How many geeks will be trying to get just a little more mileage out of that old 286 and end up killing the neighbor's cat?
You would be very suprised at the power of a 286. It could easily run a robot. And if you have the math co-processor, you could probably program some AI. Now the CGA or EGA monitors sucked, and the sound sucked. But at its very basic level, it is more powerful that you think.
I bet you could control multiple motors with a 286. Simple on/off commands for moving N/E/S/W.
Will we see fleets of ORPP robots plowing our streets and mowing our lawns in the future?
Will the USA become a place where the only jobs needed will be thought based. No more jobs where a person is needed to do a repetitious task over and over? Will the next outsorcing be not out of the USA, but from human labour to robots?
I see so many problems here. What will people do for a living??
I don't want this to sound like trolling, but it will. There are enough people out there who are not made for work which requires too much thought. Not everyone can pass Chemistry 101. Some people require the factory jobs to make enough money to buy a house, and live a life. If we start lowering the value of those jobs, we will be shoving a whole class of people into poverty.
I also can't help but think of the horror of the next war we face. No more "human life lost", instead we'll send drone airplanes and robots to do the fighting. Mr and Mrs Redstate will no longer have to reconsider if a war is just when their child is killed ("Was it worth it?"). I wonder if we would have burned all of Vietnam down if we did not have to send any Americans, if we only had to send robots. We could declare the area too unsafe and keep the reporters out.
I've wondered about this too. But then again, wouldn't that be part of this scripting as well? I mean, how many times can you mispronounce "nuclear" and get away with it? Maybe it's all part of this "scripting". One to make it look close to home to most "red Americans"...
Well, what we do know about Bush... he was an alcoholic. There are strong rumors that he did cocain. I believe there was an article in the paper where a childhood friend of his tape recorded him while talking about it. And I think he got a DUI while driving in Maine.
While the alcohol did not fry all his brain, it could have fried enough of it that Bush can't speak without sluring and mispronouncing words.
I don't think Bush is faking it. I don't think he is good enough an actor. Now Clinton, that guy could have been a used car salesperson. He does not miss a beat. Bush is not smooth enough. I actually believe what Bush says is what he believes. At least when he starts "shooting from the hip". Some of the stuff he says, nobody would scipt that for him and still have a job.
The sense of outrage is crushed by the lack of a decent political system to accomadate it. Who's going to actually stand up to our politicians? Commies? Democrats? There are no real non-money biased political organizations out there that anyone can even remotely consider mainstream. The system is designed to stamp them out, look at the green party. And the Libertarians. And of course, look at Ross Perot. There's no room for dissent beyond the approved dissent, and we need major change, and we have no leaders because of the smear-based media. The US is lamed by its politics now instead of uplifted, because we've become so shallow.
Hand me one too. Make sure it's not a Bud, though, I just can't stand that piss-weak stuff. It's nowhere near as fast as a good northwestern Imperial Stout, either.
You are mistaking the USA form of government. We are not parliment, we don't form collations. There is only one winner, everyone else is a loser.
That does not mean a group can not influence an election, they often do. Clinton never would have been elected president if not for Perot. Perot stole 10% of the vote from Bush, giving Clinton the presidency. Some believe Ralph Nader took the election from Gore. Maybe if some of the far left liberals did not vote for Nader they would have voted for Gore. Look at how close Florida was. How many Nader people are there in Florida? Enough to make a difference?
If you want to change politics, start with campaign finance reform. Right now we have two parties, and nobody else. Part of the problem is the two parties collect money on a scale that nobody else can match. The second thing you must change is the debates. With the exception of Perot, no third part candidate gets a chance. And since Perot cost Bush, candidates are even more sensitive about giving a third party a voice.
I don't think we will ever have a third party president. But I hope we can elect a few third party Senators. But with a senate seat costs rising to 10 million a seat, who knows if Joe Sixpack will every get elected.
It really *does* seem as if we're becoming more Facist every day
It is only becomming more facist if you're in the small minority of people supporting homosexality or believe we should not be in Iraq. For the rest of the country, it couldn't be better.:p
Seriously, it takes congress to pass laws, states to pass amendments. The president is not using powers he does not have, he is just deciding who will represent the USA.
How is this worse than bombing and killing Iraqi people? If we're going to get *pissed* at the president, lets keep our priorities. War is wrong. Picking who does/doesn't represent the USA is not a big deal. It just means some democrat won't get his perks.
PS... If you want to be mad at the Perks system, there are bigger fish. How many USA Ambassadors are gifts to supporters? I think you would be suprised at the anwser. Wasn't Carol Mousley Braun made an Ambassador??
America needs to pick the most qualified, most brilliant engineers it can to represent at these meetings. You can be the most qualified person in the nation on telecom, but if you supported Kerry, you dont belong according to the WH. It not even like this group manages aid or something, they fucking design specifications.
