It is. It is just what value do you put on your 'goods', physical or information. I lock my place with a regular dead bolt when I leave, the building is secure, and there is a concierge/security. On the other hand, Fort Knox has steel and concrete walls and an entire army base around it, guarding it. It's a question of what level of security do you need. Make the calculation. Most people figure information is far more important since quite often you can lose more when someone steals your identity than if they just stole your car. And if you're responsible for thousands, hundreds of thousand or even millions of peoples' sensitive identity and finance related data, I'd say Fort Knox is more along the model you are looking for. If the calculation the company holding my information does not match that, I tend not to use their services in the first place. It would be nice to have open security audits so we could all make those decisions easily.
I guess the way I looked at it was that they seem to the layman to be terms made up as a handle to something not understood and used to plug the gaps in knowledge. In the old days they needed something to help explain certain observed behaviour that wasn't understood so they said space contained aether (something they couldn't show observe or prove it exists). Now you folks needed some way to explain observed behaviour that isn't understood, and some guy said "it seems space is full of stuff we have no idea what it looks like or can even prove it exists, we'll call it 'dark matter'." I know you guys infer it, but I know there are some people who don't believe in it either. It does seem like a conveniently made up idea to jam into holes in existing understanding (same as I understand how they came up with 'aether'). I am interested in this stuff and like hearing about new discoveries, but am a cynic (less of one now than when I was younger) and can't help look at things this way. Sometimes even as rocket scientists guys will make up things to make it easier when nothing else seems to fit.
I curious, isn't the term 'dark matter' just a modern way to say 'aether'? I mean, a long time ago people thought that space was composed of aether because they didn't know what space was comprised of and needed a label with which to call the unknown unseen 'stuff'. Now they're saying space is full of 'dark matter' because it is thought there has to be something and they need a label to call this unknown unseen 'stuff'. So why not just call it aether? I just think it is kind of funny because it looks astrophysicists (or are you called cosmologists?) have come full circle back to aether.
I like Roddenberry's belief that tech can help us be better. I like STTOS best because the themes of the shows reflected that more. Look at 'The Borg' in TNG... the ultimate technology nightmare. I know there were TOS episodes where tech was the enemy, like the giant evil 'horn of plenty', but more often than not the shows were morality plays where tech was a tool but the real story was the people (even in the episode with the evil horn of plenty).
But you know even when TOS had CGI applied to it recently, the amount relative to the new shows was very small, showing a kind of less is more. Maybe that is the better balanced approach. However I do know I enjoy a real car chase scene (a la Ronan or The Bourne...) WAY better than one using CGI (which often look so obviously fake to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics... no, really?, a car can fly 200 metres off the side of a building and land on all four wheels and keep driving?! I would've thought it was fake... really!).
So let's see what these guys come up with on the Luddite end of the scale. Hopefully the story and acting make it worth watching. The End.
They add that the sci-fi genre has gone wrong in other waysâ"getting itself stuck in too many stories of mankind's conflict with technology, and further from the idea of exploration and human advancement. 'In an era where science and technology are too often vilified, we believe that science-fiction should inspire us to surpass our limits and use the tools available to us to create a better future for our descendants,' they said."
Sounds like something Gene Roddenberry would have said.
Listing a bunch of frameworks is less than meaningless. It looks meaningful which is in itself more misleading. You need to put numbers up to make your point meaningful. For example builtwith.com has a page on web framework usage. They have a list on the right with a breakdown of the web frameworks used on the top 10,000 sites. There are 38 frameworks listed. Keeping with the 80/20 rule, 83% of the web sites use only 21% of available number of frameworks listed. I will grant that their interpretation what constitutes a web framework could be debated to a limited degree, but it, and more importantly, the numbers it provides is good enough to prove my point: "the model only supports a small number of top dogs."
So I believe my point is still valid: there are a very small number of web frameworks in practical use.
