As I've said before, this whole thing is crap. The NEF format is not proprietary. It's a TIFF file. Period. There a handful of tags they use for some data (and one that forms a sub-tiff with the actuall image data), but the rest is just TIFF.
NEF's do not contain any processing. They contain data. From tone curves to white balance to image data. There's nothing in them that tells anything about how the image was produced, just the data for accurately representing the image on a screen or printer.
And white balance data is part of the image data. And there's noe legitamate reason that this data should be locked up.
This isn't misinformation. It's the truth. And anyone with a hex editor can see it.
" The only thing not functioning in the generic Adobe Raw convertor (which is pretty lousy anyways, Nikon Capture delivers much better quality) are the custom white balance settings."
You don't get it. The white balance data is an essential part of the image data. OF YOUR IMAGE DATA. Nikon has no right to lock up any part of your image data.
Or are you saying it's okay for companies to lock up your IP?
"Honestly I feel like this is complaining about needing a CD player after you buy a CD (or some kind of CD recording device)."
Uh, no. This is more like buying a CD burner, recording your music, and finding out that it'll only play in 8-bit mono on your player. That is, until buy a new "approved" player.
Exagerrated? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore by apathy.
NEF files are not true RAW files, at least on the D70.
The NEF files use a lossy type of compression. The average user wouldn't notice it, but I'm sure some pros will. The copress the dynamic range of the CCD output from 12-bits down to about 10-bits. Their claim is "visually lossless". Sort fo like mp3's being "audio-ly lossless", only less extreme.
Another not-so-RAW feature of the NEF file is that some sort of filtering is applied to the data before it is saved. Again, the average user probably wouldn't notice it but some pros (and anyone doing astrophotography) would. With long exposures, there is a way to trick the camera into writing the data without filtering it first, but this doesn't work on normal exposures.
Look, the DMCA prevents reverse engineering of encryption methods that are protecting copyrighted data. Thus, hacking the encryption on the firmware of the X-box is illegal (though it shouldn't be).
The white balance data in an image is copyrighted by YOU. That's right, it's your data. It comes from the environment or your settings or whatever. But the data is yours.
Nikon is trying to encrypt data that is copyright to you. The DMCA does not apply.
White balance data is essential to get correct images. All digital cameras have it, one way or the other. There is nothing special or unique about white balance data.
As I stated in another post, it would be like Nikon encrypting your JPEG files.
This whole thing, including their response, is BULLSHIT.
The NEF format isn't proprietary. It's a TIFF file. The only thing "proprietary" about it is a handful of tags they use. Crack it open with a hex editor and see for yourself. The only trick in reading in the image data is that it is stored in a "sub-TIFF". So you read in all the regular tiff tags (width, height, color depth, etc.), read in the the sub-tiff (easy enough to find, I don't remember the exact tag number), and you can display NEFs.
As far as white balance information goes, that is not atrade secret. It's not an algorithm, it's not code, it's not executable. It is data. More to the point, it is YOUR data.
I could give a rat's ass about their METHOD for obtaining white balance information. But having the white balance data tells you nothing about how they obtained it. It is just data.
Not only that, but white balance data is essential for all digital cameras for correct image reproduction. All digital cameras (including web cams), obtain white balance information either from the user or the environment via whatever algorithms the manufacturers decide on.
There is nothing, NOTHING, special about white balance data in a raw file. There is absolutely no reason this data needs to be encrypted. There is nothing to protect. It would be like Nikon saying they encrypt the image data to prevent someone figuring out what algorithms they use to process the CCD data.
The only fathomable reason for this nonsense is profit, plain and simple. Now that they've been called on it, they're trying the PR spin machine to make it sound like they're trying to help.
And as far as the SDK goes, good luck getting it. They apparently don't like independant developers (such as myself) writing programs for their cameras. So unless your part of a recogonized bona-fide software developer COMPANY, you're not going to get the SDK.
So that leaves those of us interested in such programming to reverse-engineer (which I've done so I could access the tone curves inside their curve files).
First, I found that Nikon was misleading about the compressed NEF files (they are supposed to be lossless raw data, but they're not). Then I found that they were also misleading about how the raw files were produced (raw files are suppose to contain the straight CCD sensor data, but Nikon applies a median filter to the data before it is saved). Sort of pissed me off because I do astrophotography and the filter wipes out stars and other features. And now, they're trying to pull this vomitous crap.
