Haven't you heard? If it gets warmer it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, if it gets cooler it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, and if it stays exactly the same it's still proof of GLOBAL WARMING!
He mentioned crash fatality studies where moving from a car-car collision to a car-suv collision made little change on the probability of death to the SUV driver
Surely the SUV driver stands very little chance of dying from a car-car collision... (sorry)
The T-Rex Doesn't have A/C unless you count the breeze flowing through the cockpit, but does look like quite an exciting thing to drive. The Spyder Has a similar wheel layout, but is closer to a motorbike/quad than a car.
Asheville North Carolina, 2" of wet snow, we drove past this Grand Cherokee (and about 20 other cars/trucks that had spun out, this guy made the album due to his exceptional distance and the awesome angle of his wheels) in our Toyota Corolla: http://goatpunch.com/album?album=2003/asheville/day4;photo=IMG_0436.JPG
FWIW I think the blocking is mostly keyword based.
I tried pulling up some Wikipedia pages that I thought might be blocked: Falun Gong, Dalai Lama, etc. and all seemed to work fine, with full history of the page and all 'subversive' content easily readible.
I was in China last month and the only sites that I had any problem accessing were blogs. It seemed that most popular blog sites were completely blocked. Wikipedia, Slashdot, Youtube, Facebook, etc. were all accessible. They don't seem to be using a whitelist though, as my own small unimportant domain worked fine.
In retrospect, blocking blogs isn't such a bad idea...
You don't buy the explanations? But these people are experts! This documents the historical speculation process quite well, although the episode when they reconstructed King Arthur's Court from a piece of china was even better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf95P2DJC6E&ftm=6
most people I encounter with iPods are listening to them on the bus or train - and have them buried away in their pockets. That does raise the obvious question... how do you know they're iPods if you can't see them? They might all be listening to Zunes...
When you take a RAW image, the only camera settings that you have to worry about are the aperture, the shutter speed, and the ISO setting (of course you still need to focus/autofocus and point the camera in the right direction, etc.).
The RAW image is just the data that is coming off the sensor, without any processing. The image sensor, and therefore the RAW data saved from it, can have no concept of 'white balance' - this is a shifting of the colours in the image that takes place in the image processing software, to make the finished image look more acceptable to us in most lighing conditions. A white balance setting is often stored in the EXIF data for the RAW image, but this is just used as a default setting when you open the image in your processing software, it doesn't affect the actual data.
Like, if I shoot the same image at say 5000k and then at 8000k, then open the image in an application for RAW images and set the while balance to 6500k in both, will they contain the same data? (Because with JPEG they would of course not.)
Yes, you're exactly right, the data on the sensor in both cases will be the same- the white balance shift that occurs during processing will not have taken place.
RAW gives you more image information, as you haven't gone through a lossy RAW->JPEG conversion. Whether this is to correct an under/over-exposed picture (or both*), or to compensate for an incorrect (or impossible**) white balance setting.
You're correct, but people may, reading it, be under the impression the problem is the JPEG compression.
Only if they read that sentence alone, and ignored the rest of the post where I go on about white balance and over/under exposure. As I mentioned at the end of the post, JPEG artifacts aren't really much of an issue with a sensor like this- you're just exchanging one type of noise for another. With a DSLR however, JPEG artifacts are a huge issue- in good lighting conditions detail is resolvable down to individual pixels. This gives a significant improvment over JPEG if you are enlarging or performing a lot of processing on the image. Even with a DSLR though, if you take a perfect image, and print it out as-is, RAW gives no real advantage over 8-bit JPEG.
What's BS about a 10-bit per channel RAW image having more information than an 8-bit per channel jpeg? Also, the RAW information is linear, and JPEG is logarithmic- so darker areas will have far more information in RAW than in JPEG, before the tone curve has been applied.
The RAW image has literally no concept of white balance- it's just the data from the sensor. The white balance conversion is 'fudging it' so that the picture looks correct for our eyes. By fudging it at home on your PC, rather than in the first split second after the photo is taken, you avoid losing unnecessary image information.
One other point about RAW is that with some of these cameras, the RAW image is also bigger- the JPEG crops off the edges of the sensor!
