Well, I own an iPod, and it is mostly filled with legal, free downloads from new bands. So, it looks like the music industry is finally getting their ass kicked by new bands and new distribution channels. And that's just what should be happening.
Maybe they are stupid. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation, which is that wiki is such a radical concept that it takes a while to sink in.
So what? Wikipedia states clearly what it is (a free encyclopedia) and what it guarantees (nothing). If people misinterpret the information despite all of this, it's not Wikipedia's fault or problem.
Furthermore, there are lots of other sites carrying unvetted, unsubstantiated, and/or anonymously posted information, so why single out Wikipedia?
Wikipedia isn't above it all because it's geek, it's above it all because it works differently from a newspaper. It just doesn't make sense to sue "Wikipedia" for libel. Nobody is stopping you from suing the authors.
I don't see any reason to change anything about Wikipedia or how it is created. I understand how it is created, how much I can trust it, and what I need to do to verify the information on it. Anybody who doesn't understand this about Wikipedia at this point must be from Mars.
I think people who criticize Wikipedia for the way its entries are created are living in a world where they assume that just because an information resource is well known or popular, it must be accurate. That wasn't true when companies like the New York Times and ABC had a near monopoly on information dissemination, and it sure isn't any more accurate today.
What needs to change is not Wikipedia, it's people's naive notions about epistemology. Or, to put it more bluntly: don't trust any information unless it either doesn't matter, or you can verify it from multiple independent sources yourself. Popularity, trust, and reputation of a source are very unreliable guides to the validity of information.
Google "circle of confusion" to learn about how film area size affects depth-of-field.
Yes, you should. The formula is H=L*L/A/C. At first glance, that looks like H goes like the square of the focal length L. For film, C was fixed (smaller negatives just contained less detail), but an 8 Mpixel APS sensor requires a proportionally smaller circle of confusion than an 8 Mpixel full frame sensor, so your DOF gains are only linear at constant aperture if you want to record the same detail. But the aperture isn't constant, because in order to maximize DOF, you need to pick the smallest diffraction limited aperture, e.g., f16 for an 8 Mpixel APS sensor, f32 for an 8 Mpixel full frame sensor, so you don't actually gain any DOF at all.
Stitching is only effective for some subjects. It won't work for anything that moves or for light that might change.
Miracles can and do happen all the time, and they are many thoroughly documented examples. Over 70% of American doctors believe miracles occur today (http://www.jtsa.edu/research/finkelstein/surveys/ physicians.shtml). Of course they are never reported as miracles, but rather "mysterious self-healing properties of the human body".
If you don't know how an airplane works, do you also ascribe its flight to a miracle--to the "mysterious self-propelling properties of the airplane"?
I would challenge those of you who have a problem with what the bible says to actually sit down and read a few chapters. You might find the story to be a bit different than you perceived it to be.
I have read the entire Bible in several languages and translations. It's just your run of the mill collection of religious texts--with the usual superstitions, political messages, literary pieces, poetry, folk psychology and folk science, and other assorted verbal detritus.
If there is anything that distinguishes the Bible from other such documents, it's that it is even less likely to be authoritative and historically accurate than other such documents.
The moon is quite dusty, so whatever weird argument you are trying to construct isn't working.
And there is no "vegetation" at the South Pole these days; there used to be, a long time ago, consistent with continental drift and climate change over millions of years.
There is reason to doubt the literal truth of the Bible.
Yeah, like the fact that the Bible is a heavily edited translation of a heavily edited translation, with no original text and no evidence of authenticity.
The idea of being a mere biological machine ceased to appeal to me when it became a matter of denying reality as I perceived it. What about you? Have you really thought about this?
I have no idea how the universe works, but I'm convinced that it wasn't created, and isn't run, by the mentally disturbed omnipotent being described in the Bible.
Merely picking a smaller sensor will not help you all that much with DOF for macro photography--it's still too small. And tilt movements also don't help that much.
The way you get large DOF with digital is by combining several different shots with different focus.
The 17-85 is a good lens (I have it), but that's the equivalent of a 28-135mm/f4-5.6. Sorry, but that's a long way from a 24-120mm/f2.8-4.5 Zeiss lens. One f-stop and 4mm difference at the wide end is a huge difference and easily justified doubling the price.
This is a D-SLR camera without movie mode, interchangable lenses or anything resembling snapshot capability.
It's not an SLR.
Personally, I'd go with the Nikon D-series or a Canon Digital Rebel for a lot less with a few lenses and be able to actually get near some of my subjects.
Where can I get a 24-120(equiv)/2.8-4.8 lens for the Nikon or Canon for $1000 (or at any price)? And how can I get rid of the mirror noise and vibration on those cameras?