I sincerely hope nobody believes this, but sadly I think many will.
Statistics irrelevant to CS? And your a prof? Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Basic statistics SHOULD be a req for CS. Especially if you have to do any sort of performance analysis over time. Or tracking usage on a database. Or writing software that will be doing anything with quantum physics. Or artificial intelligence!
Math and CS should be very closely related, as it was at my University.
That is until India and China bury us technologically and economically.
We're already falling behind some countries in infrastructure. At the pace of advancement, we'll be the "third world" in a matter of decade or so.
I agree with a previous poster. Tax all commercial IP. That way, corps can make their dough and then dump it in the public domain when it becomes more costly to hang onto it.
That would keep a constant rate of innovation, instead of locking up Mickey Mouse for a damn century.
"but point I think Nikon could easily argue in court by saying their (possibly patented but I'm not going to bother to research it now) method of gather white balance data produces proprietary information that is part of Nikon's overall camera technology and therefore copyrightable."
I think that argument would be bitch-slapped out of court by any professional photographic specialist they brought in. Sure, they may be able to patent the method for getting the right white balance, but the white balance data itself is part of the photograph. It's just data about the environment. It changes with every picture you take, and it definately is not proprietary (all digital cameras have white balance data or else their pictures wouldn't be worth the bits the written with).
If nikon wants to patent the way it gets white balance data, I've got no problem with that. But what their doing now is just a little less revolting than going to a Microsoft nudist colony.
"The odds of the needed amino acids for simple life coming together and then assembling correctly are so astronomical the numbers end up being classified as a mathematical miracle. So all the galaxies, and all the stars, cannot overcome the sheer odds of life forming by chance."
Actually since organic compounds exist even on a place as inhospitable as Titan, I think the odds are pretty damn good that life exists elsewhere.
"Further, you're rolling all the stars and galaxies into a big pot together, when, as talked about in Rare Earth, most of these stars and galaxies would be eliminated due to their harsh conditions."
Current estimates in our galaxy alone of sun like stars with planetary formation is somewhere around 40% (you can find this using google). So.4*3x10^11*3x10^11 = 3.6x10^21 estimated solar systems in the universe. That's uite a few rocks to check.
You're (or their) claim that galaxies would have harsh conditions is rather silly. The stars would be the ones that would have the harsh conditions. Galaxies are mostly empty space.
"*Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it."
Hull must not know his biochemistry. Tetraglycine, a more complex form of glycine, is formed pretty much continuously around the score of undersea hydrothermal vents in the ocean (concentrations of around 1% or so). And that's just one of the peptides and polypeptides that forms under those conditions.
Amino acids consist of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, an nitrogen. These elements are all found in regular water (carbon and nitrogen being disolved in of course, which happens quite a bit).
Organic compounds are not unique to this planet, and have been found on several other planets in this solar system alone. Scientists have even found peptides and polypetides within metorites and comets. It seems the odds aren't quite as bad as some make them out to be.
"PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS--Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein! A research team, at Barlian University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth."
Okay, I'm not a biochemist but the information I found on peptides, polypeptides, and protiens directly contradict what you're saying. Yes their are peptides,polypeps, and protiens that hydrolize (they have to or life would not exist) but there are an entire classes of these molecules that are "water-hating" i.e they act like oil and will not hydrolize. One of these just happens to be the oft mentioned glycine molecule.
Think about it. If all protiens hydrolized (and aminos), we'd all dissolve as soon as it rained.
With scientists finding organic molecules scattered throughout the solar system, I'm inclined to disagree with your odds makers.:)
You see, the DMCA applies to reversing encryption on copyright material you don't own. This applies to DVD's for example.
However, the DMCA does not apply here. Why? The white balance information in YOUR photo on YOUR camera is COPYRIGHT by YOU. If anything, Nikon is encrypting YOUR COPYRIGHTED INFORMATION preventing you ACCESS TO YOUR DATA.
File formats are not copyrightable. However, their content may be. In this case the copyright holder is you.
Do you feel comfortable that a company is encrypting your copyrighted material preventing you from using it the way you want?
Adobe is just being cautious. I'm sure once their legal department mulls this over for a bit, Adobe will release a reader for it.
"This is exactly what the DMCA was intended to do."