First, it is not like the USA has one genius engineer and 50 dumb ones. Chances are in the pool of all engineers, you will find republicans and democrats. All things being equal, are you suprised a republican president would not reward his supporters and shaft his detractors?
Someone could argue the Attorney General of the United States should be the best qualified lawyer available, but it is always political. Where is the line when you stop making a decision based on party affiliation?? Should it stop with the Department of Homeland Security?
I might be wrong, but I would have guessed before Clinton the highest office was a political reward, and the career beurocratic jobs were staffed with the best available. I think since Clinton, even those mid level jobs have become a reward/punishment.
How can this come as a surprise to anybody even remotely attuned to American politics? How does this differ from how they've been running everything else?
The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
I would disagree with #3. If they are staging and scripting Bush, they are doing a horrible job of it. Bush is one of the few presidents I can remember who likes to lean in and start talking. And he gets roasted on tv, from the comedy central to the late night shows. But that has not stopped him from talking freely. If he was coached and staged, it would be a speech and he would be done. He would not be looking into space trying to find the word he is looking for.
Short answer: Yes, digital can be as good as film.
Long answer: No, digital can never be as good as film.
Hello, post-sales tech support?
However, in the medium format (2.25 inches square, or rectangles of about the same area) film still gets the nod most of the time, and in large format (shooting 4x5 inches to 8x10 inches, or even larger) I haven't seen anyone claim digital has the lead.
This is what I believe to be true. For daily shots, a digital camera might be okay. But for a family portrait you want to pass down for the next 10 generations, you want film.
Digital quality might keep improving, but so will scanning continue to improve. What is a better format to store an image?
How would a very good digital camera image compare in 10 years to a film image, with the negative scanned with whatever future technology they have? Say you take a picture with a 7 megapixel camera, and you take a photo with a good film camera. Will the image from the 7 megapixel camera be good in 10 years like a film photo negative scanned with a scanner from the future?
When does digital exceed film? 5 megapixels? 6 megapixels? More? It seems when digital cameras came out, the sales people said 2 megapixel is better than film for 4 by 6 prints, and 3 megapixels is better for a full page.
Then they came out with the 5+ megapixel cameras, and they changed their docs to say 3 megapixels for brilliant 4 by 6 prints, 5 megapixels for a full page.
The quality of film was never measured by how large the print would be, the way they do with digital cameras. Instead film is more concerned with lighting conditions, the time of the exposure.
So I am asking, at what point does film do worse than digital? And who is programming those digital programs to say what "ones and zeros" equals an image. With film it is all natural.
One last quick comment. What will last longer? Film or digital content? What can you be 100% certain to be able to view in the future? CD's get rot, and go bad. Many programs and games that used to run on my 386 will not run on my PIII. Technology changes, maybe we will need some emulator to view those digital images. Or maybe the standard will change and our old 3 megapixel jpegs will be considered crappy, like it came from a childs toy. Film will always have it's place as the elite method for taking quality pictures.
Most professional photographers prefer using RAW image capture because it offers the highest quality and the greatest creative control.
I won't argue the second point, that there is more creative control on a computer, be it a jpeg or anything. To do minor editing in a film lab takes great skill, anyone can edit with photoshop.
But what about quality? Will digital ever come close to the quality film when blowing up an image to full page size or more? Will digital ever be as true as film, can an algorithm on a camera that converts colors and images to zero's and one's be as good as film which reacts naturally to the light?
whether corporations should get involved in social issues
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
I agree a corporation is not a real person. They should have no voice on social issues. Now the CEO of the corporation should be allowed to say whatever he wants as a private citizen. But when a corporation takes the position of forcing legislation, it harms people.
Plus, when I buy windows, I don't want my money going to support a cause I oppose. It is one thing if Gates takes his money to support issues. It is another thing if he takes the companies money to support an issue.
I am also adamant that I want Microsoft to be a place where every employee feels respected, and where every employee feels like they belong. I don't want the company to be in the position of appearing to dismiss the deeply-held beliefs of any employee, by picking sides on social policy issues.
So, he does not want to dismiss the deeply held beliefs of any employee by picking sides, then the first thing he does is pick sides
I am a christian. Our nation is christian. We were founded on christian ideals. The only reason there is a seperation of church and state is not to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of the church.
All the changes in society will harm the USA. We no longer value life, as was evident in the murder of Terry Shiavo. We are allowing every devient lifestyle to see the light of day. They are offensive and should be prosecuted. My state still has laws on the books against sodomy. They should enforce those laws. Furthermore, any company that has "domestic partner benifits" is in effect forming a conspiracy to undermine those sodomy laws.