To show I am not the only one thinking this, here is a fellow who says the same thing in a slightly different way. Two of four key points he makes are the same as what I am saying:
Other important factors I consider include:
Quality and availability of libraries.
Quality of tools like IDEs, debuggers, automation systems.
Size and healthy of the active community using the framework. (i.e. If I run into a problem, how easy is it to google the answer?)
Ease of hiring people who already know the platform.
All of these considerations are IMHO more important than compiled vs. interpreted or run-time performance or whether the language is statically typed or dynamically typed, or even if itâ(TM)s open source vs. proprietary technology. But there is a single common factor which directly feeds into all four of the criteria I list above: How many people are actively using the platform?
N.B. my emphasis on the last sentence in the quoted text.
It is like 'freedom' in the 'democratic' countries. Ostensibly, we are free to do as we please. But without money the practicality is limited. Or in other words, if you don't have money, you can't be as free as those that do (and no, not everyone can be rich/above average... which means not everyone has that ability). In the old communist countries, you couldn't travel anywhere without permission. Here you can't travel anywhere without money (plane tickets, or gas, or food, or shelter... if you can't afford them you aren't free to travel). The same with frameworks. You have to be able to use a framework that someone cares to pay you for in order to make a living and survive, so your choices are limited, even if theoretically they are limitless.
That's idealistic. If you don't use the same framework as everyone else, you'll be working alone. There aren't that many paying gigs that work that way. And all the people at different companies will use the same frameworks because they want to use transferable skills. How many main web frameworks are there being used in business? Maybe a couple, what, drupal, joomla? But there are many web frameworks. Try and go to a programming shop and tell them you want to use some obscure framework. Neither the programmers nor the company will agree, both for skill transferability reasons. One to go somewhere else, the other to be easily able to replace them. So just like the app store people gravitate to frameworks for monetary gain. In both cases the model only supports a very small number of top dogs, helping to stifle creativity and novel solutions (and don't get me wrong, in both case this makes good business sense both for the individual and the company... but neither help develop new or innovative ideas) . The only time this doesn't work this way is with companies that locate in the middle of nowhere so they can be the biggest fish in the sea. No-one will quit because they are the only company in town, and people can't move away because the company has you use a framework that no-one else uses so your skills aren't transferable.
It's not about what I am free to do as an individual. It's about the herd mentality reducing innovation. But if you want to talk about individuality,ironically that is one of the double edged swords that cuts Linux all too often. Too much of either is a bad thing. I just think that the tendency towards frameworks has reached the apex of the pendulum.
In fact, hundreds of waterfowl land on the surface of the Berkeley Pit every month during migration seasons, and they typically fly off unharmed within a few hours, either on their own or through Montana Resource's hazing activities, also known as the waterfowl mitigation program. The 2002 Consent Decree recognizes that "birds exposed to Berkeley Pit water for less than 4-6 hours should not be at substantial risk."... In November 1995, a flock of snow geese landed on the Pit lake. After several days of stormy weather and fog, 342 birds were found dead.
The next RIAA publicity campaign will equate this policy by the Suise to the volume of Jewish gold and art that ended up in their country after World War II. "Those evil Suise will steal anything. Now they are taking money from our poor executives ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hartists."
I would say the OP is being sarcastic and implying no civilized country would allow this to happen. So how the fuck can a professedly Christian dominated country allow this to happen, never mind the proposed law from TFA. You know, Christians whose Lord said, "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'." Amazing how they constantly remember to selectively forget that teaching. For the record I am not religious; I believe in a higher power, I just find religions to get in the way of the relationship... And besides, they're mostly full of hypocrites, poltroons, and fanatics who don't even understand their own religion; like what Charles Barkley calls the fake Christians. Those people who jam into American churches once a week, and think by hollering praying and singing that for the rest of the week they can ignore the teachings of their savior, are good enough to do their God's job and judge everyone, and say things like poor uninsured cancer patients should just die . Something I've heard republicans where I worked in the U.S. say years before the debate in the link. You know, fake Christians.
