We have to live up to the "simple expectation" that we be beautiful and our bodies young, supple, well-rounded, etc.
Alright, I'll bite and eat the mod points. Most of the guys I know that are my peers don't really care so much about how a woman looks on the exterior beyond the fact that she merely keeps herself in shape (e.g. bothers to workout enough that she doesn't gain copious amounts of weight) and is well rounded in the sense of being able to have a knowledgeable conversation about more subjects that just what is on TV.
However, I am on Slashdot so my peer group might not be the same as yours in regards to the men you know. However, if that is the case, maybe you just don't like the men you are dating and need to meet different people?
Wouldn't the Allies have just been able to use the round about route across USSR? Granted it would have taken longer to move supplies, but if Germany had waited odds are the USSR would have been able to build up the defenses more which would have caused then to be delayed in any major movements along that front.
Saying that the plane was stealthy kind of depends upon the state-of-the-art of radar technology at the time. That isn't exactly my field, but my understanding is that we are leaps and bounds ahead of the 1940's in terms of resolution and as such, even a plane with a moderately low radar profile might have been invisible to 1940's radar.
"In all other ways?" I'm still not sure where you are getting that from as the Canon EOS 40D is a semi-professional dSLR camera that is quite often carried as a backup camera (or as a primary) by professional photographers, where as the PowerShot S5 is strictly a consumer level camera. Given that the 40D support interchangeable lenses I'm even sure you can fairly compare the cameras, thus, this really is a situation where you are comparing apples to oranges.
So if it is just an atmospheric phenomenon then why wouldn't we still want to explore it a bit and figure out what it is and how it works? Just dismissing it does tend to go against the natural scientific curiosity to explain the world around us. In fact, you think there would be a bit more interest in explaining the "unknowns" in regards to reported UFOs as all of the other explanations have been ruled out, if you know what it isn't, then it must be something new that you don't know about.
Actually, it depends upon what format you are using. Someone who is shooting medium format and not using a system might still be using film for the simple reason that you can afford an older medium format film camera and film, but not be able to afford an entry level digital equivalent. This isn't a small difference either, an entry level digital medium format setup (e.g. body, back, lens, and software to work with the RAW images) is going to put you back somewhere around $10,000 where as a basic film setup (e.g. Holga and a couple rolls of 400 ISO film) will only put you back around $50-$75 depending upon where you go for developing. If you go a step up from that you could also get a used medium format camera that supports digital backs and then just get one in the future as well, that may put you back around $1,000.
Also, to a limited extent the megapixels do matter, but only if you are trying to make larger prints, once you are up around 10 megapixels, they stop mattering as much and the optics of the camera start to matter a lot more.
It's not the same, the unpredictability of some films is exactly what makes them interesting to work with. Sure you can reproduce a lot of the same effects in Photoshop, but those are a force reproduction as opposed to something that happens out in the field, it's not some much that other people will know, but the fact that you will know.
News to me, I just did a quick search around and the biggest digital back I could find was the Leaf Aptus-II which is only 56x36mm where as large format cameras start at around ~102x127mm. Most of the backs I could find out there had large format adapters, but is it still isn't quite the same as a true large format sheet film. Also, when you compare the about $100 for a Polaroid back plus $2 a shot, does it really compare to paying tens of thousands for a digital back.
There is more to it than just that though, one of the things that people shoot instant film for is that sometimes they will manipulate the photograph while it is still developing. You can't do that with a digital to instant camera.
That aesthetic is also one of the things that a growing number of photographers are going for when they talk about Lomography which is where the lo-fi aesthetic is part of the appeal. In someways it's a rebellion against the growing digitization of photography and a reminder that there is more to a good photograph then just megapixels.
As with most things, it kind of depends upon which segment of industry you are in, some companies will be a limit on how far you can go in the company with just a Bachelor's degree. However, then the question usually becomes how long you see yourself working in that segment of industry.
Also, another thing to consider in this regards is that the taught Masters is usually considered terminal, if you wanted to go back and get your PhD then might run into some problems getting accepted somewhere. Furthermore, one thing to consider in regards to the research Masters is that it gives you a taste of what getting a PhD would be like. Granted it is by no means the same, but if you don't like doing the research required for the Masters, in terms of just doing research, then you might not want to go for the PhD.