We should get back on track. People who deeply believe that sodomy is a sin, that homosexuality is a disease should make their voice heard. Otherwise renegade politicians, like the mayor of SF will make his own laws, in violation of the public trust given to him, against his own state laws.
We need to stop exporting jobs. We need to get back to old fashioned values.
First, in the Enterpise case, the broadcaster and the show producer are two different companies
Good point! I conceed.
So why don't you do like the rest of us who feel that way, and buy a TiVo?
I don't want to pay a monthy fee for what my VCR did just fine.
Ummm... I think pro football is a little too violent for kids, but that's why I enjoy watching it.
Now you are humoring me. It is not violent. It is a team sport. If bringing someone down is violent, then society has become filled with pussies. Sorry, but if you cry after being tackeled, that is whack. It is no more violent than in baseball when a pitcher hits a batter.
What we need is more team effort. More sports. The sex, the booze, this is stuff that currupts people, it is worse than money.
when did knowing what an isotope is, when did that become cool?? i got my ass kicked for being a nerd, now the stuff i liked is cool. in college, i learned to drink to make people like me, to fight to make people respect me. it almost is enought to make me want to blow shit up. why did my h.s. existance suck? i wish i knew what i now know then so i could have struck back. *crying*
And you're sadly mistaken if you don't think that older TV existed solely for advertising. In fact, it was more advertising-driven than current TV, because the old rules forbid broadcasters from having a financial interest in the content-creation companies. This meant that the sole determinant in what money a broadcaster made was ratings (->advertising revenue), as opposed to making additional money from syndication or DVD sales or what-have-you. That's the only reason why shows like "Arrested Development", which are critically-acclaimed but moderately rated, can stay on-the-air.
That is an interesting point, you assert that shows can stay on TV because networks don't care about advertising because they can make money with DVD sales. I would see the relationship working the opposite way. For example, there are millions of Star Trek fans, of all the series, who would probably buy every boxed DVD set of enterprise, no matter how good or bad it is. Some even claim the series is much better than when it started. If DVD sales drove a show to continue broadcasting, wouldn't Enterprise have a few more seasons? It is rare for a TV show to continue with low viewership, most get cancled after more than one bad year.
Older shows had much less advertising. There was one little "Brought to you by..." and then the entire show. Then when commercials started, it was a smaller break. Then the show time started shrinking, and commercials grew longer. Then they got really annoying, they blased the sound volume during a commercial. TV's came out that leveled out the sound. Then advertising decided not to even wait for the commercial, but to use product placement in the show. So I say advertising is a HUGE problem.
Isn't that a good thing? The quality of shows is entirely subjective--the LAST thing I want is somebody appointed by George Fucking Bush determining what kind of TV is "good" or "bad" in quality. Just imagine a world where the only thing on is "Seventh Heaven".
You missed my point. I was talking about broadcast tv using public airwaves. Not about cable. I was one of the people who was very offended at the Owens Monday Night Football skit. It was a sports show, not a reason for a white woman to indicate she wanted a player to miss the game so they could have sex. Football is an all american game. Should it now be that kids can't watch it anymore?
I hope we get ala-cart service from the cable companies. I would like to subscribe to stations, picking which ones I want. Then you could pick which stations you wanted. We would both be happy, you could have MTV and I could have VH1. Big deal. But the basic broadcast TV should not offend the masses.
Is there any way to limit the search so only videos greater than some time or size will be returned? There are too many 10 second clips of crappy quality.
I think we can all agree this has just one application: more porn.
I see the potential for the greatest abuse with a video search engine. Just like bad wesbites use meta-tags and other dirty tricks to get high hits, I can see the same thing with video. But where you can protect yourself against spyware websites by turning off active-x and the such, how do you protect yourself against video. You click on the mpeg and boom, malware.
We need a sandbox for this
Recently, Yahoo launched a beta version of a service called Media RSS that lets anyone with footage submit videos for distribution
How can Yahoo check the content of what is sumbitted? Is there some kind of review?
What happens if NBC decides the "wardrobe malfunction" is their copywrited material and demands it be taken down. Will these searchs make it easier to take down content?
That's the problem, though--broadcast TV is defined as a "public" medium, partly because everybody can and does receive it in the clear, and partly because (in the US and Canada, at least) spectrum rights are public property, and as such must serve the public interests, meaning that the content on those waves shouldn't be terribly offensive to many people.
But I really, REALLY dislike the idea of government-appointed (or even elected) censors dictating what can go on the air, or imposing after-the-fact fines when broadcasters step out of line.
I want government censors for shows that use the public airways. This does not mean censors for DVD's, pay-per-view, or cable. I think those services that ALL people own should not be offensive. The penalties should be so high, that if a show breaks the rules, the fine is much more than advertising revenue. That means fines in the million dollar and plus range. Not the punny hundred thousand dollar fines.