With RAW you're going to get the best picture possible from a given sensor, rather than developing your image and throwing away the negative in the first tenth of a second.
RAW gives you more image information, as you haven't gone through a lossy RAW->JPEG conversion. Whether this is to correct an under/over-exposed picture (or both*), or to compensate for an incorrect (or impossible**) white balance setting.
You're right, a bigger sensor and lens will give you a better picture. But for a given maximum camera size, RAW will give you the potential*** for better images than JPEG. Perfect for an undercover paparazzo who needs to blow up that discreet underexposed celebrity shot to sell to US Magazine.
A decent analogy is that with JPEG you've thrown away the 'negative', and are left with only a print of the image, throwing away the rest of the information contained in the negative. If you really care about the image, or are going to spend hours working with it in photoshop, wouldn't you rather be working with an image taken from the negative, rather than the print?
* example of an under- and over- exposed picture: a person wearing a hat on a sunny day. The outside of the cap can be overexposed, while their face is underexposed. As RAW stores the image with a higher colour bit depth, you've got a chance of recovering the over and under exposed area.
** example of 'impossible' white balance: a room lit by candlelight, which has a window with an overcast sky outside. Either the room will look orange, or the window will look blue, or both- there's no way to make both areas of the picture look correct with one white balance setting. Changing the white balance of one area of the JPEG that radically will throw away masses of information, and look terrible. With RAW, you can render the picture twice with two different white balance values, one for the overcast sky, and one for the candle, and merge the two images together.
*** With a perfectly exposed picture that has the correct colour depth, the only real advantage of RAW is that you avoid the JPEG compression, but with these small sensors you're probably only going to see noise there instead of the compression, so it won't make a lot of difference.
I think your confusing the VB.NET of the past 5 or 6 years (which is essentially the same thing as C# and J# with slightly different syntax) with the crappy old-style Visual Basic 1.0 to 6.0 which I doubt that anyone uses anymore.
No-one else in this discussion seems to have noticed that fact. They both compile to identical CIL (Common Intermediate Language). Curly braces however, like Macs and smoking, will always be cooler.
No language is going to be easier/harder to program for a single/multiple core/processor/threads. The language can only provide the facility for creating threads/processes, and the facility for those to communicate with one another. This is true of all languages that use the same paradigm, e.g. all imperative languages. Switch programming paradigms, for example to a functional language, and suddenly the language can do a whole lot to ease the burden of getting performance out of multiple threads.
I phant'sy you're not alone in that one. I struggled through the whole of Quicksilver but couldn't get over the feeling of dread that I felt every time I thought about starting The Confusion.
Let's hope this book is as good as his pre-Baroque Cycle stuff, if so then it should at least be worth reading.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, it's quite the hoax- he faked the whole plane wreckage... ahem. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfmXbQn-RFLHSjd8_s23ytiM6OVAD93IF7SO0
Thanks, Skip.
Haven't you heard? If it gets warmer it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, if it gets cooler it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, and if it stays exactly the same it's still proof of GLOBAL WARMING!
The T-Rex Doesn't have A/C unless you count the breeze flowing through the cockpit, but does look like quite an exciting thing to drive. The Spyder Has a similar wheel layout, but is closer to a motorbike/quad than a car.
Asheville North Carolina, 2" of wet snow, we drove past this Grand Cherokee (and about 20 other cars/trucks that had spun out, this guy made the album due to his exceptional distance and the awesome angle of his wheels) in our Toyota Corolla: http://goatpunch.com/album?album=2003/asheville/day4;photo=IMG_0436.JPG
Audi: "Avant"
BMW: "Touring"
Volvo: "Sportswagon"
I tried pulling up some Wikipedia pages that I thought might be blocked: Falun Gong, Dalai Lama, etc. and all seemed to work fine, with full history of the page and all 'subversive' content easily readible.
I was in China last month and the only sites that I had any problem accessing were blogs. It seemed that most popular blog sites were completely blocked. Wikipedia, Slashdot, Youtube, Facebook, etc. were all accessible. They don't seem to be using a whitelist though, as my own small unimportant domain worked fine.
In retrospect, blocking blogs isn't such a bad idea...
