The author also missed the point that DSLR's are an attempt to make cameras that best utilize existing lenses. He says over and over that the lenses aren't necessary for the camera but that's meaningless. The lenses come first and the bodies follow. This is the best they can do at the price point and time.
He also stated that the 2/3" lens and DLSR lens at f/2.8 have the same light gathering ability. That's wrong. They have the same exposing rate ability but the SLR lens has greater light gathering ability because it exposes a larger image circle.
Frankly, everyone should ignore these articles. The author doesn't know enough about the subject to do anything but damage.
It's untrue because it's not the only thing that is intuitive. It would also be more appropriate to call nursing "instinctive" rather than intuitive. Intuition is not genetic. Something is intuitive if we can figure it out without thinking. It is not required that we know how to use it before we've ever seen it.
It's sexist because it's purpose is to promote stereotypical sexual roles. That is to say, the purpose of a woman is to provide nipples to suck on and, boy, do we like to suck 'em. In light of the fact that the statement is clearly wrong the only thing left is sexism. The person who thought it up must fancy nipple sucking (not that there's anything wrong with that). People should rightly take offense.
Now, perhaps it is clever, but for me it can only be clever if it is true.
The article was attempting to demonstrate cases where wavelet is weak. Preferring jpg in those images was the expected result so I don't see why you think it's funny. I also don't think it's evidence that JPEG2000 is inferior. Perhaps you should read the article.
Of course, that wouldn't work. Burglaries don't always involve cars and residents can't always be excluded. Then there's the possibility that a stolen car was used or a rental under a ficticious or stolen identity.
Of course, the justification is stolen cars but that assumes that the cars will be reported stolen and in the system before they drive through a monitored area. As I said before, I have ample experience that policemen have limited interest in crimes with dollar values under a certain threshold. Government is far more interested in revenues than crime fighting and you would be surprised just how high the threshold is.
I have a $76,000 judgement against a crook in another state and can't get an attorney to touch the collection case. It's not that it's uncollectable but simply that it's not profitable enough to justify the work. That's how the system is so do you honestly think that expensive automated monitoring systems are going to be installed to deter petty theft? I had eye witnesses, license plates, names, addresses and phone numbers for a police report of a burglary of my car but couldn't get the Houston police to act. Policemen look for any excuse not to pursue such cases.
I'm not indignate at all nor have I said that nobody likes iTunes or iTMS. I just object to morons claiming to speak for me. The word "everyone" includes me after all and Apple most certainly didn't do what I wanted.
This is an article about a typical photoshop user's experience with gimp after all. It seems appropriate for people to commment on topic even if those comments offend you. I don't see that you have any point at all.
As for the amount of gimp bashing I've done, that would be easy for you to verify.
I agree that some of the author's criticisms were simply mac-centric UI bigotry. I don't agree that automated photo processing can be awesome. Some things can be automated but much remains strictly interactive. Photoshop's automation is a little wierd for my taste but it is capable. You can do plenty of automated image processing with gimp at all.
But people who actually need things to work well will run photoshop, just not on linux. Your comment is just a condemnation of linux, not an endorsement of gimp.
The program's "great" then because it meets your totally undemanding needs? I'd say you aren't qualified to judge greatness when anything that matters to real users goes unappreciated by you.
And just who's ranting here? If you are sick of hearing about valid complaints of real users perhaps it is you that needs to leave.
This "WINBLOWS" user doesn't believe in any way that iTunes is THE BEST jukebox software. I couldn't get it off my machine fast enough. In no way is it better than alternatives on Windows platforms.
Did I mention how ugly the brushed metal look is? Even mac users are stating that "opinion".
Don't recall me (being a member of "everyone") ever saying I wanted anything like what Apple decided to provide. I think Apple decided to provide what they wanted regardless of what "everyone" else wants. Of course, that would be music that can only be used with Apple products. Who the hell wants that?
How does your experience with type 1 diabetes make you knowledgable about type 2? Have you had a meal composed of nothing but fats and proteins? I doubt it considering your condition. I don't think you know as much about Atkins as you think. Seeing as though your dietary considerations are so different than most others I doubt you will try Atkins and doubt you will have the personal experience to understand it.
