Regardless of your faulty reasoning, you're still wrong as I've pointed out. The facts don't substantiate the theory.
As for my guilty conscious, what a load of crap - I've already shown I have no need for a guilty conscious and that should have been implicitly obvious in my original point.
Thank you for not contesting that you're a dickhead. At least we agree on something.
Piss of you self righteous idiot. Anyone willing to pirate a book and read it on the screen is willing to buy it. It says something about you that you throw out unsubstantiated claims carelessly. Can I substantiate my claim? Yes, I've downloaded the book and am also buying the book. I'm a pirater and I'm ethical. FUCK OFF!
Have YOU noticed they have PhDs. If you are an undergrad you have to use references. As a PhD you've proven yourself to the academic community - peer review - and become a sort of walking reference.
A) that wasn't a reply
B) That camera hasn't gone through the van allen belt
C) That camera isn't in space, it's in a cockpit - take a look at the photo's buzz aldren utook to see a camera in actual space
D) Therefore your reply is just more drivel
No, I wont. Instead I will point you to a chapter in the best selling "Bad Astronomy" by Philip Plait. Chapter 17 page 155 has a good rundown and it begins on page 155. ISBN: 0-471-40976-6. Seeing as I am using an appeal to authority as corroborating evidence I suggest you supply your creds if you want to continue arguing. Plait has a Ph. D in Physics and Astronomy.
In the context of the conversation it should be abundantly clear that a digital camera would not work next to its SH counterpart. The camera in the hubble is to an SH camera as an apple is to an orange. Or as you are o an intelligent person. It's funny, one of the tests on an IQ test is how well a person can make equivalent comparisons. You would fail. Not just that test I mean. I mean the whole IQ test.
>>There is no way on God's good earth that anyone can reliably claim that digital prints outlive film development.
Well, I guess you have your mind made up. Then there's no point in discussion.
What I'm saying is that the oldest photo print far outweighs in terms of the length of time it has existed, the longest digital print. So yes, there is no point in discussion. Jerk.
Actually, many professionals, myself included, prefer a smaller colour gamut. That is why though slide are crap to look at and slide film is tricky to master, many people prefer it.
Also, one of the bonus' of SH is it can be used in space - digital cameras can't go there!
Yes, that vast majority has gone digital. Yes it has speed and cost advantages. It loses out in diversity of development process. It loses out in resolution - I'm talking compared with medium and large format photography, though even 35mm has three times the effective resolution of digital. It loses out in the diversity of environments it may be used in. As for longevity, I can't imagine that there are digital prints older than a couple decades (though I do know Charles Babbage invented a printer). As for photo's they've been around an order of magnitude longer. There is no way on God's good earth that anyone can reliably claim that digital prints outlive film development.
Actually, processed paper degrades very slowly and badly. The plus side - it is a solid state physically rugged display media which has already been invented and doesn't suffer loss due to being translated into digital information.
And as a history major in Uni, while I don't think anything last too long (library of Alexandria - built to last, almost completely destroyed)I know we can only try. It would be a shame to assume future generations wouldn't want this stuff if it turned out they did.
further to what I said before I wonder why anyone serious about photography would use ink except for drafts. I've developed onto some very nonstandard surface which I can imaging completely destoying my printer (even if they did fit in thickness wise). There are also beautiful emulsions which will print with metals rather than normal cololours. Iamgie a black and white sunset where the highlights are rendered in gold.
Ink doesn't need to last 150 years +, because it is for home and amatuer use.
I doesn't matter how good your photograph is if the paper it's printed on degrades, the ink fades or the DVD corrupts. I find that knowing the cost of photos with a film SLR causes one to tend to be a little more careful and lends itself more aptly to good photograph composition - that is good pictures are inherently more in the nature of film than digital.
And as a production manager of a newspaper (http://thecatholicrecord.org) I have never heard of a photoshop printing digital using 'traditional methods.' It would require photographing a print which is just stupid - especially when ink developers claim 100yrs+ on their inks.
I would actually question why anyone just learning would need to worry about colour spaces. That sort of info comes from a book or a person. If they want that they may as well do a course coz it gets complex very quickly.
Fuck yeah - a pitched gun battle at 60,000 feet. That's what I'm talking about. Actually, if the terrorists were smart then they'd just book out an entire flight to themselves. They'd know exactly who the air marshalls were but probably wouldn't give a fuck coz a gun can only hold so many bullets. Plus, it would only be a matter of time before they broke down the door (regardless of the lock). In a movie I saw they used a drinks cart. Good idea.
You could be right. Apparently, according to a radio report I heard some months ago now, this program and evidence has been in place for some time and the reason they haven't done anything is because of intese political pressure.
On a slightly unrelated note to the topic, but related to your sig... The person who decided there should not be a double space after a sentence stop was probably a typesetter at some point. It is standard practice in typesetting to not put a double space after a stop. That should be adjusted by the trapping and/or kerning.
Word processors usually don't have that level of control, or make it more difficult than necessary to access necessitating an easy way to gain the required space - using the space key twice.
There is a dichotomy between tthe way most people produce text and the way most text is produced. As I ypesetter myself, I lament the fact that jounalists find it impossible to submit text in the style which typesetters turn it out. I have made an apple script which eliminates that among other things (such as incorrect date formatting) but there needs to be some level of education.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of your faulty reasoning, you're still wrong as I've pointed out. The facts don't substantiate the theory. As for my guilty conscious, what a load of crap - I've already shown I have no need for a guilty conscious and that should have been implicitly obvious in my original point. Thank you for not contesting that you're a dickhead. At least we agree on something.
no
Piss of you self righteous idiot. Anyone willing to pirate a book and read it on the screen is willing to buy it. It says something about you that you throw out unsubstantiated claims carelessly. Can I substantiate my claim? Yes, I've downloaded the book and am also buying the book. I'm a pirater and I'm ethical. FUCK OFF!