I am not an electrical engineer (IANAEE) but I have a read a couple of books on Tesla and struggled through some of the papers he wrote and one thing that seems to be constant is that he was way ahead of his time. However, reading through some of the annotated papers something that stands out is that he was actually working with some stuff that we didn't even have the correct terminology for and that Tesla seems to be a lot more of an intuitive experimentalist than someone that worked with electrical theory. Thus, this tends to mean two things, to me at least, in regards to Wardenclyffe, namely that the only person that would likely know what Tesla was planning on doing is Tesla and there is a pretty good chance that people might also be assuming that Wardenclyffe was intended to do more than it was meant for.
I would have to get the books out, but I seem to recall that Wardenclyffe was partly a proof-of-concept demonstration based upon his Colorado Springs, CO experiments so I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't work like he intended. Also, one of his papers on the wireless transmission of electricity explained that a series of towers similar to Wardenclyffe would be needed throughout the world in order to achieve his goals.
However, I am willing to concede that the plans might not have worked out as Tesla had hoped for even if he did not encounter the financial issues due to a lack of full understanding of electrical theory. All told though, it would be a shame to have museums dedicated to Edison here in the US, but you have to the Tesla Museum in Serbia if you want to learn about him outside of books.
Agreed, in fact there is still some good content up on Geocites that I just recently discovered. Case and point would be a fairly inclusive reverence to the Cokin Filter System. I'm not sure if it is still being updated, but it would be a loss if it is the only site like it on the internet.
I'm not sure where I saw/heard/read this, but I seem to recall an article awhile back that was talking about Adobes perspective on the unlicensed use of Adobe Photoshop. In a nutshell the article said that even though they didn't approve of it, they didn't want to take all possible means to clamp down on it due to the fact that the majority of unlicensed copies were being used by amateurs who either didn't use the software that much, or would eventually learn the ins and outs and would get any company they worked for to buy a legitimate version for them for use at the office. Also, the article noted that most people who used Photoshop on a serious basis (e.g. artists) tended to get the money together to buy it as well even if they had an unlicensed version at some point. However, don't quote me on any of that as I can't recall where I saw it.
One thing that I do know for a fact though is that Adobe tends to have some pretty nice clauses in their license agreements that work well with the end users. For example, in the Lightroom 2.0 license there is a clause that allows you to have it installed on two different machines as long as you didn't use both copies at the same time. For a photographer this works out well because it means you can have it installed on your main workstation as well as a laptop that you use on site.
That rent really isn't that bad considering I'm paying US$1000 for a 42 sq meter apartment near Boston and I have to pay for my internet and phone separately, another US$90 a month.
However, how much did it cost for you to acquire and move into the apartment? I've heard that some of them what up to six months worth of rent up front.
In regards to Columbus thinking the world was smaller, it is mentioned in the About.com article about him. You can find much more on Columbus that says more or less the same thing as it is something that is generally not contested by historians.
In regards to Europeans suspecting there might might be a landmass before Asia, it isn't much of a stretch that they might have heard about the Norse colonies; however, I would have to do some searching around for better information in that regards. However, even if someone in Europe did know, the point would still be moot as you would have to have evidence that Spain was also aware of the colonies. This is an area that there is some soft evidence for, but you really need to dig and it's not that conclusive.
You raise a good point there, when I was in it seems like a lot of people in the technical fields where their for the training, clearance, and experience. Once their enlistment was up they all snagged a job doing contracting work.
Speaking about things as a former USAF Programmer (3C0X2), there are a couple major problems with being in a highly technical area in the military, even if you are in a good unit that works with the technical fields.
One of the first issues that pops in to mind is culture, as at the end of the day, you are still military personnel and are expected to behave a certain way. For the most part this isn't as big of a personnel problem as you might think, as long as people know what they are getting into when they enlist, they typically don't have any problems. However, the bigger issue arises in part because the military likes to rotate people around to different bases and this can result in the loss of a knowledge base in a unit. So unless there are competent civilian employees (i.e. GS series, not contractors) that will be around for awhile, as people are transferred in and out of a unit, there is an overall loss of knowledge and productivity as people learn what they need know about the system they will be working on. For some of the larger applications it can take upwards of six months to a year to know everything about the application - and that is assuming that you know what you are doing as a programmer before you get there.
