Explain how evolution and physics are not "science in the [same] sense"
The first runs counter to the dumbed down Christianity-Lite franchise message and requires educated clergy (like the ones that put together the evolution jigsaw in the first place) to reconcile with belief. The second usually doesn't show up on Christianity-Lite's radar and is not usually seen as a threat - with the exception of geology and climate science both of which suggest that the world has actually changed since creation and is changing even now. They may be completely mental but unfortunately they are well funded and heavily involved in politics.
Corrosion? On a camera? Fungus on lenses yes - corrosion no. Long established designs having trouble instead of a recent model designed from scratch? It appears that you are just trying to find something so you can try to prove one of your "foes" wrong and if you can't think of any real examples that's somehow still OK. You had a real point in there somewhere - how about just sticking to that instead of some sort of pathetic game of trying to show up the "foe"?
Mmm - cheap medium format! Even the very crappy old "box brownie" produced negatives that can be blown up to huge prints today due to the sheer size of the negative. I used to use a decent 4x5 camera mounted on a table to take photos of broken mechanical parts (plus one on a microscope). Having big negatives made a massive difference in the ease of preparing photos for reports.
One issue is that old passive handheld light meters degrade over time
I've been lucky with mine but it hasn't been used a lot since the 1970s before I got it - maybe storing it in the dark helped?
I see this as the photography equivalent of the resurgence of LP records.
More strings versus synth. The different medium gives you more range etc (especially in B&W) and has different aritfacts in low light etc (noise versus big grain which can actually look good sometime).
Conversely I've got an old lens (pentax 50mm) that some people can identify immediately just by looking at out of focus portions of any photos I take with it. (Other people's photos with that lens here: https://www.flickr.com/groups/...) I'm sure there's other lenses that produce identifiable artifacts.
Not really a high school budget while grandpa's (or in my case grandma's) 35mm is free, someone else's grandpa's one is cheap, and a few rolls of film isn't too bad as a starting cost. As a kid I got some really good results with a 1950s non-SLR camera that didn't even have a light meter (but it did have multiple lenses). The dynamic range of a lot of films lets you get away with exposure choices that would ruin a shot with that Canon.
with the money saved on developing film
Sometimes that entry cost can suck more than the ongoing cost. People using film may typically take less shots per session as well so the throughput may not be high. I know that I don't take as many digital shots as I should because I'm still in the film mindset and seem to think a lot about whether a shot is worth it instead of spamming the memory card. Some thought and lots of shots is an ideal, but either way you get different results from the two mediums. Noise especially sucks in low light digital while the large grain size in high ISO film is a less annoying compromise.
It takes great skill and equipment to expose film, develop, and print even in B&W.
I disagree. The entry level is very easy and I was printing reasonable photos before I was in high school. Getting consistently good results on high contrast shots is where the skill and more than basic equipment come in, but you can do a lot on the cheap. So the bottom of the range enlarger only blows thing up so far? Flip it round and project onto the floor.
The only worthy attraction is in the sheer retro-ness of it
Rubbish. The range of tones alone is still beyond the range of non-professional digital gear. Very high resolution is yours for the cost of a different roll of film instead of a different camera. In low light noise happens digitally but not with film. If you want to play some effects are trivial to do in the darkroom but not easy to duplicate with digital editing software. For example, I've never seen a "solarization" digital effect that duplicates what can be very easily done in the darkroom by a high schooler. Dodge and burn looks different too and is IMHO not hard in a darkroom, it can be taught in minutes, but digitally it's not trivial. It's a different way of doing things with different limitations and you can access things like very high resolution and tone range with a very cheap camera instead of having to justify $10k+ to get more pixels. As an example, digitally you are not going to get detail of the face of someone with the sun behind them while correctly exposing fully lit items in the shot. If you want that sort of tone range you need a different medium.
There's no need to look for conspiracies here. So long as we reward cost cutting and even abject failure (eg. the White House emails loser is now a CEO) we'll get poor practices instead of good ones. To be frank, it's a workplace culture where such losses are acceptable and paying for preventative measures is not.
