I think I can sort of understand Sony's strategy with the PS3, but I also think they're too early.
Well, its hard to blame them. Microsoft is pushing up the release schedule of everyone's systems with the release of the Xbox 360. I don't blame Nintendo and Sony for trying to get their systems out before this Christmas to prevent Microsoft from doing to the video game market what it did to the desktop OS market.
This will lead to a rushed and unpolished PS3 that isn't ready for the marketplace, and it will most likely backfire on Sony. If they would just wait a year, they would probably have better success with a cheaper, more polished game system.
You don't use exposure lock, I guess? Or do you remap that somewhere else? I could see shifting it over to, say, the WB button.
Nope. I'm usually shooting in manual mode.
(BTW, why did you buy both -- the 20D and XT don't seem sufficiently different to warrant owning both)
Because when I initially bought the XT, I wasn't planning on doing a lot of sports photography. When I got into that pretty heavily, I found that the XT wasn't up to the task.
If you're a Linux user, do you have any software recommendations?
If you just press the shutter release on a DSLR, you'll get an out-of-focus picture. Even with good lenses that have fast autofocusing mechanics in them, it takes non-zero time to focus. If you just push the shutter release, every DSLR I'm familiar with will assume that you know what you're doing and simply shoot, not waiting for the focus ring to spin into position.
That depends on how you configure your DSLR. Some cameras, mainly the "prosumer" and pro models, allow you to remap the autofocus to a different control (this function is available on the Rebel XT and the D70, I believe). I have my 20D and XT setup to use the * key for autofocus, so when I push the shutter button, I get a picture instantly.
I think the use of passive voice goes back to how kids are trained to write in Elementary thru High School. I remember my high school writings classes, and they basically taught to use a variety of sentences and sentence structures to ensure that your writing didn't look like a Dick and Jane book.
Unfortunately, this meant using passive voice. The teachers never corrected this, and half my paper had the green squigglies from the Microsoft Grammar checker.
I don't think that passive voice is a bad thing in some types of writing, but it has no place in business or technical documents. Unfortunately, this distinction wasn't made to us. Had I known this, it would have made my technical writing class much easier.
Secondly, assuming the two technologies were released at once, it would be quite foolhardy to wait longer than a year or two to switch over. If your competitors can make a one-time investment and free themselves of all fuel costs from that point forward, the only real question is when the technology becomes wide-spread enough for that one-time cost to be reasonable, and odds are that wouldn't take that long with so many people jumping on the fresh market.
Yes and no. It would be foolhardy to wait longer than a year or two to implement it, but you know that is exactly what would happen. First, the results would have to be confirmed (remember Cold Fusion??). Then some scientists and engineers would have to figure out a way to convert it from a laboratory experiment into a practical device. Then there is regulatory hurdles (is it safe, does it pollute, will it cause cancer, will someone please think of the children).
Once all that is taken care of, adoption would be as quick as allowed. If developed by a company or University, it would be patented and tightly controlled (if Developed by the DOD or NASA, it would be licensed to American companies as a national security issue). There wouldn't be fifty energy companies springing up to develop this idea further unless they could pay the cost to license this development. Most likely, the energy companies would be the only ones who could afford to develop the technology further.
Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman!
on
Gadgets, Then & Now
·
· Score: 1
Its amazing, at least to me how fast computation has gotten, and how slow computation is still for scientists and engineers today. Even if a supercomputer could give an answer immediately like a google search, they will still find things that will burn CPUs for days, weeks, months, or years.
Thats probably because the computations have gotten much more complicated. I don't know what scientists were using human computers for back in the day, but now they're using Chaos Theory and other highly advanced mathamatics to predict the weather and model the creation of a star.
"Free Energy" does not exist. There is no such thing as "free energy," just like there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it.
In the case of this supposed "free energy," there will be costs to develop a system to harness it, costs to certify it as safe, costs to make it commercially viable, and costs to produce it so it can be delivered to the masses. This means big opportunities to those people who have the means to do it, such as big oil.
If we take the example of "fusion in a can," by which I assume is cheap, easily available fusion, it would be completely illogical to hide it (especially if it was discovered/developed in China or India). Yes, it might result in some upheaval, especially if OPEC is undercut as the principle energy supplier to the world.
Think about it: free energy means the oil industries and the rest of the infrastructure built around them are suddenly obsolete.
Assuming a changeover could be accomplished overnight, you would be right. However, it can't be. It would take months, if not years, to implement a new form of energy onto the world, and even then, it wouldn't remove the need for petroleum or its distillates. The infrastructure would still be needed for quite some time as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels couldn't be replaced overnight.
Antigravity means free transportation. Suddenly the airlines, rail industry, (nautical) shipping, and even the automobile industry to some extent, are irrelevant. These are the major lynchpins of our economy...
Would it mean the end of these industries, though? Like the free energy example, it would take a long time to certify this technology as safe to use.