No it wasn't. The white balance information for YOUR FUCKING IMAGE IS COPYRIGHT TO YOU AND YOU ALONE WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO ENCRYPT IT AND YOU HAVE EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO HACK IT.
DMCA only refers to breaking encryptions on copyrighted works THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN.
Since the picture is your own, you can do whatever the hell you want to it. This includes cracking any and all encryption that has been applied to it.
"What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted."
Partially true. All RAW formats I've seen are a version of TIFF, despite their extensions. And since they are TIFF files, a lot of information between the RAW formats is shared (such as fields for width, height, color depth, etc.).
It is true that there are certain comapny defined tags that some use to store their own information. Some of this information doesn't really affect the image (like strings), others may be image data blocks (Nikon NEF files store a TIFF within a TIFF that contains the image data).
However, one thing I have not run across in working with RAWs is encryption. Encryption is not only useless, but completely stupid. The photos you take with your camera only contains your data. There is absolutley no reason to encrypt white balance data or any other data of your photos.
That is, unless said company is trying to force you to use their software over a competitors. In which case, this falls under a completely different set of laws. As a matter of fact, Nikon should talk to M$ about getting bitch-slapped for attempting such practices.
As far as releasing raw formats go, I don't believe many companies publish such information. Either you need to get an SDK or you need to renge it. My guess is Adobe was renging it when they came across this little gem.
People are raising complaints because Nikon is being an asshat. And I agree.
Now, why would you need PHOTO-EDITING software for manipulating PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES. All PHOTOGRAPHERS take perfect PICTURES all the time.
WHAT A TOTAL LOAD.
There just might be a reason why Photoshop makes millions a year. There might even be a reason why it's called PHOTOshop.
Whatever Nikon rep made this statement should be handed his walking papers. That is ignorance of another level, and shows a complete lack of understanding of photography.
Very bad move by Nikon. Nikon does not write photo software. That is not their primary business. And my experience with their software has been anything but good.
Now they are going and making it difficult to use the #1 MOST USED SOFTWARE BY DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHERS?!?
I do own a D70, but with moves like this, this will be my last Nikon camera.
Regardless, Adobe may not make a plugin, but I'm sure someone will write one regardless.
Unfortunately, your claims are not entirely accurate. Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee's book is about a hypothesis that Earth is one of a kind. There are also several other books that contain the exact opposite hypothesis. It is an area of active debate, but until our technologies significantly improve (or we're contactd by an alien civilization) they will be nothing more than hypotheses. There is no way to prove this one way or the other right now.
As far as creating life in the lab, GE fought and won a court case in 1978 about a patent on creating life in a lab. And more recently, in 2002 Dr. Wimmer and his team built a completely synthetic virus. These are just a couple instancs of simple life being created in a lab. Google contains quite a bit of information on the subject.
As far as odds go, I'll put my money down on life existing elsewhere. There are 300 billion stars in our galaxy, and at least that many galaxies in the known universe. A significant fraction of those stars are sun like stars, with planets. According to the Drake equation, the best guess estimate is several hundred civilizations in our galaxy alone.
And that's only for advanced civilizations. If we're just talking about microbial life, the odds are much higher that life will be found.
I'm willing to bet simple life exists in several places in our solar system. There are several candidates worth examining.
As for other extra-solar life, well, there's not much anyone can do to prove that right now. It takes several decades just to have our probes get to the edge of our solar system, let alone the next star.
"Should we actually find this life, and determine that it is similar to life on earth, the evolutionists will be left trying to explain how life from earth travelled to Mars without spacecraft to carry it there. (There are plausible explanations for this.)"
More likely than not, life would have formed on mars first as it would have become hospitable before earth stopped being mass of roiling semi hardened magma.
But you're right, there are several explanations. The most popular one is transpermia. We are finding that life can be in the most inhospitable of places, and some spores can survive the intense radiation and vacuum of space. Be that as it may, I don't see what the problem would be in having similar life evolving on two seperate planets in the same solar system.
In this case, early earth and mars may have been pretty similar. In that case, would it not make sense for similar protien structures to have evolved?
Also, the DNA/RNA protien structure is very efficient and hardy. It is reasonable to expect that other life forms will be using a similarly organized protien structure as it's base.
That's not to say that other life forms won't be incredibly exotic. After all, we do have creatures like the walking octopus.:)
"I can accept life adapting to its environment, but adaptation does not prove or disprove evolution."