My father was diagnosed with type 2 and his condition was entirely reversed by going on Atkins. After several years and over a hundred pounds of weight loss, he reverted on his diet, quickly gained a massive amount of weight and died of a massive heart attack. His experience, and mine, convince me that the Atkins approach is very effective. Atkins rejected all carbs in the reduction phase regardless of glycemic index because he didn't think considering it was ultimately worthwhile. Other diets take this into account and many could be effective. I haven't personally tried them. As far as I'm concerned low carb is the only way to eat. Fats and proteins have no effect on blood sugar levels for me but carbs sure do.
Other than take issue with insulin being "absorbed", in what way did you disagree or refute the parent poster's statements? Sure sounds like your message is the same but using different words.
Interesting link, but the claim was not backed up on that site. Your statement is no more solid than anyone else's by your own terms.
Aspartame is widely used and the parent of you post did not claim aspartame "has been disproven to be bad". That's suggesting that claims to the contrary have sufficient validity to be researched.
You may be wise to withhold judgement on the safety of aspartame, but I seriously doubt you are going to find hard evidence that proves that it is unsafe. The FDA would take that very seriously.
How about if the officers begin using bogus notifications as an excuse to stop drivers without probable cause? Would be trivial to do and what would be your recourse if you were the defendent? Surely you aren't going to say that innocent people have nothing to be afraid of, are you?
In the US anyway, citizens are constitutionally protected against unreasonable search. That's how this is a bad thing. Corruption within the police department is bad enough. Getting a private corporation involved takes it to another level.
..what possible belief could they have that it would actually help fight crime? It's far more believable that they would see it contributing to the traffic fine trough.
Frankly, I see local policemen and governments as only being selectively interested in fighting crime anyway. Not once ever has a policeman taken any interest in any buglary reports I've filed throughout my lifetime but they're interest every day in the speed in which I drive. One makes money and the other costs money. Seems clear to me.
Requiring a person protects against a whole class of corruption. Theoretically, a police officer is particularly "ethical" whereas the operators of automated equipment are not.
It's well known that automated traffic enforcement systems operated by contractors incented by the rate at which they produce tickets encourage "creative" traffic light timing, for example. It's quite difficult to prove that you were victimized by an inadequate yellow cycle even though that's exactly what happens.
It's typical across the country that a new technology be established in court as being reliable for use as evidence. The way this is done is by choosing a defendent unlikely to be able to defend himself adequately and force a trial in hopes that the technology will not be challenged. Once established, precedence prevents future defendents from challenging the legitimacy of the technology. Questionable police radars are frequently slid through this way.
In Texas you are entitled to face your accuser and the accuser must be a human, never a machine. Photoradar is thankfully llegal there. If you are to be accused of a crime (no matter how small) you should expect a person to be witness to it rather than machines that are operated by corporations whose incentives you stand no chance of discovering.
Implementing a system like the one described is never done for no particular reason. You can bet that the purpose is to generate traffic fine revenue and that the techniques will be even more hypocritical and unscrupulous than traffic cops are.
You are not being penalized in any way. You continue to have the option to buy CD's at roughly the same prices they've always been and you can continue to use them as you always could.
Now, if you're arguing that your online music purchasing is being burdened with DRM as a result of piracy then you've just recognized the DRM argument.
Apple's not trying to play fair with DRM. If they were they would support devices and formats other than theirs. Apple's DRM is designed to help Apple.
Since you acknowledge that jitter can cause distortion under certain conditions it is clearly not an audiophile myth. Glad you addressed your error yourself.
Jitter is an issue whenever a data stream is self-clocked. There are means to address the issue but at one time the problem was poorly understood and playback equipment consistently suffered from the problem. Far from and "audiophile myth".
Of course, jitter is irrelevent while in the digital domain.
Slashdot Mirror
The author also missed the point that DSLR's are an attempt to make cameras that best utilize existing lenses. He says over and over that the lenses aren't necessary for the camera but that's meaningless. The lenses come first and the bodies follow. This is the best they can do at the price point and time.