The R1 is a different kind of camera; not better, not worse, just different. I think the R1 doesn't quite hit the spot, but I hope Sony will try again and others will follow suit. We need more cameras like tihs.
So, what makes this camera better than a real SLR?
Two big differences are that it doesn't have mirror noise and it does have a waist-level viewfinder. If those things don't mean anything to you, it's probably not the camera for you.
It also has a very high quality zoom with a very useful zoom range; you can't get anywhere near that quality with a dSLR/lens combo at that price. If I could get that lens for my Canon dSLR, I'd gladly pay $1000 for it.
You seem to equate "pro photographer" with "35mm SLR shooter"; that's wrong. Photographers use all sorts of viewfinders and focusing aids. Many pictures are taken without any viewfinder or focus at all. Others use ground glass.
The reason why EVFs haven't been popular is because in order to support an EVF, CCD-based cameras had to sacrifice on image quality. With CMOS chips, that's slowly changing. I expect EVFs will be very popular with pros once the sensors are up to it.
Yes, the better image quality is nice too, but it's not _that_ huge a difference anymore
Actually, there is a huge difference in image quality between digital SLRs and other digital cameras at higher ISOs. For many serious photographers, that's the primary reason for using digital SLRs. The R1 promises to deliver that in a non-SLR design.
Why does that matter? SLRs have a number of problems, foremost mirror noise and lack of live preview. Something like the R1 could be a big success (although I think the R1 itself doesn't quite do the trick).
Sony's digital cameras tend to be excellent and often quite innovative. Their lenses are usually Zeiss lenses. And as for electronic imaging, Sony has been in that business for a long time.
The Rebel and Powershot cameras are excellent in many ways, but they "don't blow away everything on the market". Nikon's SLRs are competitive, and Powershot lacks a number of features that other cameras have.
As for the "SLR without interchangeable lenses", the R1 is not an SLR, it's a camera with a sensor that is also used in SLRs. Its lens has such a useful range (24-120) that many people will not need anything else.
But don't worry: over the next few years, you will see cameras like the R1 with interchangeable lenses; that is, non-SLR cameras with electronic viewfinders. The SLR design itself is pretty much obsolete at this point.
As for "geekiness" and number of lenses, I take most of my photos with a "normal" lens; I'd be overjoyed if someone produced a digital camera with an APS sensor and a fixed 35mm or 50mm equivalent lens. The closest I have been able to get to that is a Rebel XT with a 35mm/f2 mated to it (which is an excellent combo, but still larger than it needs to be).
Maybe the US is more liability-happy than most but here neglect only covers really stupid or dangerous acts, like leaving a well unsecured, poisionous chemicals around and the like.
You can be quite certain that if someone attacks any kind of important server from your IP address, you will be in a lot of trouble. At that point, it becomes almost academic whether you eventually can get out of it in court.
Their idea of "responsible" conflicts with my understanding of "fair use", "formatshifting", "timeshifting", "personal backup", "my property" and a host of other things. They want to lock it down so we can pay over and over again anyway,
How exactly does securing your access point conflict with "fair use"?
Anybody who takes information that isn't substantiated by verifiable background information as truth is a fool; it doesn't matter whether it's on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
As for Seigenthaler, I can understand his desire to track down the origin of this posting (it might have been a political smear campaign).
However, I think Seigenthaler has hurt himself pretty badly with his behavior. From someone who claims to be a staunch defender of first amendment rights, I do not expect his first reaction to be to publicly attack Wikipedia and rail against anonymous speech. He should have acted more prudently and cautiously.
What happens when someone of a low IQ decides to follow the instructions of "plug and play". I would suspect the manufacturers to be more responsible that the end user. For example, what about when grandma decides to take home a wireless router and she does not secure it and someone uses it for an illegal purpose?
Someone may be able to get away with that defense once or twice; after that, manufacturers will put big warning labels in their manuals and make the defaults more secure (that's already happening, actually).
How will the court convict someone who can't program a VCR? Where is the Mens Rea (guilty mind)? Sure, the act might be there, but was the intent?
Intent is not necessary; carelessness that harms others is sufficient for legal consequences and responsibility.
If cable companies are moving to digital content with television, it is only one step away from securing their whole network, so that nobody unauthorized can get on. Everything will be DRM'ed, and the network will be closed.
The more people behave irresponsibly with digital content, the more of an excuse those companies have. So, don't give these people an excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
The Treo 650 is fairly expensive for a Linux PDA because you pay a premium for the phone functionality, software, etc.
I think something like the Zire 22 or Tungsten E would be a more interesting model to run Linux on.
In any case, Palm will be releasing Linux-based Palms soon (or die trying).
Well, I own an iPod, and it is mostly filled with legal, free downloads from new bands. So, it looks like the music industry is finally getting their ass kicked by new bands and new distribution channels. And that's just what should be happening.