I think government should also ban some of the advertising that makes it on TV. It is impossible to watch a sports game without being bombarded with advertising for beer.
So I say, fuck broadcasting. Go radical--eliminate the concept of broadcast TV, as we know it.
I say stregnthen broadcast TV. Bring back the golden age of TV, with good shows, not shows that only exists for advertising. Did anyone notice that shows from the 60's and 70's were a lot more entertaining than TV today? You had Bonanza, Lost in Space, Star Trek, Gunsmoke and other quality programming. What do all these shows have in common? You won't find products placed in the show for advertising. You will find writers that wrote scripts to entertain. Now you watch TV, and there are some good shows, but I grow tired of all the advertising.
The problem with the internet is it does not respect established boundries. Where does your broadcast end? What if your broadcast is very offensive to my neighborhood, and we wish to have a blackout.
This was already tried, didn't take too well.
Zip Drive and Jaz Drive where what came of the effort, at the time I remember media being rather expensive.
I am not talking about a new media that looks like a disk. I am talking about the disk. It is on every PC. That is what we need, something on every PC. The disk drive is the only hardware that has stayed the same for 2 decades on all PC's. We just needed the data capacity to double a few times. It could have happened with the media, and the same hardware would have still worked.
With the new flash readers as stock on most new computers, these may be unpopular by next year.
Is there one flash standard that ALL computers will take, or will there be diversity? Flash, Secure Disk, XD card, or Sony Memorystick?? If there is diversity, it does not really give people confidence that 1 floppy can be taken anywhere and read.
Sony has been putting their Memory Stick readers on all their laptops. It is on my laptop. But I never use it because it is the only Sony I own.
We need an industry standard, one main device for writing and reading data. That is the floppy drive, it just needs to take a couple leaps in memory. 1.44 megs will not cut it, not even close. If the computer industry would have kept this technology up to date, maybe had it double in 1994, double again in 1996, again in 1998, again in 2001, again in 2003, we would have a floppy that is 46 megs. More than enough for almost everyone. Instead we had one huge jump to jazz drives and zip drives that did not become universal. We need 1 standard.
These flash drives are nice, but problematic. First, on many computers the only USB ports are on the back of the computer. This is a pain to try and stick the usb memory stick in a port behind the computer, when the computer might be pushed up against a wall, or under a table.
The other problem is they are rather pricey. They are expensive. The cheapest one was $46 bucks. They can get to be over $100 dollars.
What we need is another jump in floppy disks. Like when it jumped from 720k to 1.44 megs. The #1 file type that I carry around are documents. And some PDF files, some powerpoint presentations can get to be big.
With all the innovation, we run a risk of having multiple products doing the same thing, and different computers supporting different hardware. For example, I really wished that all computers had a CD-RW. My computer lab has just DVD drives. It does not make sence, it is a lab, who is going to watch movies in a lab? But writing data to a drive is needed.
The anwser is to keep the #1 standard of the past 20 years. Floppy drives were the standard, every PC had a floppy, you could take your disk and know with 100% certanty you could read the data. There was no problem of "I brought my zip disk... huh? You don't have a zip drive?". Lets work on making a floppy drive take a couple leaps. I expected the past couple years for the 1.44megs to double a few times, to be around 11.52 megs if it doubled 3 times the past 6 years. That size disk would be big enough for most files, and people would not need a usb keychain, zip drive, and 3 other methods of transporting files.
Plus, am I the only one who thinks USB keychains are flimsy. A friend had the ipod shuttle and I kept thinking the USB part was going to snap off the cheap plastic. It stuck out of the computer, one bad move, one slip or shove into it and it would snap.
I'm sorry but I don't care how much "scientific proof" whomever has, I just don't believe it. I think this is just another case of the infamous Junk Science that so many love.
I personally have introduced computers to thousands of people over the last 12 years and I've noticed that stupid people stay stupid while smart people stay smart. There are of course exceptions... like the smart guy who decides crack could be fun, heh.
IQ is not set in stone, just like your genes will not determine the exact color of your hair. Your genes might be for brown hair, but in the summer it gets a few shades lighter. IQ is the same way, genetics may establish a boundry, a high and a low. After that, environment determines the rest.
I knew in high school a kid who came from a family of two drooling idiots. His father was a jackass who drank away his life. He had trouble putting together two sentances. His mother was a complete whore. She was such a whore she stopped trying to hide it. But the kid went on to do well, went to a respectable college and good job.
How in the world do you correct for all other factors and then go on to claim that computers make kids less intelligent than having 500 books in the household? Adding together all my fiction, reference, and technical books I barely break the 200 count. Aren't they really saying that kids in more affluent homes are smarter? And are they factoring in easy access to public libraries?