Well as I said, SLR's are SLR because they only have one lens and you look through it while focusing. So the focus should be a piece of cake. The decent ones will have a depth of focus preview button that you can look at in the view finder as well. And most will allow you to zoom in the shot you just took on the display on the camera back, in case you need to look closer at what you did. The biggest thing that bothers me about digital is that unlike film where you meter for the shadows and process for the highlights, it is the opposite. You have to meter for the highlights because if you meter for the shadows you will have a lot of burned out areas on the photo where whites just get obliterated due to the higher contrast of digital. Shadows are where the interesting things happen in photos, I think. At least in the various shades. There are tricks to overcome the limited contrast but that requires multiple shots and blending... not very good when shooting people. But stills are OK I guess. But that is besides the point. If you want digital, and don't care much about autofocus, you'll do OK. BTW, some autoexposure features likely won't work either, but if you know what you're doing, it won't matter. And then again, you have the display on the back to double check exposure anyway. Good luck.
Oh my God, it is soooo nice to hear someone recognize the truth in work. I mean to bypass entirely the cynicality of modern.... bbbwwwwwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha..... oh my fucking God, are you serious?! If you can't get credit for good work that you've done, then you are done. Done in. Business school graduates are business school graduates specifically because they are fucking halfwit lazy asses. If you sit by waiting for them to recognize your hard work, you'll sit forever. The only time they pay attention is when stuff doesn't go right. And it's because some other halfwit lazy bastard above him/her is giving them shit.
There is a reason that the expression 'out of sight, out of mind' came about. And it says it all. In general... in the greatest general terms, it holds true. And in the current context this generality is what applies. People won't think about you if you aren't there... unless of course you don't do your work. And even that isn't a guarantee these days. It is like IT, no one cares if you are there unless something goes wrong. And at those times, if the powers that be can't get to you in a way that is convenient to them, they will find someone who is better able to accommodate them.
We're talking real life real people here, not computer code. The answer here has to appeal to the greatest common denominator, not the least (we don't need to always satisfy the edge case). Just the same as crossing the street. You look both ways because most people won't be able to stop in time if you step right in front of their car [obligatory car analogy satisfied]. So the answer is yes, you are more invisible if you aren't there. You won't be included in quick meetings to solve problems that pop up, you won't get credit for helping get over many critical issues that require personal attention. You will be an invisible work horse. Yes there are exceptions, but not everyone is or can be an exception; just like not everyone can be above average.
If the camera allows interchangeable lenses it is likely an SLR, no? If so, when you are looking through the view finder, you are also looking and focusing through the lens like you already do. You can manually focus and, if you eyesight is normal, if it looks in focus it will be. Also, even though there are no motors or other mechanisms in the lens, all digital SLRs that I know of also have 'focus assist' aids you can see in the bottom of the view finder. For example, on Nikons there is a little black ball to the bottom (usually) left that stays solid when the composition in focus. You can also see in the display on the back, but normally I just check this for camera shake on long exposures when I don't have a tripod, or if shooting fast moving subjects. But often when I am shooting fast moving objects that are at some distance (like planes or sports), I will often shoot with the autofocus off, set at infinity, and stop down to ensure depth of field is maximized as much as possible (via f-stop that is). I think the only time you really need autofocus is when the subject is within a distance where the lens focus is less than at the infinity distance. So for indoor stuff it is very convenient. And say in the backyard. But still, it doesn't take long to focus manually, especially as I say, your eyesight is normal, or looking through the viewfinder with glasses on isn't and issue.
One thing though, if all you are really looking for is convenience, it probably makes sense to pay less and buy an inexpensive point and shoot digital that you can put in your pocket. Or use your smart phone. The only real reason to use a more expensive camera these days is if you want to push the boundaries of normal family or 'happy snap' pictures. And as one person said, you will also not be as adverse to taking a happy snap camera with you, so will have it with you often, as opposed to worrying about someone stealing your expensive SLR, or losing it, or damaging it.