He also stated that the 2/3" lens and DLSR lens at f/2.8 have the same light gathering ability. That's wrong. They have the same exposing rate ability but the SLR lens has greater light gathering ability because it exposes a larger image circle.
Frankly, everyone should ignore these articles. The author doesn't know enough about the subject to do anything but damage.
It's untrue because it's not the only thing that is intuitive. It would also be more appropriate to call nursing "instinctive" rather than intuitive. Intuition is not genetic. Something is intuitive if we can figure it out without thinking. It is not required that we know how to use it before we've ever seen it.
It's sexist because it's purpose is to promote stereotypical sexual roles. That is to say, the purpose of a woman is to provide nipples to suck on and, boy, do we like to suck 'em. In light of the fact that the statement is clearly wrong the only thing left is sexism. The person who thought it up must fancy nipple sucking (not that there's anything wrong with that). People should rightly take offense.
Now, perhaps it is clever, but for me it can only be clever if it is true.
The article was attempting to demonstrate cases where wavelet is weak. Preferring jpg in those images was the expected result so I don't see why you think it's funny. I also don't think it's evidence that JPEG2000 is inferior. Perhaps you should read the article.
Of course, that wouldn't work. Burglaries don't always involve cars and residents can't always be excluded. Then there's the possibility that a stolen car was used or a rental under a ficticious or stolen identity.
Of course, the justification is stolen cars but that assumes that the cars will be reported stolen and in the system before they drive through a monitored area. As I said before, I have ample experience that policemen have limited interest in crimes with dollar values under a certain threshold. Government is far more interested in revenues than crime fighting and you would be surprised just how high the threshold is.
I have a $76,000 judgement against a crook in another state and can't get an attorney to touch the collection case. It's not that it's uncollectable but simply that it's not profitable enough to justify the work. That's how the system is so do you honestly think that expensive automated monitoring systems are going to be installed to deter petty theft? I had eye witnesses, license plates, names, addresses and phone numbers for a police report of a burglary of my car but couldn't get the Houston police to act. Policemen look for any excuse not to pursue such cases.
I'm not indignate at all nor have I said that nobody likes iTunes or iTMS. I just object to morons claiming to speak for me. The word "everyone" includes me after all and Apple most certainly didn't do what I wanted.
This is an article about a typical photoshop user's experience with gimp after all. It seems appropriate for people to commment on topic even if those comments offend you. I don't see that you have any point at all.
As for the amount of gimp bashing I've done, that would be easy for you to verify.
Why write something so blatantly sexist and completely untrue? Because someone thought it was clever?
I agree that some of the author's criticisms were simply mac-centric UI bigotry. I don't agree that automated photo processing can be awesome. Some things can be automated but much remains strictly interactive. Photoshop's automation is a little wierd for my taste but it is capable. You can do plenty of automated image processing with gimp at all.
But people who actually need things to work well will run photoshop, just not on linux. Your comment is just a condemnation of linux, not an endorsement of gimp.
The program's "great" then because it meets your totally undemanding needs? I'd say you aren't qualified to judge greatness when anything that matters to real users goes unappreciated by you.
And just who's ranting here? If you are sick of hearing about valid complaints of real users perhaps it is you that needs to leave.
read the article and you'd find that they were trying to tell you exactly that.
This "WINBLOWS" user doesn't believe in any way that iTunes is THE BEST jukebox software. I couldn't get it off my machine fast enough. In no way is it better than alternatives on Windows platforms.
Did I mention how ugly the brushed metal look is? Even mac users are stating that "opinion".
Don't recall me (being a member of "everyone") ever saying I wanted anything like what Apple decided to provide. I think Apple decided to provide what they wanted regardless of what "everyone" else wants. Of course, that would be music that can only be used with Apple products. Who the hell wants that?
How does your experience with type 1 diabetes make you knowledgable about type 2? Have you had a meal composed of nothing but fats and proteins? I doubt it considering your condition. I don't think you know as much about Atkins as you think. Seeing as though your dietary considerations are so different than most others I doubt you will try Atkins and doubt you will have the personal experience to understand it.