Maybe they are stupid. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation, which is that wiki is such a radical concept that it takes a while to sink in.
So what? Wikipedia states clearly what it is (a free encyclopedia) and what it guarantees (nothing). If people misinterpret the information despite all of this, it's not Wikipedia's fault or problem.
Furthermore, there are lots of other sites carrying unvetted, unsubstantiated, and/or anonymously posted information, so why single out Wikipedia?
Wikipedia isn't above it all because it's geek, it's above it all because it works differently from a newspaper. It just doesn't make sense to sue "Wikipedia" for libel. Nobody is stopping you from suing the authors.
in a large font. I think that's clear enough.
I don't see any reason to change anything about Wikipedia or how it is created. I understand how it is created, how much I can trust it, and what I need to do to verify the information on it. Anybody who doesn't understand this about Wikipedia at this point must be from Mars.
I think people who criticize Wikipedia for the way its entries are created are living in a world where they assume that just because an information resource is well known or popular, it must be accurate. That wasn't true when companies like the New York Times and ABC had a near monopoly on information dissemination, and it sure isn't any more accurate today.
What needs to change is not Wikipedia, it's people's naive notions about epistemology. Or, to put it more bluntly: don't trust any information unless it either doesn't matter, or you can verify it from multiple independent sources yourself. Popularity, trust, and reputation of a source are very unreliable guides to the validity of information.
Google "circle of confusion" to learn about how film area size affects depth-of-field.
Yes, you should. The formula is H=L*L/A/C. At first glance, that looks like H goes like the square of the focal length L. For film, C was fixed (smaller negatives just contained less detail), but an 8 Mpixel APS sensor requires a proportionally smaller circle of confusion than an 8 Mpixel full frame sensor, so your DOF gains are only linear at constant aperture if you want to record the same detail. But the aperture isn't constant, because in order to maximize DOF, you need to pick the smallest diffraction limited aperture, e.g., f16 for an 8 Mpixel APS sensor, f32 for an 8 Mpixel full frame sensor, so you don't actually gain any DOF at all.
Stitching is only effective for some subjects. It won't work for anything that moves or for light that might change.
Yeah, life's tough, isn't it?
Miracles can and do happen all the time, and they are many thoroughly documented examples. Over 70% of American doctors believe miracles occur today (http://www.jtsa.edu/research/finkelstein/surveys/ physicians.shtml). Of course they are never reported as miracles, but rather "mysterious self-healing properties of the human body".
If you don't know how an airplane works, do you also ascribe its flight to a miracle--to the "mysterious self-propelling properties of the airplane"?
I would challenge those of you who have a problem with what the bible says to actually sit down and read a few chapters. You might find the story to be a bit different than you perceived it to be.
I have read the entire Bible in several languages and translations. It's just your run of the mill collection of religious texts--with the usual superstitions, political messages, literary pieces, poetry, folk psychology and folk science, and other assorted verbal detritus.
If there is anything that distinguishes the Bible from other such documents, it's that it is even less likely to be authoritative and historically accurate than other such documents.
The moon is quite dusty, so whatever weird argument you are trying to construct isn't working.
And there is no "vegetation" at the South Pole these days; there used to be, a long time ago, consistent with continental drift and climate change over millions of years.
There is reason to doubt the literal truth of the Bible.
Yeah, like the fact that the Bible is a heavily edited translation of a heavily edited translation, with no original text and no evidence of authenticity.
The idea of being a mere biological machine ceased to appeal to me when it became a matter of denying reality as I perceived it. What about you? Have you really thought about this?
I have no idea how the universe works, but I'm convinced that it wasn't created, and isn't run, by the mentally disturbed omnipotent being described in the Bible.
Instead, he played into the stereotype that 'scientists are anti-Christian' and has paid the price.
So you are saying that it's OK to beat up scientists that don't like Christianity?
There is no such thing as a "literal" reading of the Bible, given the history of the document.
People who claim to read the Bible "literally" are either stupid or deliberately deceptive.
Merely picking a smaller sensor will not help you all that much with DOF for macro photography--it's still too small. And tilt movements also don't help that much.
The way you get large DOF with digital is by combining several different shots with different focus.
The 17-85 is a good lens (I have it), but that's the equivalent of a 28-135mm/f4-5.6. Sorry, but that's a long way from a 24-120mm/f2.8-4.5 Zeiss lens. One f-stop and 4mm difference at the wide end is a huge difference and easily justified doubling the price.
This is a D-SLR camera without movie mode, interchangable lenses or anything resembling snapshot capability.
It's not an SLR.
Personally, I'd go with the Nikon D-series or a Canon Digital Rebel for a lot less with a few lenses and be able to actually get near some of my subjects.