Straight from the dictionary....
evolution Audio pronunciation of "Evolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-) n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
So, as you can see, genetic adaptation is evolution.
We can barely keep a simple space station in orbit with a couple of astronauts, let alone a full orbital construction bay for spacecraft.
"What you've got in the moon is the potential for a small base that will forever be completely dependant on Earth for supplies."
And what of Mars? I suppose we'll just plant some seeds, spread a little water and have a full fledge hdroponics garden.
The fact is it takes a lot more than water and dirt to make the supplies necessary for human planetary colonization.
"It's water-poor, the dust is an extreme health hazard, there's no atmosphere to protect you from solar radiation or run internal combustion engines in."
Aside from the martian dust being less toxic, how is this any different from Mars?
"Unless you're there to harvest H3, there's no point in being there."
That would be until precious metals or heavy elements were discovered to reside relatively close to the surface. Or if we ever needed another source of titanium, the moon would be it.
And let's not forget that the moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth. Using the possible water stores that reside at the poles, this makes an ideal launch platform.
Not to mention the lack of atmosphere would be great for all sorts of astronomical purposes.
Basically, you don't know enough about the moon to state whether or not a base there would be fruitless. And why is Mars more likely to not be fruitless? Is there proven resources there?
"If you're planning on going to Mars, it's worse than a wasted step -- it's not a good financial move, it's not a good place to practice techniques for Mars and it's a far more hostile environment."
Potentially, all exploration is a wasted financial step. There are no guarentees that any risk will pay off, which is why it is called a risk.
And how is the moon not a good place to practice for Mars? Mars has almost no atmosphere (and what it does have is comprised of carbon monoxide), has a 1/4 gravity of Earth (the moon has a 1/6), has a negligible magnetic field and is very cold (just like the moon). As an added bonus, Mars has planet-wide sandstorms which blocks the sun for days.
Both environments are hostile. That's why it so difficult for us to live there.
"That's why we're no closer to Mars now than we were then."
We're no closer to Mars because of physical, biolgical, logistical and psychological hurldes that we haven't cleared yet. We can't get a fscking space station together in the span of a decade, let alone build an all out orbital construction platform for building space craft. There are few countries that even have the capabilities to put satellites into orbit. Building an orbital space dock is orders of magnitude more difficult than a simple space station. Not to mention the sheer amount of money it would take to orbit and maintain the whole damn thing. Then you've got to deal with the fact that a group of humans will be packed in like sardines for a minimum 12-month round trip, and all the supplies that will entail. And the fact that said humans will be exposed to a far harsher environment just trying to get there is another matter. Just getting to Mars would be an achievement.
"The fastest, easiest and cheapest way to get to Mars is to skip things like the moon and on-orbit assembly and to use heavy lift vehicles directly from earth."
The fastest, easiest, cheapest way to get to Mars is to wait for us to get a better grip on interplanetary technologies and there's no better target for this than the moon. Whatever we can do for our jaunts there, we "should" be able to scale up. Even if the moon contains "nothing useful", it would at least be good target to practice with.
"Use as much existing off-the-shelf tech as you can..."
I agree with this.
"... and then launce opposition missions to spend large amounts of time on the Martian surface with the specific objective of finding a good
In all likelyhood, any physical record of this timeframe has been destroyed by the geophysical processes of Earth.
The oldest known specimen of Earth is a small piece of zircon crystal dated to about 4.4 billion years. If scientist are off just a littl about the age of Earth, then this atmospheric dissipation would have happened even before that speck of dust was created.
One of the biggest obstacles for studying the Earth's beginnings has always been Earth itself.:)
Slashdot Mirror
As I've said before, this whole thing is crap. The NEF format is not proprietary. It's a TIFF file. Period. There a handful of tags they use for some data (and one that forms a sub-tiff with the actuall image data), but the rest is just TIFF.
NEF's do not contain any processing. They contain data. From tone curves to white balance to image data. There's nothing in them that tells anything about how the image was produced, just the data for accurately representing the image on a screen or printer.
And white balance data is part of the image data. And there's noe legitamate reason that this data should be locked up.
This isn't misinformation. It's the truth. And anyone with a hex editor can see it.
~X~
" The only thing not functioning in the generic Adobe Raw convertor (which is pretty lousy anyways, Nikon Capture delivers much better quality) are the custom white balance settings."