I believe the connection between lowered IQ and web use is even greater than email. What is on the web? Mostly stuff that takes zero though. You just go through the motions. Click to open. Click to send. Done. Next email.
Now consider how Chess is related to higher IQ. It requires careful consideration of how your current move might impact the game in 2 or 3 or 4 moves. The masters can see more than 5 moves ahead. It takes effort of the brain. The more you go through the motions, and take the quick move, the less you gain from the game. The more you think, really ponder what the opponent does, the better your IQ.
Now back to email. How many people read an email twice, and really think about it. How many people just quickly skim an email?
I dunno how it all works. Like the studies that say babies under 2 years of age who listen to Mozart gain IQ points. Maybe the sounds stimulates parts of the brain to work that otherwise would be less active. But that does not make sense considering MRI's that were done on people doing math. The study was this- you are under an MRI and you hear someone asking you math questions. You then think about it and respond with an anwser. Those with the correct anwser had less activity in the brain. Those with the wrong anwser had more activity. That lead to the hypothosis that efficent metabolism of glucose in the brain gave those with higher IQ's a greater ability to do more work.
But what do I know. I am a drunk. I just like reading books. Now if only I could get rid of this massive headache, that really is killing my IQ. Kid's don't drink and don't do email.:)
Every time I try to save an email, it ends up getting deleted anyway when I'm throwing out the spam 100's of emails at a time. Email is useless as it is and nothing important should ever be done with an email.
This used to annoy me too. I hated deleting 100's of emails. But what is worse is when you have an email account, and don't use it for 30 days, then they delete everything in it. I went on vacation once, forgot about my yahoo account, and when i got back everything was gone.
Slashdot Mirror
You would be very suprised at the power of a 286. It could easily run a robot. And if you have the math co-processor, you could probably program some AI. Now the CGA or EGA monitors sucked, and the sound sucked. But at its very basic level, it is more powerful that you think.
I bet you could control multiple motors with a 286. Simple on/off commands for moving N/E/S/W.
Will the USA become a place where the only jobs needed will be thought based. No more jobs where a person is needed to do a repetitious task over and over? Will the next outsorcing be not out of the USA, but from human labour to robots?
I see so many problems here. What will people do for a living??
I don't want this to sound like trolling, but it will. There are enough people out there who are not made for work which requires too much thought. Not everyone can pass Chemistry 101. Some people require the factory jobs to make enough money to buy a house, and live a life. If we start lowering the value of those jobs, we will be shoving a whole class of people into poverty.
I also can't help but think of the horror of the next war we face. No more "human life lost", instead we'll send drone airplanes and robots to do the fighting. Mr and Mrs Redstate will no longer have to reconsider if a war is just when their child is killed ("Was it worth it?"). I wonder if we would have burned all of Vietnam down if we did not have to send any Americans, if we only had to send robots. We could declare the area too unsafe and keep the reporters out.
Well, what we do know about Bush... he was an alcoholic. There are strong rumors that he did cocain. I believe there was an article in the paper where a childhood friend of his tape recorded him while talking about it. And I think he got a DUI while driving in Maine.
While the alcohol did not fry all his brain, it could have fried enough of it that Bush can't speak without sluring and mispronouncing words.
I don't think Bush is faking it. I don't think he is good enough an actor. Now Clinton, that guy could have been a used car salesperson. He does not miss a beat. Bush is not smooth enough. I actually believe what Bush says is what he believes. At least when he starts "shooting from the hip". Some of the stuff he says, nobody would scipt that for him and still have a job.
Hand me one too. Make sure it's not a Bud, though, I just can't stand that piss-weak stuff. It's nowhere near as fast as a good northwestern Imperial Stout, either.
You are mistaking the USA form of government. We are not parliment, we don't form collations. There is only one winner, everyone else is a loser.
That does not mean a group can not influence an election, they often do. Clinton never would have been elected president if not for Perot. Perot stole 10% of the vote from Bush, giving Clinton the presidency. Some believe Ralph Nader took the election from Gore. Maybe if some of the far left liberals did not vote for Nader they would have voted for Gore. Look at how close Florida was. How many Nader people are there in Florida? Enough to make a difference?
If you want to change politics, start with campaign finance reform. Right now we have two parties, and nobody else. Part of the problem is the two parties collect money on a scale that nobody else can match. The second thing you must change is the debates. With the exception of Perot, no third part candidate gets a chance. And since Perot cost Bush, candidates are even more sensitive about giving a third party a voice.
I don't think we will ever have a third party president. But I hope we can elect a few third party Senators. But with a senate seat costs rising to 10 million a seat, who knows if Joe Sixpack will every get elected.