While both technologies would cause disruptions for current industries, it would also present new opportunities for those industries. Air travel would remain, just in a different form. Cars, trucks, and rail wouldn't disappear, just change, and nautical shipping would probably remain because it would be far more efficient than any anti-grav device.
The same goes for free energy. Sure, the coal mining and petroleum industries would be disrupted, but they wouldn't end. Demand would fall, but there would be new opportunities in the Energy industry. Its just that the old players (big oil, utilities) wouldn't be able to make money hand-over-fist like they're used to doing now.
SUV's should flat out be banned. Trucks should be restricted as work vehicles or heavily taxed for personal use.
I use my SUV to haul around my 8 children, you insensitive clod!!:)
I do get a little frustrated when people treat computers as some kind of magical or animate object. I've heard (albeit incompetent) computer professions say things like, "The computer/program is _confused_". Its probably just projection:)
Have you ever yelled at the TV while watching football/baseball/basketball/hockey/NASCAR? Have you ever hit something when it wasn't working properly? Its the same principle. Yes, your computer may not hear you or work faster, but it helps people relieve their frustration when things aren't working correctly or as expected.
I read through the whole thing, and I can't see a reason to upgrade from XP. The only thing I could ask for would be the improved Wireless Networking Support and the Unix-like Security features. The rest really doesn't make me even want to consider the software.
I suppose. While I go take my coffee break, you'll need to fill out forms G1-G17, present three forms of valid ID, and properly file your TPS Reports. We will also need a picture of the offending woman and you to purchase five animes, a new computer, and two copies of Microsoft Windows.
I think most of it comes from the general feeling that we're becoming overprotected. Life is starting to become antiseptic with all these new medicines and vaccines. We'll lose our ability to treat and handle diseases, and when the next big-thing comes along in the future, we won't know how to deal with it.
I'm not against all vaccines. I think that there are some great uses to protecting people from serious diseases like polio or protecting those with weakened immune systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I can sort of understand Sony's strategy with the PS3, but I also think they're too early.
Well, its hard to blame them. Microsoft is pushing up the release schedule of everyone's systems with the release of the Xbox 360. I don't blame Nintendo and Sony for trying to get their systems out before this Christmas to prevent Microsoft from doing to the video game market what it did to the desktop OS market.
This will lead to a rushed and unpolished PS3 that isn't ready for the marketplace, and it will most likely backfire on Sony. If they would just wait a year, they would probably have better success with a cheaper, more polished game system.
Or...even more likely, what the sales "associate" at Walmart or BestBuy passes off as good.
Or poor parents who want to spoil/shut up their kids.
You don't use exposure lock, I guess? Or do you remap that somewhere else? I could see shifting it over to, say, the WB button.
Nope. I'm usually shooting in manual mode.
(BTW, why did you buy both -- the 20D and XT don't seem sufficiently different to warrant owning both)
Because when I initially bought the XT, I wasn't planning on doing a lot of sports photography. When I got into that pretty heavily, I found that the XT wasn't up to the task.
If you're a Linux user, do you have any software recommendations?
Can't help you there. I'm a Windows user.
I use a Canon, you insensitive clod!!
If you just press the shutter release on a DSLR, you'll get an out-of-focus picture. Even with good lenses that have fast autofocusing mechanics in them, it takes non-zero time to focus. If you just push the shutter release, every DSLR I'm familiar with will assume that you know what you're doing and simply shoot, not waiting for the focus ring to spin into position.
That depends on how you configure your DSLR. Some cameras, mainly the "prosumer" and pro models, allow you to remap the autofocus to a different control (this function is available on the Rebel XT and the D70, I believe). I have my 20D and XT setup to use the * key for autofocus, so when I push the shutter button, I get a picture instantly.
Yes we have this "cool" technology these days, but we are not putting it to good use.
Probably because we have people more concerned with being consumers instead of innovators.
There was a company that made Tricorders in the 1990s, but unfortunately, they went out of business.
I think the use of passive voice goes back to how kids are trained to write in Elementary thru High School. I remember my high school writings classes, and they basically taught to use a variety of sentences and sentence structures to ensure that your writing didn't look like a Dick and Jane book.
Unfortunately, this meant using passive voice. The teachers never corrected this, and half my paper had the green squigglies from the Microsoft Grammar checker.
I don't think that passive voice is a bad thing in some types of writing, but it has no place in business or technical documents. Unfortunately, this distinction wasn't made to us. Had I known this, it would have made my technical writing class much easier.
Your first sentence 62 words long.
Maybe he was trying to model James Joyce's writing style.
Secondly, assuming the two technologies were released at once, it would be quite foolhardy to wait longer than a year or two to switch over. If your competitors can make a one-time investment and free themselves of all fuel costs from that point forward, the only real question is when the technology becomes wide-spread enough for that one-time cost to be reasonable, and odds are that wouldn't take that long with so many people jumping on the fresh market. Yes and no. It would be foolhardy to wait longer than a year or two to implement it, but you know that is exactly what would happen. First, the results would have to be confirmed (remember Cold Fusion??). Then some scientists and engineers would have to figure out a way to convert it from a laboratory experiment into a practical device. Then there is regulatory hurdles (is it safe, does it pollute, will it cause cancer, will someone please think of the children).
