into something that's just another multiple of a metre. The mile is already a multiple of the meter, so why waste the distinction that the nautical mile once had?
Sounds like an overreach by the SI units people. (The French).
Sugar, fat and salt have "yuck" factor?
Huh?!? No they counteract it.
Nobody is saying there is any reason kids can't be introduced. But someone needs to. Who will introduce the non-orphan kids? The "yucked out" parents?
The same people that introduced them to McDonalds. In what way am I not being clear?
I'll put it another way. Suppose a boat circumnavigated the earth. Then a plane retraced it's exact route, exactly above the route of the boat at all times. The distance that both boat and plane travelled in nautical miles would be the same. But in meters or miles, the plane would have travelled further than the boat.
Different poster here. It's not bollocks. A nautical mile is a radial measure, meaning that it is based on an angle from a central reference point. It cannot be used to measure a flat surface. If you tried what you'd actually be doing is converting a nautical mile at an arbitrary distance from the centre, to a distance measure, such as meters or miles, and then measuring a at a different distance from the centre. The number you end up with would be meaningless.
Of course a distance measure such as a mile can be used to measure flat or curved surfaces. But that doesn't mean a nautical mile can.
Social network size and artistic creativity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079404/
It corresponds with social behaviour towards family and tribe. And fear of the outsider. Fear of immigration. Racism. And other such fears of people being different.
If you look at a more general coverage of the functions of the Amygdala you'll find lots of references to it being the centre of the fear response, and precious little about creativity. The only reference to creativity here is the possibility as an explanation for "unique responses" to the Rorschach ink-blot test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
An explanation that fits in better with what else we know about the amygdala is that the "unique responses" were seeing images of mad axe-murderers, where most people would see butterflies.
(As for "fairness", grow up.)
There is nothing childish about preferring things that are fair to things that are unfair. Indeed, if you feel that, you're just revealing you're a nasty self-serving person.
McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food in a way that kids (and some adults) love. Why wouldn't that work with bugs?
From what I've seen the initial attempts to bring insects to western palates involve coating with chocolate or sugar glazing. Pretty similar idea.
Hell when I was a kid they used to sell "sweet cigarettes" to kids. Cigarettes made of candy. Don't know if they still do. I used to have them, though never with my parents knowledge or approval.
There's absolutely no reason way kids can't be introduced to eating bugs. It's something that won't happen over night though.
If local changes of contrast (or levels, saturization, exposure or similar adjustments) are allowed, then how do we define local?
We're not discussing an algorithm. Photography is an artistic field and photography competitions are therefore necessarily judged subjectively. Anyone who's qualified enough to judge the World Press Photo is qualified enough to judge whether changes are reasonable enhancements of what was there at the time, or presenting something that wasn't there.
Heaven forbid that that we end up with worse photography because of some misguided sense of purism.
If I dnate to a campaign I donate a few hundred bucks. I think ive gotten a lapel pin from my donations. If I could bribe them with my votes pot would be legal.
By now, it's possibly the situation that the majority of voters are in favour of decriminalising pot. However, most vocal supporters of pot don't give a few hundred bucks to any politician. Amongst the people that do donate to politicians, probably most of them are still opposed to pot.
So the reason your bribe don't work is that you've been out-bribed. And the democracy truly responded to peoples wishes, pot might be decriminalised already.
I see it's starting down the road to decriminalisation in a few states. Which even as a non-American I'm almost as happy about as you probably are. Are these Blue States by any chance?
free market competition
Preferring things to be organised in a fairer was is not fear.
of climate change
Preferring the climate not the be fucked up is not fear.
of getting sick and not having health care
Fairness again.
of other people with guns
Everyone is fearful if they have a gun pointed in their face. But those in favour of gun control do so based on statistics mostly.
of not having all sorts of insurance provided for them, of cancer and toxins, of falling through the social safety net, etc.
Your grip on what fear is is getting ever more tenuous. Fear is a primal drive, not a reasoned argument.
Conservatism is the politics of fear. Always was. And in recent years the science has shown it top be true. Childish "well you're fearful too" responses won't change that.