Fair enough, Hollywood confused me on and it was a descendant who was President, but he was most definitely also in politics for a few decades and most definitely did make "world-changing" decisions on two continents. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with a better example in half a second but it's still enough of an example to show that QuietWalkers' point is seriously flawed.
See his comment about single bit operations being faster to get the clue that this utter tool is just playing us by pretending to be stupid and wasting our time. I should have known he'd do it again after the rubbish he put on Wayland threads but there I though it was just genuine ignorance and no desire to pay attention to other people's posts.
focusing on altruism is a quick way to retard their ability to make potentially world-changing decisions later, when their potential has been realized.
Less than half a second after reading that I thought "what about Ghandi - he did exactly that and ended up running a country of hundreds of millions of people". If that's not "world-changing" then what is?
It's a microprocessor - what is your game here? Are you deliberately pretending to know utterly nothing about the subject matter in order to see how I will react? What an utter waste of time.
Not as such. Your homepage implies you are some sort of computing professional. I can only assume that you are deliberately pretending to be more ignorant than a high schooler as some sort of game to wind me up.
I suppose that explains why a loser on another thread was telling me that single bit operations are faster than if you operate on whatever size the processor handles internally (eg. 8bit, 16bit, 32bit and now 64bit). Everyone in my high school maths class knew better than that in the 1980s before we even got a chance to get near a keyboard.
No I meant exactly what I wrote. To clarify, the cold extremes matter more that the average when connected surfaces can have liquids condense out on them. That's where the vapour is going to come out of the air.
The reason we have man in the middle cobbled together things like Skype is because we can't find the unique address of a device owned by the person we want to contact (mainly due to NAT, but there are other things in the way as well). IPv6 is about solving that. Halfway measures such as what you suggest, to be blunt, show a lack of thought about the issue before commenting. It also seems I seem to have to remind you that people can travel far outside of the area in which they live so your "giant subnet per carrier" is yet another kneejerk with no thought of such things are people being able to travel long distances and still have others find them. Your suggestion is just exchanging a formal routing table with an informal one. There is plenty of value for IP addresses to "roam" as telephone numbers are already doing.
Is that enough to aid understanding or were you merely pretending not to get the point earlier and have just been stringing me along as some sort of childish game?
Slashdot Mirror
The first runs counter to the dumbed down Christianity-Lite franchise message and requires educated clergy (like the ones that put together the evolution jigsaw in the first place) to reconcile with belief. The second usually doesn't show up on Christianity-Lite's radar and is not usually seen as a threat - with the exception of geology and climate science both of which suggest that the world has actually changed since creation and is changing even now. They may be completely mental but unfortunately they are well funded and heavily involved in politics.
Corrosion? On a camera? Fungus on lenses yes - corrosion no. Long established designs having trouble instead of a recent model designed from scratch? It appears that you are just trying to find something so you can try to prove one of your "foes" wrong and if you can't think of any real examples that's somehow still OK. You had a real point in there somewhere - how about just sticking to that instead of some sort of pathetic game of trying to show up the "foe"?
Me - I want e-ink and can live with a one second refresh rate for plain text.
I've been lucky with mine but it hasn't been used a lot since the 1970s before I got it - maybe storing it in the dark helped?
More strings versus synth. The different medium gives you more range etc (especially in B&W) and has different aritfacts in low light etc (noise versus big grain which can actually look good sometime).
Conversely I've got an old lens (pentax 50mm) that some people can identify immediately just by looking at out of focus portions of any photos I take with it. (Other people's photos with that lens here: https://www.flickr.com/groups/...)
I'm sure there's other lenses that produce identifiable artifacts.
As a kid I got some really good results with a 1950s non-SLR camera that didn't even have a light meter (but it did have multiple lenses). The dynamic range of a lot of films lets you get away with exposure choices that would ruin a shot with that Canon.
Sometimes that entry cost can suck more than the ongoing cost. People using film may typically take less shots per session as well so the throughput may not be high. I know that I don't take as many digital shots as I should because I'm still in the film mindset and seem to think a lot about whether a shot is worth it instead of spamming the memory card. Some thought and lots of shots is an ideal, but either way you get different results from the two mediums. Noise especially sucks in low light digital while the large grain size in high ISO film is a less annoying compromise.