You don't get it. The white balance data is an essential part of the image data. OF YOUR IMAGE DATA. Nikon has no right to lock up any part of your image data.
Or are you saying it's okay for companies to lock up your IP?
"Honestly I feel like this is complaining about needing a CD player after you buy a CD (or some kind of CD recording device)."
Uh, no. This is more like buying a CD burner, recording your music, and finding out that it'll only play in 8-bit mono on your player. That is, until buy a new "approved" player.
Exagerrated? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore by apathy.
~X~
NEF files are not true RAW files, at least on the D70.
The NEF files use a lossy type of compression. The average user wouldn't notice it, but I'm sure some pros will. The copress the dynamic range of the CCD output from 12-bits down to about 10-bits. Their claim is "visually lossless". Sort fo like mp3's being "audio-ly lossless", only less extreme.
Another not-so-RAW feature of the NEF file is that some sort of filtering is applied to the data before it is saved. Again, the average user probably wouldn't notice it but some pros (and anyone doing astrophotography) would. With long exposures, there is a way to trick the camera into writing the data without filtering it first, but this doesn't work on normal exposures.
~X~
That's not correct. Each pixel on a color CCD consists of at least 3 photosites. The typical camera CCD has 12-bits of resolution per photosite.
In order to ramp down to a standard 8-bits per pixel display, a tone curve is applied to the CCD data. This is what the the D70 does.
RAW files can be quite large, which is why a lot of the camera manufacturers are offering lossless compressed RAW files.
~X~
Look, the DMCA prevents reverse engineering of encryption methods that are protecting copyrighted data. Thus, hacking the encryption on the firmware of the X-box is illegal (though it shouldn't be).
The white balance data in an image is copyrighted by YOU. That's right, it's your data. It comes from the environment or your settings or whatever. But the data is yours.
Nikon is trying to encrypt data that is copyright to you. The DMCA does not apply.
White balance data is essential to get correct images. All digital cameras have it, one way or the other. There is nothing special or unique about white balance data.
As I stated in another post, it would be like Nikon encrypting your JPEG files.
~X~
This whole thing, including their response, is BULLSHIT.
The NEF format isn't proprietary. It's a TIFF file. The only thing "proprietary" about it is a handful of tags they use. Crack it open with a hex editor and see for yourself. The only trick in reading in the image data is that it is stored in a "sub-TIFF". So you read in all the regular tiff tags (width, height, color depth, etc.), read in the the sub-tiff (easy enough to find, I don't remember the exact tag number), and you can display NEFs.
As far as white balance information goes, that is not atrade secret. It's not an algorithm, it's not code, it's not executable. It is data. More to the point, it is YOUR data.
I could give a rat's ass about their METHOD for obtaining white balance information. But having the white balance data tells you nothing about how they obtained it. It is just data.
Not only that, but white balance data is essential for all digital cameras for correct image reproduction. All digital cameras (including web cams), obtain white balance information either from the user or the environment via whatever algorithms the manufacturers decide on.
There is nothing, NOTHING, special about white balance data in a raw file. There is absolutely no reason this data needs to be encrypted. There is nothing to protect. It would be like Nikon saying they encrypt the image data to prevent someone figuring out what algorithms they use to process the CCD data.
The only fathomable reason for this nonsense is profit, plain and simple. Now that they've been called on it, they're trying the PR spin machine to make it sound like they're trying to help.
And as far as the SDK goes, good luck getting it. They apparently don't like independant developers (such as myself) writing programs for their cameras. So unless your part of a recogonized bona-fide software developer COMPANY, you're not going to get the SDK.
So that leaves those of us interested in such programming to reverse-engineer (which I've done so I could access the tone curves inside their curve files).
First, I found that Nikon was misleading about the compressed NEF files (they are supposed to be lossless raw data, but they're not). Then I found that they were also misleading about how the raw files were produced (raw files are suppose to contain the straight CCD sensor data, but Nikon applies a median filter to the data before it is saved). Sort of pissed me off because I do astrophotography and the filter wipes out stars and other features. And now, they're trying to pull this vomitous crap.
I sincerely hope nobody believes this, but sadly I think many will.
My D70 is going on ebay. I'm buying a Canon.
~X~
Bullshit. Just try and get and SDK as an independant developer.
Be happy if they even respond to you with a rejection letter.