You don't buy the explanations? But these people are experts! This documents the historical speculation process quite well, although the episode when they reconstructed King Arthur's Court from a piece of china was even better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf95P2DJC6E&ftm=6
When you take a RAW image, the only camera settings that you have to worry about are the aperture, the shutter speed, and the ISO setting (of course you still need to focus/autofocus and point the camera in the right direction, etc.).
The RAW image is just the data that is coming off the sensor, without any processing. The image sensor, and therefore the RAW data saved from it, can have no concept of 'white balance' - this is a shifting of the colours in the image that takes place in the image processing software, to make the finished image look more acceptable to us in most lighing conditions. A white balance setting is often stored in the EXIF data for the RAW image, but this is just used as a default setting when you open the image in your processing software, it doesn't affect the actual data.
Yes, you're exactly right, the data on the sensor in both cases will be the same- the white balance shift that occurs during processing will not have taken place.What's BS about a 10-bit per channel RAW image having more information than an 8-bit per channel jpeg? Also, the RAW information is linear, and JPEG is logarithmic- so darker areas will have far more information in RAW than in JPEG, before the tone curve has been applied.
The RAW image has literally no concept of white balance- it's just the data from the sensor. The white balance conversion is 'fudging it' so that the picture looks correct for our eyes. By fudging it at home on your PC, rather than in the first split second after the photo is taken, you avoid losing unnecessary image information.
One other point about RAW is that with some of these cameras, the RAW image is also bigger- the JPEG crops off the edges of the sensor!
With RAW you're going to get the best picture possible from a given sensor, rather than developing your image and throwing away the negative in the first tenth of a second.
RAW gives you more image information, as you haven't gone through a lossy RAW->JPEG conversion. Whether this is to correct an under/over-exposed picture (or both*), or to compensate for an incorrect (or impossible**) white balance setting.
You're right, a bigger sensor and lens will give you a better picture. But for a given maximum camera size, RAW will give you the potential*** for better images than JPEG. Perfect for an undercover paparazzo who needs to blow up that discreet underexposed celebrity shot to sell to US Magazine.
A decent analogy is that with JPEG you've thrown away the 'negative', and are left with only a print of the image, throwing away the rest of the information contained in the negative. If you really care about the image, or are going to spend hours working with it in photoshop, wouldn't you rather be working with an image taken from the negative, rather than the print?
* example of an under- and over- exposed picture: a person wearing a hat on a sunny day. The outside of the cap can be overexposed, while their face is underexposed. As RAW stores the image with a higher colour bit depth, you've got a chance of recovering the over and under exposed area.
** example of 'impossible' white balance: a room lit by candlelight, which has a window with an overcast sky outside. Either the room will look orange, or the window will look blue, or both- there's no way to make both areas of the picture look correct with one white balance setting. Changing the white balance of one area of the JPEG that radically will throw away masses of information, and look terrible. With RAW, you can render the picture twice with two different white balance values, one for the overcast sky, and one for the candle, and merge the two images together.
*** With a perfectly exposed picture that has the correct colour depth, the only real advantage of RAW is that you avoid the JPEG compression, but with these small sensors you're probably only going to see noise there instead of the compression, so it won't make a lot of difference.
I think your confusing the VB.NET of the past 5 or 6 years (which is essentially the same thing as C# and J# with slightly different syntax) with the crappy old-style Visual Basic 1.0 to 6.0 which I doubt that anyone uses anymore.
No-one else in this discussion seems to have noticed that fact. They both compile to identical CIL (Common Intermediate Language). Curly braces however, like Macs and smoking, will always be cooler.
I phant'sy you're not alone in that one. I struggled through the whole of Quicksilver but couldn't get over the feeling of dread that I felt every time I thought about starting The Confusion.
Let's hope this book is as good as his pre-Baroque Cycle stuff, if so then it should at least be worth reading.
... I wouldn't want to be the second person to try out the prototype.
just RTFA
Moderation 0
20% Insightful
50% Overrated
30% Underrated
What a waste of mod points (and replies) on a throwaway comment
This monopoly is so much better for the consumer.
... and calling it WebTivo, or maybe just WebTV?