This leads to the second problem, namely, the majority of programmers in the USAF where young people that enlisted right out of high school. This means that a great deal of them either didn't know what they were doing when they arrived at tech school - which means that you have to spend more time teaching the basics - or they where self taught and had bad habits they needed to unlearn. This means that as a whole, the USAF was spending a lot of time and money training someone to be a programmer, but by the time they knew enough to do their job well, they were at the end of their enlistment and you don't know if someone is going to reenlist or not.
This brings us back to the military culture again as the USAF would likely be better off is getting into the AFSC required you to have advanced training of some sort outside of the military, but if that was the case then they would make you an officer and if that where the case, odds are you wouldn't be writing software. Due to this I always wondered if it might be a better idea to just bring back the warrant officer in the USAF and make the AFSC fall under that. Highly unlikely that such a suggestion would even be discussed at the higher levels though.
So the bottom line, in the USAF programmers and other technical fields, always took a bit of a back seat to the more "bombs on target" and medicine oriented fields and as far as I could tell when I was in and there was always a bit of an issue with retaining people with good technical talent when they came up for reenlistment. A couple ideas where kicked around in regards to how to solve these issues, but when I was in it seemed like the USAF was solving the problem by hiring more civilian contractors to do the jobs.
In regards to making money from a typical 401(k)? The best way to make money with it it to simply not touch it unless you absolutely have to (i.e. your retiring). When the market is low like this about the only thing that is going to happen if you try and do anything is that you are going to lose money. However, if you keep things the way they are and let the normal purchases take place, then you should be in a better position when the market starts to go back up you should be able to take better advantage of dollar cost averaging.
Even a diversified portfolio is taking a beating right now, in fact, having a diversified portfolio might might mean that you are only off 15% for the year instead of 25%. However, you could still be making money right now if you know what you are doing, but for most people, their 401(k) is kind of a "buy and ignore" type operation.
Slashdot Mirror
We have to live up to the "simple expectation" that we be beautiful and our bodies young, supple, well-rounded, etc.
Alright, I'll bite and eat the mod points. Most of the guys I know that are my peers don't really care so much about how a woman looks on the exterior beyond the fact that she merely keeps herself in shape (e.g. bothers to workout enough that she doesn't gain copious amounts of weight) and is well rounded in the sense of being able to have a knowledgeable conversation about more subjects that just what is on TV.
However, I am on Slashdot so my peer group might not be the same as yours in regards to the men you know. However, if that is the case, maybe you just don't like the men you are dating and need to meet different people?
Episode Eight, season four the solution ended up being Lupus.
Except for the one time where it was lupus.
Wouldn't the Allies have just been able to use the round about route across USSR? Granted it would have taken longer to move supplies, but if Germany had waited odds are the USSR would have been able to build up the defenses more which would have caused then to be delayed in any major movements along that front.
Saying that the plane was stealthy kind of depends upon the state-of-the-art of radar technology at the time. That isn't exactly my field, but my understanding is that we are leaps and bounds ahead of the 1940's in terms of resolution and as such, even a plane with a moderately low radar profile might have been invisible to 1940's radar.
Reading comprehension failure, apparently I need to have another mug of coffee. On the upside, at least I'm not the only poster to make the mistake.
"In all other ways?" I'm still not sure where you are getting that from as the Canon EOS 40D is a semi-professional dSLR camera that is quite often carried as a backup camera (or as a primary) by professional photographers, where as the PowerShot S5 is strictly a consumer level camera. Given that the 40D support interchangeable lenses I'm even sure you can fairly compare the cameras, thus, this really is a situation where you are comparing apples to oranges.
How is the PowerShot S5 considered to be a step up from a semi-pro dSLR?
So if it is just an atmospheric phenomenon then why wouldn't we still want to explore it a bit and figure out what it is and how it works? Just dismissing it does tend to go against the natural scientific curiosity to explain the world around us. In fact, you think there would be a bit more interest in explaining the "unknowns" in regards to reported UFOs as all of the other explanations have been ruled out, if you know what it isn't, then it must be something new that you don't know about.