So someone gets paid and they broadcast political information from all sides of the political spectrum, but you don't have political advertising?
Someone gets paid? Could you be any vaguer? Who gets paid by who? And under what, if any, conditions.
And if you can't tell the difference between political debate and interviews with non-tame interviewers on the one side and advertising on the other, then you're not really equipped to comment on what should be.
If you're just feigning ignorance, then that's of no use to anyone.
Does the BBC not seem to have a political opinion on anything? Never criticized for any sort of bias? How come people who work at the BBC get to give out their political opinion in Britain, but other people can't broadcast theirs?
Who says they can't? There are many other broadcasters other than the BBC.
But no political advertising on any of them.
It sounds to me more like you're looking at Britain and because you're ok with whose opinions get to be expressed, you're ok with blocking everyone else.
All sides of the political spectrum get expressed in Britain. That I agree with and that I disagree with. Political debate programmes. Newspapers. The internet. Public demonstrations. Flyers. etc etc. But we don't have political advertising on TV or radio. And the democracy is better for it.
I've pointed out that I don't hold the constitution as being the unbreakable religious document that you do. Not being American I wasn't brought up with it, and can see it as a list of rights, no different from any other list of rights. And being bound to it means that quite often Americans make the wrong decisions.
Rights are balanced one against another. And the constitution, picking out certain rights above others, means that Americans lose other rights that don't happen to have been put in the constitution. Such as the right to have a non-corrupt democracy.
It might make you feel good to have the guy from the OilCompaniesAreEvil party as a candidate. But he won't get elected.
That hatred? It's still showing.
Let me fix that for you.
Apparently you don't share my opinion that he is, in fact, trying to impress you. If he weren't, I believe he wouldn't be advertising his philanthropy, but would do so quietly. But judging by your response and the moderation on my comment, I can see that few other people agree with my opinion either.
On the one hand, someone as famous as Bill Gates is going to get invited to do interviews, and interviewers are going to ask him about his charity.
On the other hand every charity desperately wants to have celebrities associated with them that talk as much about them as possible.
On the (third!) hand Gates knows he can progress his charities aims by talking about them.
Yet despite the perfectly reasonable and innocent explanations for why he would be talking about his charity, you seek to find alternative ones where his motivations are selfish.
Look, I understand your hatred. I hated Microsoft and their abuse of monopoly and other dirty tricks, and the bad effect they had on the industry. And of course I rightly blamed Gates for that. And there's no forgiveness from me on that score. But that doesn't mean we have to hate him to the grave, even when he does good things, like trying to solve the world's malaria problem. I say good. I'm happy that he changed his life around from doing bad things to doing good. For sure he can afford to be charitable. But an awful lot of other rich people do not devote the second half of their life to charity.
Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.
Strong is your subjective judgement. But I'll accept there would be a bias towards incumbents. But is that a bad thing? If there's little to choose between two candidates, why not keep the one who's already gone through through the learning curve.
Odd that you see a bias towards incumbents as a bad thing, but are OK with a bias towards rich people. Sounds very self serving. Are you a Republican thinking about an incumbent Democrat at the moment? Try to lift yourself above your contemporaneous desires and think more long term and generically.
That would widen the number of candidates that can realistically become candidates. But it would do little to stop the bribery element of campaign donations. 50%+ is still going to the candidate that's being bribed.
why? why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in?
You are. You have any number of ways of saying "I support you". You can even volunteer.
why should my money be pooled and given to politicians I dont agree with??
Ah, now you're not taking about supporting, you're talking about bribing.
so I tend to take a "fundamentalist" approach to the constitution.
So I hit the nail on the head with the comment about it being like a religion.
Well, youve gone from "congress shall make no law..." to "except when its speech by classes we dont like on topics that we think are harmful".
Huh? I've already explained that a blanket ban on TV advertising doesn't give anyone choice, so how can it possibly be "except when its speech by classes we dont like".
It seems that you are not rationally discussing the suggestion, but just wildly throwing things out there because you only have gut-feel to say I'm wrong.