Where can I get a 24-120(equiv)/2.8-4.8 lens for the Nikon or Canon for $1000 (or at any price)? And how can I get rid of the mirror noise and vibration on those cameras?
The R1 is a different kind of camera; not better, not worse, just different. I think the R1 doesn't quite hit the spot, but I hope Sony will try again and others will follow suit. We need more cameras like tihs.
So, what makes this camera better than a real SLR?
Two big differences are that it doesn't have mirror noise and it does have a waist-level viewfinder. If those things don't mean anything to you, it's probably not the camera for you.
It also has a very high quality zoom with a very useful zoom range; you can't get anywhere near that quality with a dSLR/lens combo at that price. If I could get that lens for my Canon dSLR, I'd gladly pay $1000 for it.
You seem to equate "pro photographer" with "35mm SLR shooter"; that's wrong. Photographers use all sorts of viewfinders and focusing aids. Many pictures are taken without any viewfinder or focus at all. Others use ground glass.
The reason why EVFs haven't been popular is because in order to support an EVF, CCD-based cameras had to sacrifice on image quality. With CMOS chips, that's slowly changing. I expect EVFs will be very popular with pros once the sensors are up to it.
The Canon A620 is a great little camera, but it doesn't come close to the R1 in high ISO settings. It also doesn't go anywhere near as wide.
Yes, the better image quality is nice too, but it's not _that_ huge a difference anymore
Actually, there is a huge difference in image quality between digital SLRs and other digital cameras at higher ISOs. For many serious photographers, that's the primary reason for using digital SLRs. The R1 promises to deliver that in a non-SLR design.
Why does that matter? SLRs have a number of problems, foremost mirror noise and lack of live preview. Something like the R1 could be a big success (although I think the R1 itself doesn't quite do the trick).
Sony's digital cameras tend to be excellent and often quite innovative. Their lenses are usually Zeiss lenses. And as for electronic imaging, Sony has been in that business for a long time.
The Rebel and Powershot cameras are excellent in many ways, but they "don't blow away everything on the market". Nikon's SLRs are competitive, and Powershot lacks a number of features that other cameras have.
As for the "SLR without interchangeable lenses", the R1 is not an SLR, it's a camera with a sensor that is also used in SLRs. Its lens has such a useful range (24-120) that many people will not need anything else.
But don't worry: over the next few years, you will see cameras like the R1 with interchangeable lenses; that is, non-SLR cameras with electronic viewfinders. The SLR design itself is pretty much obsolete at this point.
As for "geekiness" and number of lenses, I take most of my photos with a "normal" lens; I'd be overjoyed if someone produced a digital camera with an APS sensor and a fixed 35mm or 50mm equivalent lens. The closest I have been able to get to that is a Rebel XT with a 35mm/f2 mated to it (which is an excellent combo, but still larger than it needs to be).
Maybe the US is more liability-happy than most but here neglect only covers really stupid or dangerous acts, like leaving a well unsecured, poisionous chemicals around and the like.
You can be quite certain that if someone attacks any kind of important server from your IP address, you will be in a lot of trouble. At that point, it becomes almost academic whether you eventually can get out of it in court.
Their idea of "responsible" conflicts with my understanding of "fair use", "formatshifting", "timeshifting", "personal backup", "my property" and a host of other things. They want to lock it down so we can pay over and over again anyway,
How exactly does securing your access point conflict with "fair use"?
Anybody who takes information that isn't substantiated by verifiable background information as truth is a fool; it doesn't matter whether it's on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
As for Seigenthaler, I can understand his desire to track down the origin of this posting (it might have been a political smear campaign).
However, I think Seigenthaler has hurt himself pretty badly with his behavior. From someone who claims to be a staunch defender of first amendment rights, I do not expect his first reaction to be to publicly attack Wikipedia and rail against anonymous speech. He should have acted more prudently and cautiously.
What happens when someone of a low IQ decides to follow the instructions of "plug and play". I would suspect the manufacturers to be more responsible that the end user. For example, what about when grandma decides to take home a wireless router and she does not secure it and someone uses it for an illegal purpose?
Someone may be able to get away with that defense once or twice; after that, manufacturers will put big warning labels in their manuals and make the defaults more secure (that's already happening, actually).
How will the court convict someone who can't program a VCR? Where is the Mens Rea (guilty mind)? Sure, the act might be there, but was the intent?
Intent is not necessary; carelessness that harms others is sufficient for legal consequences and responsibility.
If cable companies are moving to digital content with television, it is only one step away from securing their whole network, so that nobody unauthorized can get on. Everything will be DRM'ed, and the network will be closed.
The more people behave irresponsibly with digital content, the more of an excuse those companies have. So, don't give these people an excuse.
I'm a CS student/TA/Network administrator (so I'm no electronics expert) but my solution would be very simple (a man in the middle attack):
I think you just made my point.