And don't expect it to work with linux.
~X~
Statistics irrelevant to CS? And your a prof? Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Basic statistics SHOULD be a req for CS. Especially if you have to do any sort of performance analysis over time. Or tracking usage on a database. Or writing software that will be doing anything with quantum physics. Or artificial intelligence!
Math and CS should be very closely related, as it was at my University.
~X~
That is until India and China bury us technologically and economically.
We're already falling behind some countries in infrastructure. At the pace of advancement, we'll be the "third world" in a matter of decade or so.
I agree with a previous poster. Tax all commercial IP. That way, corps can make their dough and then dump it in the public domain when it becomes more costly to hang onto it.
That would keep a constant rate of innovation, instead of locking up Mickey Mouse for a damn century.
~X~
And the even less popular:
"It just sucks."
~X~
"but point I think Nikon could easily argue in court by saying their (possibly patented but I'm not going to bother to research it now) method of gather white balance data produces proprietary information that is part of Nikon's overall camera technology and therefore copyrightable."
I think that argument would be bitch-slapped out of court by any professional photographic specialist they brought in. Sure, they may be able to patent the method for getting the right white balance, but the white balance data itself is part of the photograph. It's just data about the environment. It changes with every picture you take, and it definately is not proprietary (all digital cameras have white balance data or else their pictures wouldn't be worth the bits the written with).
If nikon wants to patent the way it gets white balance data, I've got no problem with that. But what their doing now is just a little less revolting than going to a Microsoft nudist colony.
~X~
"The odds of the needed amino acids for simple life coming together and then assembling correctly are so astronomical the numbers end up being classified as a mathematical miracle. So all the galaxies, and all the stars, cannot overcome the sheer odds of life forming by chance."
.4*3x10^11*3x10^11 = 3.6x10^21 estimated solar systems in the universe. That's uite a few rocks to check.
:)
Actually since organic compounds exist even on a place as inhospitable as Titan, I think the odds are pretty damn good that life exists elsewhere.
"Further, you're rolling all the stars and galaxies into a big pot together, when, as talked about in Rare Earth, most of these stars and galaxies would be eliminated due to their harsh conditions."
Current estimates in our galaxy alone of sun like stars with planetary formation is somewhere around 40% (you can find this using google). So
You're (or their) claim that galaxies would have harsh conditions is rather silly. The stars would be the ones that would have the harsh conditions. Galaxies are mostly empty space.
"*Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it."
Hull must not know his biochemistry. Tetraglycine, a more complex form of glycine, is formed pretty much continuously around the score of undersea hydrothermal vents in the ocean (concentrations of around 1% or so). And that's just one of the peptides and polypeptides that forms under those conditions.
Amino acids consist of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, an nitrogen. These elements are all found in regular water (carbon and nitrogen being disolved in of course, which happens quite a bit).
Organic compounds are not unique to this planet, and have been found on several other planets in this solar system alone. Scientists have even found peptides and polypetides within metorites and comets. It seems the odds aren't quite as bad as some make them out to be.
"PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS--Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein! A research team, at Barlian University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth."
Okay, I'm not a biochemist but the information I found on peptides, polypeptides, and protiens directly contradict what you're saying. Yes their are peptides,polypeps, and protiens that hydrolize (they have to or life would not exist) but there are an entire classes of these molecules that are "water-hating" i.e they act like oil and will not hydrolize. One of these just happens to be the oft mentioned glycine molecule.
Think about it. If all protiens hydrolized (and aminos), we'd all dissolve as soon as it rained.
With scientists finding organic molecules scattered throughout the solar system, I'm inclined to disagree with your odds makers.
~X~
I starting to sound like a broken record.
READ THE DMCA.
You see, the DMCA applies to reversing encryption on copyright material you don't own. This applies to DVD's for example.
However, the DMCA does not apply here. Why? The white balance information in YOUR photo on YOUR camera is COPYRIGHT by YOU. If anything, Nikon is encrypting YOUR COPYRIGHTED INFORMATION preventing you ACCESS TO YOUR DATA.
File formats are not copyrightable. However, their content may be. In this case the copyright holder is you.
Do you feel comfortable that a company is encrypting your copyrighted material preventing you from using it the way you want?
Adobe is just being cautious. I'm sure once their legal department mulls this over for a bit, Adobe will release a reader for it.