Actually, it depends upon what format you are using. Someone who is shooting medium format and not using a system might still be using film for the simple reason that you can afford an older medium format film camera and film, but not be able to afford an entry level digital equivalent. This isn't a small difference either, an entry level digital medium format setup (e.g. body, back, lens, and software to work with the RAW images) is going to put you back somewhere around $10,000 where as a basic film setup (e.g. Holga and a couple rolls of 400 ISO film) will only put you back around $50-$75 depending upon where you go for developing. If you go a step up from that you could also get a used medium format camera that supports digital backs and then just get one in the future as well, that may put you back around $1,000.
Also, to a limited extent the megapixels do matter, but only if you are trying to make larger prints, once you are up around 10 megapixels, they stop mattering as much and the optics of the camera start to matter a lot more.
It's not the same, the unpredictability of some films is exactly what makes them interesting to work with. Sure you can reproduce a lot of the same effects in Photoshop, but those are a force reproduction as opposed to something that happens out in the field, it's not some much that other people will know, but the fact that you will know.
News to me, I just did a quick search around and the biggest digital back I could find was the Leaf Aptus-II which is only 56x36mm where as large format cameras start at around ~102x127mm. Most of the backs I could find out there had large format adapters, but is it still isn't quite the same as a true large format sheet film. Also, when you compare the about $100 for a Polaroid back plus $2 a shot, does it really compare to paying tens of thousands for a digital back.
There is more to it than just that though, one of the things that people shoot instant film for is that sometimes they will manipulate the photograph while it is still developing. You can't do that with a digital to instant camera.
That aesthetic is also one of the things that a growing number of photographers are going for when they talk about Lomography which is where the lo-fi aesthetic is part of the appeal. In someways it's a rebellion against the growing digitization of photography and a reminder that there is more to a good photograph then just megapixels.
As with most things, it kind of depends upon which segment of industry you are in, some companies will be a limit on how far you can go in the company with just a Bachelor's degree. However, then the question usually becomes how long you see yourself working in that segment of industry.
Also, another thing to consider in this regards is that the taught Masters is usually considered terminal, if you wanted to go back and get your PhD then might run into some problems getting accepted somewhere. Furthermore, one thing to consider in regards to the research Masters is that it gives you a taste of what getting a PhD would be like. Granted it is by no means the same, but if you don't like doing the research required for the Masters, in terms of just doing research, then you might not want to go for the PhD.
I am not an electrical engineer (IANAEE) but I have a read a couple of books on Tesla and struggled through some of the papers he wrote and one thing that seems to be constant is that he was way ahead of his time. However, reading through some of the annotated papers something that stands out is that he was actually working with some stuff that we didn't even have the correct terminology for and that Tesla seems to be a lot more of an intuitive experimentalist than someone that worked with electrical theory. Thus, this tends to mean two things, to me at least, in regards to Wardenclyffe, namely that the only person that would likely know what Tesla was planning on doing is Tesla and there is a pretty good chance that people might also be assuming that Wardenclyffe was intended to do more than it was meant for.
I would have to get the books out, but I seem to recall that Wardenclyffe was partly a proof-of-concept demonstration based upon his Colorado Springs, CO experiments so I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't work like he intended. Also, one of his papers on the wireless transmission of electricity explained that a series of towers similar to Wardenclyffe would be needed throughout the world in order to achieve his goals.
However, I am willing to concede that the plans might not have worked out as Tesla had hoped for even if he did not encounter the financial issues due to a lack of full understanding of electrical theory. All told though, it would be a shame to have museums dedicated to Edison here in the US, but you have to the Tesla Museum in Serbia if you want to learn about him outside of books.
Agreed, in fact there is still some good content up on Geocites that I just recently discovered. Case and point would be a fairly inclusive reverence to the Cokin Filter System. I'm not sure if it is still being updated, but it would be a loss if it is the only site like it on the internet.
I'm not sure where I saw/heard/read this, but I seem to recall an article awhile back that was talking about Adobes perspective on the unlicensed use of Adobe Photoshop. In a nutshell the article said that even though they didn't approve of it, they didn't want to take all possible means to clamp down on it due to the fact that the majority of unlicensed copies were being used by amateurs who either didn't use the software that much, or would eventually learn the ins and outs and would get any company they worked for to buy a legitimate version for them for use at the office. Also, the article noted that most people who used Photoshop on a serious basis (e.g. artists) tended to get the money together to buy it as well even if they had an unlicensed version at some point. However, don't quote me on any of that as I can't recall where I saw it.