My father was diagnosed with type 2 and his condition was entirely reversed by going on Atkins. After several years and over a hundred pounds of weight loss, he reverted on his diet, quickly gained a massive amount of weight and died of a massive heart attack. His experience, and mine, convince me that the Atkins approach is very effective. Atkins rejected all carbs in the reduction phase regardless of glycemic index because he didn't think considering it was ultimately worthwhile. Other diets take this into account and many could be effective. I haven't personally tried them. As far as I'm concerned low carb is the only way to eat. Fats and proteins have no effect on blood sugar levels for me but carbs sure do.
Other than take issue with insulin being "absorbed", in what way did you disagree or refute the parent poster's statements? Sure sounds like your message is the same but using different words.
Interesting link, but the claim was not backed up on that site. Your statement is no more solid than anyone else's by your own terms.
Aspartame is widely used and the parent of you post did not claim aspartame "has been disproven to be bad". That's suggesting that claims to the contrary have sufficient validity to be researched.
You may be wise to withhold judgement on the safety of aspartame, but I seriously doubt you are going to find hard evidence that proves that it is unsafe. The FDA would take that very seriously.
I think you are close to the truth. Don't be surprised when a black driver ends up in a car that spontaneously lands on the "be on the lookout" list.
How about if the officers begin using bogus notifications as an excuse to stop drivers without probable cause? Would be trivial to do and what would be your recourse if you were the defendent? Surely you aren't going to say that innocent people have nothing to be afraid of, are you?
In the US anyway, citizens are constitutionally protected against unreasonable search. That's how this is a bad thing. Corruption within the police department is bad enough. Getting a private corporation involved takes it to another level.
Not legal everywhere. Some places still realize it is unethical to do this.
If being raped is inevitable you may as well lay back and enjoy it, eh?
..what possible belief could they have that it would actually help fight crime? It's far more believable that they would see it contributing to the traffic fine trough.
Frankly, I see local policemen and governments as only being selectively interested in fighting crime anyway. Not once ever has a policeman taken any interest in any buglary reports I've filed throughout my lifetime but they're interest every day in the speed in which I drive. One makes money and the other costs money. Seems clear to me.
Requiring a person protects against a whole class of corruption. Theoretically, a police officer is particularly "ethical" whereas the operators of automated equipment are not.
It's well known that automated traffic enforcement systems operated by contractors incented by the rate at which they produce tickets encourage "creative" traffic light timing, for example. It's quite difficult to prove that you were victimized by an inadequate yellow cycle even though that's exactly what happens.
It's typical across the country that a new technology be established in court as being reliable for use as evidence. The way this is done is by choosing a defendent unlikely to be able to defend himself adequately and force a trial in hopes that the technology will not be challenged. Once established, precedence prevents future defendents from challenging the legitimacy of the technology. Questionable police radars are frequently slid through this way.
In Texas you are entitled to face your accuser and the accuser must be a human, never a machine. Photoradar is thankfully llegal there. If you are to be accused of a crime (no matter how small) you should expect a person to be witness to it rather than machines that are operated by corporations whose incentives you stand no chance of discovering.
Implementing a system like the one described is never done for no particular reason. You can bet that the purpose is to generate traffic fine revenue and that the techniques will be even more hypocritical and unscrupulous than traffic cops are.
You are not being penalized in any way. You continue to have the option to buy CD's at roughly the same prices they've always been and you can continue to use them as you always could.
Now, if you're arguing that your online music purchasing is being burdened with DRM as a result of piracy then you've just recognized the DRM argument.
Apple's not trying to play fair with DRM. If they were they would support devices and formats other than theirs. Apple's DRM is designed to help Apple.
And iTunes for Windows is not good.
As long as it's Apple's protectionist policies there's nothing wrong with it? Put your head back in the hole.
Since you acknowledge that jitter can cause distortion under certain conditions it is clearly not an audiophile myth. Glad you addressed your error yourself.
Jitter is an issue whenever a data stream is self-clocked. There are means to address the issue but at one time the problem was poorly understood and playback equipment consistently suffered from the problem. Far from and "audiophile myth".
Of course, jitter is irrelevent while in the digital domain.
What a crock. Copyright is a good thing. The problem is abuse of the system.
People want artists to be compensated, just not by them. People are always looking for a free ride.