If you leave Australia and take another citizenship, the law is that you have to renounce your Australian citizenship. If I can find one more example in less than two minutes, then there are more. That makes you wrong. Japan is not the only one.
Slashdot Mirror
It is. It is just what value do you put on your 'goods', physical or information. I lock my place with a regular dead bolt when I leave, the building is secure, and there is a concierge/security. On the other hand, Fort Knox has steel and concrete walls and an entire army base around it, guarding it. It's a question of what level of security do you need. Make the calculation. Most people figure information is far more important since quite often you can lose more when someone steals your identity than if they just stole your car. And if you're responsible for thousands, hundreds of thousand or even millions of peoples' sensitive identity and finance related data, I'd say Fort Knox is more along the model you are looking for. If the calculation the company holding my information does not match that, I tend not to use their services in the first place. It would be nice to have open security audits so we could all make those decisions easily.
There were three versions released in the time it took you to post your comment. Oops there goes another one.
I guess the way I looked at it was that they seem to the layman to be terms made up as a handle to something not understood and used to plug the gaps in knowledge. In the old days they needed something to help explain certain observed behaviour that wasn't understood so they said space contained aether (something they couldn't show observe or prove it exists). Now you folks needed some way to explain observed behaviour that isn't understood, and some guy said "it seems space is full of stuff we have no idea what it looks like or can even prove it exists, we'll call it 'dark matter'." I know you guys infer it, but I know there are some people who don't believe in it either. It does seem like a conveniently made up idea to jam into holes in existing understanding (same as I understand how they came up with 'aether'). I am interested in this stuff and like hearing about new discoveries, but am a cynic (less of one now than when I was younger) and can't help look at things this way. Sometimes even as rocket scientists guys will make up things to make it easier when nothing else seems to fit.
I curious, isn't the term 'dark matter' just a modern way to say 'aether'? I mean, a long time ago people thought that space was composed of aether because they didn't know what space was comprised of and needed a label with which to call the unknown unseen 'stuff'. Now they're saying space is full of 'dark matter' because it is thought there has to be something and they need a label to call this unknown unseen 'stuff'. So why not just call it aether? I just think it is kind of funny because it looks astrophysicists (or are you called cosmologists?) have come full circle back to aether.
I like Roddenberry's belief that tech can help us be better. I like STTOS best because the themes of the shows reflected that more. Look at 'The Borg' in TNG... the ultimate technology nightmare. I know there were TOS episodes where tech was the enemy, like the giant evil 'horn of plenty', but more often than not the shows were morality plays where tech was a tool but the real story was the people (even in the episode with the evil horn of plenty).
...) WAY better than one using CGI (which often look so obviously fake to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics ... no, really?, a car can fly 200 metres off the side of a building and land on all four wheels and keep driving?! I would've thought it was fake... really!).
But you know even when TOS had CGI applied to it recently, the amount relative to the new shows was very small, showing a kind of less is more. Maybe that is the better balanced approach. However I do know I enjoy a real car chase scene (a la Ronan or The Bourne
So let's see what these guys come up with on the Luddite end of the scale. Hopefully the story and acting make it worth watching. The End.
Obviously you have the greatest porn collection... EVER!
I guess you have comprehension problems.
Sounds like something Gene Roddenberry would have said.
FTFY:
Conflating frameworks with walled garden app stores is dishonest to the point of absurdity, in my opinion.
Listing a bunch of frameworks is less than meaningless. It looks meaningful which is in itself more misleading. You need to put numbers up to make your point meaningful. For example builtwith.com has a page on web framework usage. They have a list on the right with a breakdown of the web frameworks used on the top 10,000 sites. There are 38 frameworks listed. Keeping with the 80/20 rule, 83% of the web sites use only 21% of available number of frameworks listed. I will grant that their interpretation what constitutes a web framework could be debated to a limited degree, but it, and more importantly, the numbers it provides is good enough to prove my point: "the model only supports a small number of top dogs."