Have YOU noticed they have PhDs. If you are an undergrad you have to use references. As a PhD you've proven yourself to the academic community - peer review - and become a sort of walking reference.
As an Australian I'm glad to be called a PAL of mother england - or POME - thats a little Australian humour.
A) that wasn't a reply B) That camera hasn't gone through the van allen belt C) That camera isn't in space, it's in a cockpit - take a look at the photo's buzz aldren utook to see a camera in actual space D) Therefore your reply is just more drivel
No, I wont. Instead I will point you to a chapter in the best selling "Bad Astronomy" by Philip Plait. Chapter 17 page 155 has a good rundown and it begins on page 155. ISBN: 0-471-40976-6. Seeing as I am using an appeal to authority as corroborating evidence I suggest you supply your creds if you want to continue arguing. Plait has a Ph. D in Physics and Astronomy.
In the context of the conversation it should be abundantly clear that a digital camera would not work next to its SH counterpart. The camera in the hubble is to an SH camera as an apple is to an orange. Or as you are o an intelligent person. It's funny, one of the tests on an IQ test is how well a person can make equivalent comparisons. You would fail. Not just that test I mean. I mean the whole IQ test.
>>There is no way on God's good earth that anyone can reliably claim that digital prints outlive film development. Well, I guess you have your mind made up. Then there's no point in discussion. What I'm saying is that the oldest photo print far outweighs in terms of the length of time it has existed, the longest digital print. So yes, there is no point in discussion. Jerk.
Actually, many professionals, myself included, prefer a smaller colour gamut. That is why though slide are crap to look at and slide film is tricky to master, many people prefer it. Also, one of the bonus' of SH is it can be used in space - digital cameras can't go there!
Yes, that vast majority has gone digital. Yes it has speed and cost advantages. It loses out in diversity of development process. It loses out in resolution - I'm talking compared with medium and large format photography, though even 35mm has three times the effective resolution of digital. It loses out in the diversity of environments it may be used in. As for longevity, I can't imagine that there are digital prints older than a couple decades (though I do know Charles Babbage invented a printer). As for photo's they've been around an order of magnitude longer. There is no way on God's good earth that anyone can reliably claim that digital prints outlive film development.
Actually, processed paper degrades very slowly and badly. The plus side - it is a solid state physically rugged display media which has already been invented and doesn't suffer loss due to being translated into digital information.
And as a history major in Uni, while I don't think anything last too long (library of Alexandria - built to last, almost completely destroyed)I know we can only try. It would be a shame to assume future generations wouldn't want this stuff if it turned out they did.
further to what I said before I wonder why anyone serious about photography would use ink except for drafts. I've developed onto some very nonstandard surface which I can imaging completely destoying my printer (even if they did fit in thickness wise). There are also beautiful emulsions which will print with metals rather than normal cololours. Iamgie a black and white sunset where the highlights are rendered in gold. Ink doesn't need to last 150 years +, because it is for home and amatuer use.
I doesn't matter how good your photograph is if the paper it's printed on degrades, the ink fades or the DVD corrupts. I find that knowing the cost of photos with a film SLR causes one to tend to be a little more careful and lends itself more aptly to good photograph composition - that is good pictures are inherently more in the nature of film than digital.
And as a production manager of a newspaper (http://thecatholicrecord.org) I have never heard of a photoshop printing digital using 'traditional methods.' It would require photographing a print which is just stupid - especially when ink developers claim 100yrs+ on their inks.
I would actually question why anyone just learning would need to worry about colour spaces. That sort of info comes from a book or a person. If they want that they may as well do a course coz it gets complex very quickly.
Fuck yeah - a pitched gun battle at 60,000 feet. That's what I'm talking about. Actually, if the terrorists were smart then they'd just book out an entire flight to themselves. They'd know exactly who the air marshalls were but probably wouldn't give a fuck coz a gun can only hold so many bullets. Plus, it would only be a matter of time before they broke down the door (regardless of the lock). In a movie I saw they used a drinks cart. Good idea.
Then why do we now have locks on the doors?
And no-one could dispute that without chancing being labelled as a paedophile.. Keep walking with the masses man
Its the nature of those in power to force their will onto others.
Quite frankly no amount of people telling me how much better it would be with my sister is gonna make me want it;
As for those who are into that sort of thing, letting them post is not a tacit approval if you choose not to moderate anything.
Whilst you as a consumer wont make a difference by yourself, you have me with you. Therefore we know now that we are not alone.
You could be right. Apparently, according to a radio report I heard some months ago now, this program and evidence has been in place for some time and the reason they haven't done anything is because of intese political pressure.
iCAL in Lepard - it is gonna be teh bomb (. Seriously though, don't use now-up-to-date on os x - it is overpowered and over onvoluted.
They've got too much money (for lawyers).
On a slightly unrelated note to the topic, but related to your sig... The person who decided there should not be a double space after a sentence stop was probably a typesetter at some point. It is standard practice in typesetting to not put a double space after a stop. That should be adjusted by the trapping and/or kerning.
Word processors usually don't have that level of control, or make it more difficult than necessary to access necessitating an easy way to gain the required space - using the space key twice.
There is a dichotomy between tthe way most people produce text and the way most text is produced. As I ypesetter myself, I lament the fact that jounalists find it impossible to submit text in the style which typesetters turn it out. I have made an apple script which eliminates that among other things (such as incorrect date formatting) but there needs to be some level of education.
Pax,
T.
I had no idea they were still supporting the thing
They re not!