~X~
"This is exactly what the DMCA was intended to do."
No it wasn't. The white balance information for YOUR FUCKING IMAGE IS COPYRIGHT TO YOU AND YOU ALONE WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO ENCRYPT IT AND YOU HAVE EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO HACK IT.
DMCA only refers to breaking encryptions on copyrighted works THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN.
Since the picture is your own, you can do whatever the hell you want to it. This includes cracking any and all encryption that has been applied to it.
~X~
"What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted."
Partially true. All RAW formats I've seen are a version of TIFF, despite their extensions. And since they are TIFF files, a lot of information between the RAW formats is shared (such as fields for width, height, color depth, etc.).
It is true that there are certain comapny defined tags that some use to store their own information. Some of this information doesn't really affect the image (like strings), others may be image data blocks (Nikon NEF files store a TIFF within a TIFF that contains the image data).
However, one thing I have not run across in working with RAWs is encryption. Encryption is not only useless, but completely stupid. The photos you take with your camera only contains your data. There is absolutley no reason to encrypt white balance data or any other data of your photos.
That is, unless said company is trying to force you to use their software over a competitors. In which case, this falls under a completely different set of laws. As a matter of fact, Nikon should talk to M$ about getting bitch-slapped for attempting such practices.
As far as releasing raw formats go, I don't believe many companies publish such information. Either you need to get an SDK or you need to renge it. My guess is Adobe was renging it when they came across this little gem.
People are raising complaints because Nikon is being an asshat. And I agree.
~X~
Now, why would you need PHOTO-EDITING software for manipulating PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES. All PHOTOGRAPHERS take perfect PICTURES all the time.
WHAT A TOTAL LOAD.
There just might be a reason why Photoshop makes millions a year. There might even be a reason why it's called PHOTOshop.
Whatever Nikon rep made this statement should be handed his walking papers. That is ignorance of another level, and shows a complete lack of understanding of photography.
~X~
Very bad move by Nikon. Nikon does not write photo software. That is not their primary business. And my experience with their software has been anything but good.
Now they are going and making it difficult to use the #1 MOST USED SOFTWARE BY DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHERS?!?
I do own a D70, but with moves like this, this will be my last Nikon camera.
Regardless, Adobe may not make a plugin, but I'm sure someone will write one regardless.
~X~
Unfortunately, your claims are not entirely accurate. Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee's book is about a hypothesis that Earth is one of a kind. There are also several other books that contain the exact opposite hypothesis. It is an area of active debate, but until our technologies significantly improve (or we're contactd by an alien civilization) they will be nothing more than hypotheses. There is no way to prove this one way or the other right now.
As far as creating life in the lab, GE fought and won a court case in 1978 about a patent on creating life in a lab. And more recently, in 2002 Dr. Wimmer and his team built a completely synthetic virus. These are just a couple instancs of simple life being created in a lab. Google contains quite a bit of information on the subject.
As far as odds go, I'll put my money down on life existing elsewhere. There are 300 billion stars in our galaxy, and at least that many galaxies in the known universe. A significant fraction of those stars are sun like stars, with planets. According to the Drake equation, the best guess estimate is several hundred civilizations in our galaxy alone.
And that's only for advanced civilizations. If we're just talking about microbial life, the odds are much higher that life will be found.
I'm willing to bet simple life exists in several places in our solar system. There are several candidates worth examining.
As for other extra-solar life, well, there's not much anyone can do to prove that right now. It takes several decades just to have our probes get to the edge of our solar system, let alone the next star.
~X~
"Should we actually find this life, and determine that it is similar to life on earth, the evolutionists will be left trying to explain how life from earth travelled to Mars without spacecraft to carry it there. (There are plausible explanations for this.)"
:)
More likely than not, life would have formed on mars first as it would have become hospitable before earth stopped being mass of roiling semi hardened magma.
But you're right, there are several explanations. The most popular one is transpermia. We are finding that life can be in the most inhospitable of places, and some spores can survive the intense radiation and vacuum of space. Be that as it may, I don't see what the problem would be in having similar life evolving on two seperate planets in the same solar system.
In this case, early earth and mars may have been pretty similar. In that case, would it not make sense for similar protien structures to have evolved?
Also, the DNA/RNA protien structure is very efficient and hardy. It is reasonable to expect that other life forms will be using a similarly organized protien structure as it's base.