One thing that I do know for a fact though is that Adobe tends to have some pretty nice clauses in their license agreements that work well with the end users. For example, in the Lightroom 2.0 license there is a clause that allows you to have it installed on two different machines as long as you didn't use both copies at the same time. For a photographer this works out well because it means you can have it installed on your main workstation as well as a laptop that you use on site.
That rent really isn't that bad considering I'm paying US$1000 for a 42 sq meter apartment near Boston and I have to pay for my internet and phone separately, another US$90 a month.
However, how much did it cost for you to acquire and move into the apartment? I've heard that some of them what up to six months worth of rent up front.
In regards to Columbus thinking the world was smaller, it is mentioned in the About.com article about him. You can find much more on Columbus that says more or less the same thing as it is something that is generally not contested by historians.
In regards to Europeans suspecting there might might be a landmass before Asia, it isn't much of a stretch that they might have heard about the Norse colonies; however, I would have to do some searching around for better information in that regards. However, even if someone in Europe did know, the point would still be moot as you would have to have evidence that Spain was also aware of the colonies. This is an area that there is some soft evidence for, but you really need to dig and it's not that conclusive.
You raise a good point there, when I was in it seems like a lot of people in the technical fields where their for the training, clearance, and experience. Once their enlistment was up they all snagged a job doing contracting work.
Speaking about things as a former USAF Programmer (3C0X2), there are a couple major problems with being in a highly technical area in the military, even if you are in a good unit that works with the technical fields.
One of the first issues that pops in to mind is culture, as at the end of the day, you are still military personnel and are expected to behave a certain way. For the most part this isn't as big of a personnel problem as you might think, as long as people know what they are getting into when they enlist, they typically don't have any problems. However, the bigger issue arises in part because the military likes to rotate people around to different bases and this can result in the loss of a knowledge base in a unit. So unless there are competent civilian employees (i.e. GS series, not contractors) that will be around for awhile, as people are transferred in and out of a unit, there is an overall loss of knowledge and productivity as people learn what they need know about the system they will be working on. For some of the larger applications it can take upwards of six months to a year to know everything about the application - and that is assuming that you know what you are doing as a programmer before you get there.
This leads to the second problem, namely, the majority of programmers in the USAF where young people that enlisted right out of high school. This means that a great deal of them either didn't know what they were doing when they arrived at tech school - which means that you have to spend more time teaching the basics - or they where self taught and had bad habits they needed to unlearn. This means that as a whole, the USAF was spending a lot of time and money training someone to be a programmer, but by the time they knew enough to do their job well, they were at the end of their enlistment and you don't know if someone is going to reenlist or not.
This brings us back to the military culture again as the USAF would likely be better off is getting into the AFSC required you to have advanced training of some sort outside of the military, but if that was the case then they would make you an officer and if that where the case, odds are you wouldn't be writing software. Due to this I always wondered if it might be a better idea to just bring back the warrant officer in the USAF and make the AFSC fall under that. Highly unlikely that such a suggestion would even be discussed at the higher levels though.
So the bottom line, in the USAF programmers and other technical fields, always took a bit of a back seat to the more "bombs on target" and medicine oriented fields and as far as I could tell when I was in and there was always a bit of an issue with retaining people with good technical talent when they came up for reenlistment. A couple ideas where kicked around in regards to how to solve these issues, but when I was in it seemed like the USAF was solving the problem by hiring more civilian contractors to do the jobs.
In regards to making money from a typical 401(k)? The best way to make money with it it to simply not touch it unless you absolutely have to (i.e. your retiring). When the market is low like this about the only thing that is going to happen if you try and do anything is that you are going to lose money. However, if you keep things the way they are and let the normal purchases take place, then you should be in a better position when the market starts to go back up you should be able to take better advantage of dollar cost averaging.
Even a diversified portfolio is taking a beating right now, in fact, having a diversified portfolio might might mean that you are only off 15% for the year instead of 25%. However, you could still be making money right now if you know what you are doing, but for most people, their 401(k) is kind of a "buy and ignore" type operation.