So I believe my point is still valid: there are a very small number of web frameworks in practical use.
To show I am not the only one thinking this, here is a fellow who says the same thing in a slightly different way. Two of four key points he makes are the same as what I am saying:
N.B. my emphasis on the last sentence in the quoted text.
It is like 'freedom' in the 'democratic' countries. Ostensibly, we are free to do as we please. But without money the practicality is limited. Or in other words, if you don't have money, you can't be as free as those that do (and no, not everyone can be rich/above average... which means not everyone has that ability). In the old communist countries, you couldn't travel anywhere without permission. Here you can't travel anywhere without money (plane tickets, or gas, or food, or shelter... if you can't afford them you aren't free to travel). The same with frameworks. You have to be able to use a framework that someone cares to pay you for in order to make a living and survive, so your choices are limited, even if theoretically they are limitless.
That's idealistic. If you don't use the same framework as everyone else, you'll be working alone. There aren't that many paying gigs that work that way. And all the people at different companies will use the same frameworks because they want to use transferable skills. How many main web frameworks are there being used in business? Maybe a couple, what, drupal, joomla? But there are many web frameworks. Try and go to a programming shop and tell them you want to use some obscure framework. Neither the programmers nor the company will agree, both for skill transferability reasons. One to go somewhere else, the other to be easily able to replace them. So just like the app store people gravitate to frameworks for monetary gain. In both cases the model only supports a very small number of top dogs, helping to stifle creativity and novel solutions (and don't get me wrong, in both case this makes good business sense both for the individual and the company ... but neither help develop new or innovative ideas) . The only time this doesn't work this way is with companies that locate in the middle of nowhere so they can be the biggest fish in the sea. No-one will quit because they are the only company in town, and people can't move away because the company has you use a framework that no-one else uses so your skills aren't transferable.
It's not about what I am free to do as an individual. It's about the herd mentality reducing innovation. But if you want to talk about individuality,ironically that is one of the double edged swords that cuts Linux all too often. Too much of either is a bad thing. I just think that the tendency towards frameworks has reached the apex of the pendulum.
Same argument can be made about frameworks.
The next RIAA publicity campaign will equate this policy by the Suise to the volume of Jewish gold and art that ended up in their country after World War II. "Those evil Suise will steal anything. Now they are taking money from our poor executives ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hartists."
I would say the OP is being sarcastic and implying no civilized country would allow this to happen. So how the fuck can a professedly Christian dominated country allow this to happen, never mind the proposed law from TFA. You know, Christians whose Lord said, "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'." Amazing how they constantly remember to selectively forget that teaching. For the record I am not religious; I believe in a higher power, I just find religions to get in the way of the relationship... And besides, they're mostly full of hypocrites, poltroons, and fanatics who don't even understand their own religion; like what Charles Barkley calls the fake Christians. Those people who jam into American churches once a week, and think by hollering praying and singing that for the rest of the week they can ignore the teachings of their savior, are good enough to do their God's job and judge everyone, and say things like poor uninsured cancer patients should just die . Something I've heard republicans where I worked in the U.S. say years before the debate in the link. You know, fake Christians.
Are you saying the goatse guy could lose (but maybe loose applies here) tonality in his ass muscles?
I can dream... 'e stole a loaf a bread, put 'im on the gibbet and feed 'im to the crows!
Too bad it's not the Old Baily of old.