I disagree. The entry level is very easy and I was printing reasonable photos before I was in high school. Getting consistently good results on high contrast shots is where the skill and more than basic equipment come in, but you can do a lot on the cheap. So the bottom of the range enlarger only blows thing up so far? Flip it round and project onto the floor.
Rubbish. The range of tones alone is still beyond the range of non-professional digital gear. Very high resolution is yours for the cost of a different roll of film instead of a different camera. In low light noise happens digitally but not with film. If you want to play some effects are trivial to do in the darkroom but not easy to duplicate with digital editing software. For example, I've never seen a "solarization" digital effect that duplicates what can be very easily done in the darkroom by a high schooler. Dodge and burn looks different too and is IMHO not hard in a darkroom, it can be taught in minutes, but digitally it's not trivial.
It's a different way of doing things with different limitations and you can access things like very high resolution and tone range with a very cheap camera instead of having to justify $10k+ to get more pixels.
As an example, digitally you are not going to get detail of the face of someone with the sun behind them while correctly exposing fully lit items in the shot. If you want that sort of tone range you need a different medium.
There's no need to look for conspiracies here. So long as we reward cost cutting and even abject failure (eg. the White House emails loser is now a CEO) we'll get poor practices instead of good ones.
To be frank, it's a workplace culture where such losses are acceptable and paying for preventative measures is not.
Well put.
Fair enough, Hollywood confused me on and it was a descendant who was President, but he was most definitely also in politics for a few decades and most definitely did make "world-changing" decisions on two continents. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with a better example in half a second but it's still enough of an example to show that QuietWalkers' point is seriously flawed.
See his comment about single bit operations being faster to get the clue that this utter tool is just playing us by pretending to be stupid and wasting our time. I should have known he'd do it again after the rubbish he put on Wayland threads but there I though it was just genuine ignorance and no desire to pay attention to other people's posts.
Less than half a second after reading that I thought "what about Ghandi - he did exactly that and ended up running a country of hundreds of millions of people". If that's not "world-changing" then what is?
He wants good subordinates paid for by someone else instead of direct competition.
Once again you've missed the point of the example - I can only assume by now deliberately as some sort of game.
It's a microprocessor - what is your game here? Are you deliberately pretending to know utterly nothing about the subject matter in order to see how I will react? What an utter waste of time.
Not as such.
Your homepage implies you are some sort of computing professional. I can only assume that you are deliberately pretending to be more ignorant than a high schooler as some sort of game to wind me up.
Either way it oort to be interesting.
Whatever turns you on but it sounds like a pain in the arse to me:
http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#D
That's just the visual cue that comes with having parents that give a shit about their children's education.
I suppose that explains why a loser on another thread was telling me that single bit operations are faster than if you operate on whatever size the processor handles internally (eg. 8bit, 16bit, 32bit and now 64bit). Everyone in my high school maths class knew better than that in the 1980s before we even got a chance to get near a keyboard.
No I meant exactly what I wrote. To clarify, the cold extremes matter more that the average when connected surfaces can have liquids condense out on them. That's where the vapour is going to come out of the air.
Think about what you wrote there then about how computers operate and try again.
The reason we have man in the middle cobbled together things like Skype is because we can't find the unique address of a device owned by the person we want to contact (mainly due to NAT, but there are other things in the way as well). IPv6 is about solving that. Halfway measures such as what you suggest, to be blunt, show a lack of thought about the issue before commenting.
It also seems I seem to have to remind you that people can travel far outside of the area in which they live so your "giant subnet per carrier" is yet another kneejerk with no thought of such things are people being able to travel long distances and still have others find them. Your suggestion is just exchanging a formal routing table with an informal one.
There is plenty of value for IP addresses to "roam" as telephone numbers are already doing.
Is that enough to aid understanding or were you merely pretending not to get the point earlier and have just been stringing me along as some sort of childish game?
Since they were the main players MTGOX were the standard.