It is only becomming more facist if you're in the small minority of people supporting homosexality or believe we should not be in Iraq. For the rest of the country, it couldn't be better. :p
Seriously, it takes congress to pass laws, states to pass amendments. The president is not using powers he does not have, he is just deciding who will represent the USA.
How is this worse than bombing and killing Iraqi people? If we're going to get *pissed* at the president, lets keep our priorities. War is wrong. Picking who does/doesn't represent the USA is not a big deal. It just means some democrat won't get his perks.
PS... If you want to be mad at the Perks system, there are bigger fish. How many USA Ambassadors are gifts to supporters? I think you would be suprised at the anwser. Wasn't Carol Mousley Braun made an Ambassador??
First, it is not like the USA has one genius engineer and 50 dumb ones. Chances are in the pool of all engineers, you will find republicans and democrats. All things being equal, are you suprised a republican president would not reward his supporters and shaft his detractors?
Someone could argue the Attorney General of the United States should be the best qualified lawyer available, but it is always political. Where is the line when you stop making a decision based on party affiliation?? Should it stop with the Department of Homeland Security?
I might be wrong, but I would have guessed before Clinton the highest office was a political reward, and the career beurocratic jobs were staffed with the best available. I think since Clinton, even those mid level jobs have become a reward/punishment.
The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
I would disagree with #3. If they are staging and scripting Bush, they are doing a horrible job of it. Bush is one of the few presidents I can remember who likes to lean in and start talking. And he gets roasted on tv, from the comedy central to the late night shows. But that has not stopped him from talking freely. If he was coached and staged, it would be a speech and he would be done. He would not be looking into space trying to find the word he is looking for.
Long answer: No, digital can never be as good as film.
Hello, post-sales tech support?
However, in the medium format (2.25 inches square, or rectangles of about the same area) film still gets the nod most of the time, and in large format (shooting 4x5 inches to 8x10 inches, or even larger) I haven't seen anyone claim digital has the lead.
This is what I believe to be true. For daily shots, a digital camera might be okay. But for a family portrait you want to pass down for the next 10 generations, you want film.
Digital quality might keep improving, but so will scanning continue to improve. What is a better format to store an image?
How would a very good digital camera image compare in 10 years to a film image, with the negative scanned with whatever future technology they have? Say you take a picture with a 7 megapixel camera, and you take a photo with a good film camera. Will the image from the 7 megapixel camera be good in 10 years like a film photo negative scanned with a scanner from the future?
When does digital exceed film? 5 megapixels? 6 megapixels? More? It seems when digital cameras came out, the sales people said 2 megapixel is better than film for 4 by 6 prints, and 3 megapixels is better for a full page.
Then they came out with the 5+ megapixel cameras, and they changed their docs to say 3 megapixels for brilliant 4 by 6 prints, 5 megapixels for a full page.
The quality of film was never measured by how large the print would be, the way they do with digital cameras. Instead film is more concerned with lighting conditions, the time of the exposure.
So I am asking, at what point does film do worse than digital? And who is programming those digital programs to say what "ones and zeros" equals an image. With film it is all natural.
One last quick comment. What will last longer? Film or digital content? What can you be 100% certain to be able to view in the future? CD's get rot, and go bad. Many programs and games that used to run on my 386 will not run on my PIII. Technology changes, maybe we will need some emulator to view those digital images. Or maybe the standard will change and our old 3 megapixel jpegs will be considered crappy, like it came from a childs toy. Film will always have it's place as the elite method for taking quality pictures.
I won't argue the second point, that there is more creative control on a computer, be it a jpeg or anything. To do minor editing in a film lab takes great skill, anyone can edit with photoshop.
But what about quality? Will digital ever come close to the quality film when blowing up an image to full page size or more? Will digital ever be as true as film, can an algorithm on a camera that converts colors and images to zero's and one's be as good as film which reacts naturally to the light?
nuff said. :-D
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
I agree a corporation is not a real person. They should have no voice on social issues. Now the CEO of the corporation should be allowed to say whatever he wants as a private citizen. But when a corporation takes the position of forcing legislation, it harms people.
Plus, when I buy windows, I don't want my money going to support a cause I oppose. It is one thing if Gates takes his money to support issues. It is another thing if he takes the companies money to support an issue.
So, he does not want to dismiss the deeply held beliefs of any employee by picking sides, then the first thing he does is pick sides
I am a christian. Our nation is christian. We were founded on christian ideals. The only reason there is a seperation of church and state is not to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of the church.
All the changes in society will harm the USA. We no longer value life, as was evident in the murder of Terry Shiavo. We are allowing every devient lifestyle to see the light of day. They are offensive and should be prosecuted. My state still has laws on the books against sodomy. They should enforce those laws. Furthermore, any company that has "domestic partner benifits" is in effect forming a conspiracy to undermine those sodomy laws.