Well as I said, SLR's are SLR because they only have one lens and you look through it while focusing. So the focus should be a piece of cake. The decent ones will have a depth of focus preview button that you can look at in the view finder as well. And most will allow you to zoom in the shot you just took on the display on the camera back, in case you need to look closer at what you did. The biggest thing that bothers me about digital is that unlike film where you meter for the shadows and process for the highlights, it is the opposite. You have to meter for the highlights because if you meter for the shadows you will have a lot of burned out areas on the photo where whites just get obliterated due to the higher contrast of digital. Shadows are where the interesting things happen in photos, I think. At least in the various shades. There are tricks to overcome the limited contrast but that requires multiple shots and blending... not very good when shooting people. But stills are OK I guess. But that is besides the point. If you want digital, and don't care much about autofocus, you'll do OK. BTW, some autoexposure features likely won't work either, but if you know what you're doing, it won't matter. And then again, you have the display on the back to double check exposure anyway. Good luck.
Oh my God, it is soooo nice to hear someone recognize the truth in work. I mean to bypass entirely the cynicality of modern.... bbbwwwwwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ..... oh my fucking God, are you serious?! If you can't get credit for good work that you've done, then you are done. Done in. Business school graduates are business school graduates specifically because they are fucking halfwit lazy asses. If you sit by waiting for them to recognize your hard work, you'll sit forever. The only time they pay attention is when stuff doesn't go right. And it's because some other halfwit lazy bastard above him/her is giving them shit.
There is a reason that the expression 'out of sight, out of mind' came about. And it says it all. In general... in the greatest general terms, it holds true. And in the current context this generality is what applies. People won't think about you if you aren't there... unless of course you don't do your work. And even that isn't a guarantee these days. It is like IT, no one cares if you are there unless something goes wrong. And at those times, if the powers that be can't get to you in a way that is convenient to them, they will find someone who is better able to accommodate them.
We're talking real life real people here, not computer code. The answer here has to appeal to the greatest common denominator, not the least (we don't need to always satisfy the edge case). Just the same as crossing the street. You look both ways because most people won't be able to stop in time if you step right in front of their car [obligatory car analogy satisfied]. So the answer is yes, you are more invisible if you aren't there. You won't be included in quick meetings to solve problems that pop up, you won't get credit for helping get over many critical issues that require personal attention. You will be an invisible work horse. Yes there are exceptions, but not everyone is or can be an exception; just like not everyone can be above average.
If the camera allows interchangeable lenses it is likely an SLR, no? If so, when you are looking through the view finder, you are also looking and focusing through the lens like you already do. You can manually focus and, if you eyesight is normal, if it looks in focus it will be. Also, even though there are no motors or other mechanisms in the lens, all digital SLRs that I know of also have 'focus assist' aids you can see in the bottom of the view finder. For example, on Nikons there is a little black ball to the bottom (usually) left that stays solid when the composition in focus. You can also see in the display on the back, but normally I just check this for camera shake on long exposures when I don't have a tripod, or if shooting fast moving subjects. But often when I am shooting fast moving objects that are at some distance (like planes or sports), I will often shoot with the autofocus off, set at infinity, and stop down to ensure depth of field is maximized as much as possible (via f-stop that is). I think the only time you really need autofocus is when the subject is within a distance where the lens focus is less than at the infinity distance. So for indoor stuff it is very convenient. And say in the backyard. But still, it doesn't take long to focus manually, especially as I say, your eyesight is normal, or looking through the viewfinder with glasses on isn't and issue.
One thing though, if all you are really looking for is convenience, it probably makes sense to pay less and buy an inexpensive point and shoot digital that you can put in your pocket. Or use your smart phone. The only real reason to use a more expensive camera these days is if you want to push the boundaries of normal family or 'happy snap' pictures. And as one person said, you will also not be as adverse to taking a happy snap camera with you, so will have it with you often, as opposed to worrying about someone stealing your expensive SLR, or losing it, or damaging it.
But in a word: yes.
If you leave Australia and take another citizenship, the law is that you have to renounce your Australian citizenship. If I can find one more example in less than two minutes, then there are more. That makes you wrong. Japan is not the only one.