That's not to say that other life forms won't be incredibly exotic. After all, we do have creatures like the walking octopus.
~X~
Are you serious?
You are in prison because, with your original freedoms, you have done something wrong. Thus, you're freedoms are removed for X amount of time.
This includes the right to vote in a lot of places.
~X~
"I can accept life adapting to its environment, but adaptation does not prove or disprove evolution."
Straight from the dictionary....
evolution Audio pronunciation of "Evolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
So, as you can see, genetic adaptation is evolution.
~X~
"No offense, but that's complete horseshit."
We can barely keep a simple space station in orbit with a couple of astronauts, let alone a full orbital construction bay for spacecraft.
"What you've got in the moon is the potential for a small base that will forever be completely dependant on Earth for supplies."
And what of Mars? I suppose we'll just plant some seeds, spread a little water and have a full fledge hdroponics garden.
The fact is it takes a lot more than water and dirt to make the supplies necessary for human planetary colonization.
"It's water-poor, the dust is an extreme health hazard, there's no atmosphere to protect you from solar radiation or run internal combustion engines in."
Aside from the martian dust being less toxic, how is this any different from Mars?
"Unless you're there to harvest H3, there's no point in being there."
That would be until precious metals or heavy elements were discovered to reside relatively close to the surface. Or if we ever needed another source of titanium, the moon would be it.
And let's not forget that the moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth. Using the possible water stores that reside at the poles, this makes an ideal launch platform.
Not to mention the lack of atmosphere would be great for all sorts of astronomical purposes.
Basically, you don't know enough about the moon to state whether or not a base there would be fruitless. And why is Mars more likely to not be fruitless? Is there proven resources there?
"If you're planning on going to Mars, it's worse than a wasted step -- it's not a good financial move, it's not a good place to practice techniques for Mars and it's a far more hostile environment."
Potentially, all exploration is a wasted financial step. There are no guarentees that any risk will pay off, which is why it is called a risk.
And how is the moon not a good place to practice for Mars? Mars has almost no atmosphere (and what it does have is comprised of carbon monoxide), has a 1/4 gravity of Earth (the moon has a 1/6), has a negligible magnetic field and is very cold (just like the moon). As an added bonus, Mars has planet-wide sandstorms which blocks the sun for days.
Both environments are hostile. That's why it so difficult for us to live there.
"That's why we're no closer to Mars now than we were then."
We're no closer to Mars because of physical, biolgical, logistical and psychological hurldes that we haven't cleared yet. We can't get a fscking space station together in the span of a decade, let alone build an all out orbital construction platform for building space craft. There are few countries that even have the capabilities to put satellites into orbit. Building an orbital space dock is orders of magnitude more difficult than a simple space station. Not to mention the sheer amount of money it would take to orbit and maintain the whole damn thing. Then you've got to deal with the fact that a group of humans will be packed in like sardines for a minimum 12-month round trip, and all the supplies that will entail. And the fact that said humans will be exposed to a far harsher environment just trying to get there is another matter. Just getting to Mars would be an achievement.
"The fastest, easiest and cheapest way to get to Mars is to skip things like the moon and on-orbit assembly and to use heavy lift vehicles directly from earth."
The fastest, easiest, cheapest way to get to Mars is to wait for us to get a better grip on interplanetary technologies and there's no better target for this than the moon. Whatever we can do for our jaunts there, we "should" be able to scale up. Even if the moon contains "nothing useful", it would at least be good target to practice with.
"Use as much existing off-the-shelf tech as you can..."
I agree with this.
"... and then launce opposition missions to spend large amounts of time on the Martian surface with the specific objective of finding a good
Is it possible for us to develope something new without immediately attributing some sort of disorder to it?
Our brain allows us to filter out material that we don't need. Most normal individuals have no problem dealing with this.
~X~
In all likelyhood, any physical record of this timeframe has been destroyed by the geophysical processes of Earth.
:)
The oldest known specimen of Earth is a small piece of zircon crystal dated to about 4.4 billion years. If scientist are off just a littl about the age of Earth, then this atmospheric dissipation would have happened even before that speck of dust was created.
One of the biggest obstacles for studying the Earth's beginnings has always been Earth itself.
~X~
Squid have something like a hundred hatchlings.
Shouldn't she have like, 100 boobs?
(No this isn't a serious question.)
~X~