We should get back on track. People who deeply believe that sodomy is a sin, that homosexuality is a disease should make their voice heard. Otherwise renegade politicians, like the mayor of SF will make his own laws, in violation of the public trust given to him, against his own state laws.
We need to stop exporting jobs. We need to get back to old fashioned values.
Good point! I conceed.
So why don't you do like the rest of us who feel that way, and buy a TiVo?
I don't want to pay a monthy fee for what my VCR did just fine.
Ummm... I think pro football is a little too violent for kids, but that's why I enjoy watching it.
Now you are humoring me. It is not violent. It is a team sport. If bringing someone down is violent, then society has become filled with pussies. Sorry, but if you cry after being tackeled, that is whack. It is no more violent than in baseball when a pitcher hits a batter.
What we need is more team effort. More sports. The sex, the booze, this is stuff that currupts people, it is worse than money.
when did knowing what an isotope is, when did that become cool?? i got my ass kicked for being a nerd, now the stuff i liked is cool. in college, i learned to drink to make people like me, to fight to make people respect me. it almost is enought to make me want to blow shit up. why did my h.s. existance suck? i wish i knew what i now know then so i could have struck back. *crying*
That is an interesting point, you assert that shows can stay on TV because networks don't care about advertising because they can make money with DVD sales. I would see the relationship working the opposite way. For example, there are millions of Star Trek fans, of all the series, who would probably buy every boxed DVD set of enterprise, no matter how good or bad it is. Some even claim the series is much better than when it started. If DVD sales drove a show to continue broadcasting, wouldn't Enterprise have a few more seasons? It is rare for a TV show to continue with low viewership, most get cancled after more than one bad year.
Older shows had much less advertising. There was one little "Brought to you by..." and then the entire show. Then when commercials started, it was a smaller break. Then the show time started shrinking, and commercials grew longer. Then they got really annoying, they blased the sound volume during a commercial. TV's came out that leveled out the sound. Then advertising decided not to even wait for the commercial, but to use product placement in the show. So I say advertising is a HUGE problem.
Isn't that a good thing? The quality of shows is entirely subjective--the LAST thing I want is somebody appointed by George Fucking Bush determining what kind of TV is "good" or "bad" in quality. Just imagine a world where the only thing on is "Seventh Heaven".
You missed my point. I was talking about broadcast tv using public airwaves. Not about cable. I was one of the people who was very offended at the Owens Monday Night Football skit. It was a sports show, not a reason for a white woman to indicate she wanted a player to miss the game so they could have sex. Football is an all american game. Should it now be that kids can't watch it anymore?
I hope we get ala-cart service from the cable companies. I would like to subscribe to stations, picking which ones I want. Then you could pick which stations you wanted. We would both be happy, you could have MTV and I could have VH1. Big deal. But the basic broadcast TV should not offend the masses.
Is there any way to limit the search so only videos greater than some time or size will be returned? There are too many 10 second clips of crappy quality.
I see the potential for the greatest abuse with a video search engine. Just like bad wesbites use meta-tags and other dirty tricks to get high hits, I can see the same thing with video. But where you can protect yourself against spyware websites by turning off active-x and the such, how do you protect yourself against video. You click on the mpeg and boom, malware.
We need a sandbox for this
Recently, Yahoo launched a beta version of a service called Media RSS that lets anyone with footage submit videos for distribution
How can Yahoo check the content of what is sumbitted? Is there some kind of review?
What happens if NBC decides the "wardrobe malfunction" is their copywrited material and demands it be taken down. Will these searchs make it easier to take down content?
But I really, REALLY dislike the idea of government-appointed (or even elected) censors dictating what can go on the air, or imposing after-the-fact fines when broadcasters step out of line.
I want government censors for shows that use the public airways. This does not mean censors for DVD's, pay-per-view, or cable. I think those services that ALL people own should not be offensive. The penalties should be so high, that if a show breaks the rules, the fine is much more than advertising revenue. That means fines in the million dollar and plus range. Not the punny hundred thousand dollar fines.
I think government should also ban some of the advertising that makes it on TV. It is impossible to watch a sports game without being bombarded with advertising for beer.
So I say, fuck broadcasting. Go radical--eliminate the concept of broadcast TV, as we know it.
I say stregnthen broadcast TV. Bring back the golden age of TV, with good shows, not shows that only exists for advertising. Did anyone notice that shows from the 60's and 70's were a lot more entertaining than TV today? You had Bonanza, Lost in Space, Star Trek, Gunsmoke and other quality programming. What do all these shows have in common? You won't find products placed in the show for advertising. You will find writers that wrote scripts to entertain. Now you watch TV, and there are some good shows, but I grow tired of all the advertising.