Once all that is taken care of, adoption would be as quick as allowed. If developed by a company or University, it would be patented and tightly controlled (if Developed by the DOD or NASA, it would be licensed to American companies as a national security issue). There wouldn't be fifty energy companies springing up to develop this idea further unless they could pay the cost to license this development. Most likely, the energy companies would be the only ones who could afford to develop the technology further.
Its amazing, at least to me how fast computation has gotten, and how slow computation is still for scientists and engineers today. Even if a supercomputer could give an answer immediately like a google search, they will still find things that will burn CPUs for days, weeks, months, or years.
Thats probably because the computations have gotten much more complicated. I don't know what scientists were using human computers for back in the day, but now they're using Chaos Theory and other highly advanced mathamatics to predict the weather and model the creation of a star.
"Free Energy" does not exist. There is no such thing as "free energy," just like there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it.
In the case of this supposed "free energy," there will be costs to develop a system to harness it, costs to certify it as safe, costs to make it commercially viable, and costs to produce it so it can be delivered to the masses. This means big opportunities to those people who have the means to do it, such as big oil.
If we take the example of "fusion in a can," by which I assume is cheap, easily available fusion, it would be completely illogical to hide it (especially if it was discovered/developed in China or India). Yes, it might result in some upheaval, especially if OPEC is undercut as the principle energy supplier to the world.
If I could mod you -1 wrong, I would.
Think about it: free energy means the oil industries and the rest of the infrastructure built around them are suddenly obsolete.
Assuming a changeover could be accomplished overnight, you would be right. However, it can't be. It would take months, if not years, to implement a new form of energy onto the world, and even then, it wouldn't remove the need for petroleum or its distillates. The infrastructure would still be needed for quite some time as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels couldn't be replaced overnight.
Antigravity means free transportation. Suddenly the airlines, rail industry, (nautical) shipping, and even the automobile industry to some extent, are irrelevant. These are the major lynchpins of our economy...
Would it mean the end of these industries, though? Like the free energy example, it would take a long time to certify this technology as safe to use.
While both technologies would cause disruptions for current industries, it would also present new opportunities for those industries. Air travel would remain, just in a different form. Cars, trucks, and rail wouldn't disappear, just change, and nautical shipping would probably remain because it would be far more efficient than any anti-grav device.
The same goes for free energy. Sure, the coal mining and petroleum industries would be disrupted, but they wouldn't end. Demand would fall, but there would be new opportunities in the Energy industry. Its just that the old players (big oil, utilities) wouldn't be able to make money hand-over-fist like they're used to doing now.
I think that was tried once in State of Indiana vs. Ford Motor Company.
While we're at it, lets bring back Prohibition and ban dancing. Those will surely work.
SUV's should flat out be banned. Trucks should be restricted as work vehicles or heavily taxed for personal use. I use my SUV to haul around my 8 children, you insensitive clod!! :)
I do get a little frustrated when people treat computers as some kind of magical or animate object. I've heard (albeit incompetent) computer professions say things like, "The computer/program is _confused_". Its probably just projection :)
Have you ever yelled at the TV while watching football/baseball/basketball/hockey/NASCAR? Have you ever hit something when it wasn't working properly? Its the same principle. Yes, your computer may not hear you or work faster, but it helps people relieve their frustration when things aren't working correctly or as expected.
Especially not that 40 E^E^E^E^E^E^ 14 year old girl that you met last night in a chat room.
Just like the Americas Presedent doesn't represent the opinion of 100% of America.
Lately its down to about 33% of Americans...and falling.
If Gartner is only 25% correct, then that means we won't be seeing Vista until sometime around December 20th, 2012.
I read through the whole thing, and I can't see a reason to upgrade from XP. The only thing I could ask for would be the improved Wireless Networking Support and the Unix-like Security features. The rest really doesn't make me even want to consider the software.
I suppose. While I go take my coffee break, you'll need to fill out forms G1-G17, present three forms of valid ID, and properly file your TPS Reports. We will also need a picture of the offending woman and you to purchase five animes, a new computer, and two copies of Microsoft Windows.
Perhaps someone should download the Imperial March from iTunes in honour of this.
You mean you don't have the Entire Soundtrack from the Original Trilogy?!?!?!
I'll need to take your geek card now.
I think most of it comes from the general feeling that we're becoming overprotected. Life is starting to become antiseptic with all these new medicines and vaccines. We'll lose our ability to treat and handle diseases, and when the next big-thing comes along in the future, we won't know how to deal with it.
I'm not against all vaccines. I think that there are some great uses to protecting people from serious diseases like polio or protecting those with weakened immune systems.