The problem with the internet is it does not respect established boundries. Where does your broadcast end? What if your broadcast is very offensive to my neighborhood, and we wish to have a blackout.
I am not talking about a new media that looks like a disk. I am talking about the disk. It is on every PC. That is what we need, something on every PC. The disk drive is the only hardware that has stayed the same for 2 decades on all PC's. We just needed the data capacity to double a few times. It could have happened with the media, and the same hardware would have still worked.
Is there one flash standard that ALL computers will take, or will there be diversity? Flash, Secure Disk, XD card, or Sony Memorystick?? If there is diversity, it does not really give people confidence that 1 floppy can be taken anywhere and read.
Sony has been putting their Memory Stick readers on all their laptops. It is on my laptop. But I never use it because it is the only Sony I own.
We need an industry standard, one main device for writing and reading data. That is the floppy drive, it just needs to take a couple leaps in memory. 1.44 megs will not cut it, not even close. If the computer industry would have kept this technology up to date, maybe had it double in 1994, double again in 1996, again in 1998, again in 2001, again in 2003, we would have a floppy that is 46 megs. More than enough for almost everyone. Instead we had one huge jump to jazz drives and zip drives that did not become universal. We need 1 standard.
The other problem is they are rather pricey. They are expensive. The cheapest one was $46 bucks. They can get to be over $100 dollars.
What we need is another jump in floppy disks. Like when it jumped from 720k to 1.44 megs. The #1 file type that I carry around are documents. And some PDF files, some powerpoint presentations can get to be big.
With all the innovation, we run a risk of having multiple products doing the same thing, and different computers supporting different hardware. For example, I really wished that all computers had a CD-RW. My computer lab has just DVD drives. It does not make sence, it is a lab, who is going to watch movies in a lab? But writing data to a drive is needed.
The anwser is to keep the #1 standard of the past 20 years. Floppy drives were the standard, every PC had a floppy, you could take your disk and know with 100% certanty you could read the data. There was no problem of "I brought my zip disk... huh? You don't have a zip drive?". Lets work on making a floppy drive take a couple leaps. I expected the past couple years for the 1.44megs to double a few times, to be around 11.52 megs if it doubled 3 times the past 6 years. That size disk would be big enough for most files, and people would not need a usb keychain, zip drive, and 3 other methods of transporting files.
Plus, am I the only one who thinks USB keychains are flimsy. A friend had the ipod shuttle and I kept thinking the USB part was going to snap off the cheap plastic. It stuck out of the computer, one bad move, one slip or shove into it and it would snap.
I personally have introduced computers to thousands of people over the last 12 years and I've noticed that stupid people stay stupid while smart people stay smart. There are of course exceptions... like the smart guy who decides crack could be fun, heh.
IQ is not set in stone, just like your genes will not determine the exact color of your hair. Your genes might be for brown hair, but in the summer it gets a few shades lighter. IQ is the same way, genetics may establish a boundry, a high and a low. After that, environment determines the rest.
I knew in high school a kid who came from a family of two drooling idiots. His father was a jackass who drank away his life. He had trouble putting together two sentances. His mother was a complete whore. She was such a whore she stopped trying to hide it. But the kid went on to do well, went to a respectable college and good job.
I believe the connection between lowered IQ and web use is even greater than email. What is on the web? Mostly stuff that takes zero though. You just go through the motions. Click to open. Click to send. Done. Next email.
Now consider how Chess is related to higher IQ. It requires careful consideration of how your current move might impact the game in 2 or 3 or 4 moves. The masters can see more than 5 moves ahead. It takes effort of the brain. The more you go through the motions, and take the quick move, the less you gain from the game. The more you think, really ponder what the opponent does, the better your IQ.
Now back to email. How many people read an email twice, and really think about it. How many people just quickly skim an email?
I dunno how it all works. Like the studies that say babies under 2 years of age who listen to Mozart gain IQ points. Maybe the sounds stimulates parts of the brain to work that otherwise would be less active. But that does not make sense considering MRI's that were done on people doing math. The study was this- you are under an MRI and you hear someone asking you math questions. You then think about it and respond with an anwser. Those with the correct anwser had less activity in the brain. Those with the wrong anwser had more activity. That lead to the hypothosis that efficent metabolism of glucose in the brain gave those with higher IQ's a greater ability to do more work.
But what do I know. I am a drunk. I just like reading books. Now if only I could get rid of this massive headache, that really is killing my IQ. Kid's don't drink and don't do email. :)
This used to annoy me too. I hated deleting 100's of emails. But what is worse is when you have an email account, and don't use it for 30 days, then they delete everything in it. I went on vacation once, forgot about my yahoo account, and when i got back everything was gone.