I'm defining a professional as someone whose priorities are stability and security, and it's *easy* to install debian-stable and add security.debian.org to/etc/apt/sources.list.
To get the speed benefits of Gentoo, you have to devote considerable time to compiling it once for every machine configuration you run, and last time I checked (and the Gentoo website says that this is still the case), "emerge --security" was still a pipedream. See http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/index.xml
Have you checked their T&Cs? If by clicking to submitting a paper to their site you automatically grant them a license to do what they want with it, your copyright becomes irrelevant.
I've never heard of unmetered calls being offered anywhere outside the US, although I'm sure there are places. Certainly I can't think of any countries in Europe where this is offered.
I've got the Bluetooth specification open in front of me, and I can't see how to get 5.7Mb/s, even without taking protocol overhead into account. Assuming you want synchronous data transfer, the maximum I can see is 384kb/s (one HV3 packet every time slot). 44.1kHz 16 bit stereo sound is 1.4Mb/s. You'd have to make a lot of compromises on sound quality to get it down to a transmissible speed. Unless you suggest transmitting the compressed audio and expecting the car to have built-in decoders for all current and future popular compressed audio formats?
Except Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for high-quality audio. You'd have to cope with your music collection sounding like it's being played to you over the phone.
Ah... ironically, in Britain, American cars have the reputation of doing about ten miles to the gallon and belching out pollution as if global warming was a left-wing conspiracy;-)
Apparently, people are allowed to say "this show rocked" without providing their reasons, but you can't say "this show was pretty lame" without being attacked for not backing up your claim.
Is the air-tight seal vacuum-tight though? If there's any gas inside the cartridge then it'll pop apart when the pressure drops, after which it's not much use for shooting things with...
Yay for disinformation indeed. Henry VIII had six wives. The pope granted him a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, but three wives later refused him a second one - it was only at this point that he founded the Church of England. All three of his surviving children gained the throne at some point after his death; "Bloody" Mary was the second, following the death of her younger brother Edward VI. After Mary herself died childless, Elizabeth I became the last Tudor monarch.
You were right about Henry's catholicism though - Britain only really became a protestant country under Elizabeth, although Edward VI made the attempt.
OK, I agree that when you need to photograph fast-moving objects close to the camera with a short depth of field or in low light, and aren't able to set the focus up in advance (ie you don't know how far away those objects are going to be), AF cameras are better. That's not a very common occurrence in my experience, but YMMV, etc.
I also agree that in practically all other circumstances, AF cameras are as good as manual cameras once you know how to use them properly.
That one advantage of AF over manual isn't enough to persuade me to pay the hundreds-of-dollars premium that a decent AF camera and lens setup incurs over a decent manual camera and lens collection (which I already have), and frankly I think that 9/10 new photographers would be better off saving the money too.
With a manual camera you can't turn AF on, so you'd miss all of the fast-moving shots.
Most AF cameras are pretty crappy as far as focussing manually goes - focussing aids such as the split prism and microprism collar that were common twenty years ago are virtually unheard of today, and the focussing screens in modern cameras are often made of optical fibre bundles or microlenses rather than ground glass, producing a much brighter image, but making it much harder to judge focus.
As far as your claim above goes, with a manual camera you'd select a narrower aperture perhaps, and then keep your camera focussed on the hyperfocal distance. Now unless your subject comes closer to you than half that distance, it will remain in focus and you can get your fast-moving shots just as well as with an AF camera
Sure there are some good reasons for getting AF (I'll probably bite the bullet when my eyesight starts to go in about thirty years' time), but in my experience, 99% of the time, photographers use AF as a way to avoid having to learn how a camera actually works.
And I disagree with you.:-) The overwhelming majority of people who buy auto-everything SLRs never bother learning to do things manually. I think you're the exception, not the rule. Having said that, I think the thing that makes the *real* difference is how motivated one is to become a good photographer - that's far more important than what tool you choose to use.
If you're trying to fit a lens with a larger mount to a camera with a smaller mount, your adaptor will have to act as a short extension tube, which probably isn't what you want for general use. So it's not as simple as you make out, in practice.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the section where the author compares his design qualitatively to conventional Newtonian and Cassegrain designs?
READ THE ARTICLE!
No trolling intended. :-)
/etc/apt/sources.list.
I'm defining a professional as someone whose priorities are stability and security, and it's *easy* to install debian-stable and add security.debian.org to
To get the speed benefits of Gentoo, you have to devote considerable time to compiling it once for every machine configuration you run, and last time I checked (and the Gentoo website says that this is still the case), "emerge --security" was still a pipedream. See http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/index.xml
Gentoo is for hobbyists. The majority of Apache servers on the internet are set up and maintained by professionals.
Why do you assume it's just for a floppy drive? You could stick a flash-card reader or something in there.
Dude, they're just numbers. It's not as if the number of zeros on your banknotes is an indicator of your country's average wang size.
Have you checked their T&Cs? If by clicking to submitting a paper to their site you automatically grant them a license to do what they want with it, your copyright becomes irrelevant.
Most of their advertising was aimed at the gadget-oriented 18-25 male market, ie lots of snowboarders taking air on mountains, etc etc.
Nobody rich is going to be seen dead wearing a Swatch.
The point of RFID ski passes is that you never have to show them.
All in all, I fail to see your point.
Swatch have been making them for years.
I've never heard of unmetered calls being offered anywhere outside the US, although I'm sure there are places. Certainly I can't think of any countries in Europe where this is offered.
I've got the Bluetooth specification open in front of me, and I can't see how to get 5.7Mb/s, even without taking protocol overhead into account. Assuming you want synchronous data transfer, the maximum I can see is 384kb/s (one HV3 packet every time slot). 44.1kHz 16 bit stereo sound is 1.4Mb/s. You'd have to make a lot of compromises on sound quality to get it down to a transmissible speed. Unless you suggest transmitting the compressed audio and expecting the car to have built-in decoders for all current and future popular compressed audio formats?
Except Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for high-quality audio. You'd have to cope with your music collection sounding like it's being played to you over the phone.
You're using a very odd definition of "profitable" if you think that profit is not affected by a drop in costs.
Ah... ironically, in Britain, American cars have the reputation of doing about ten miles to the gallon and belching out pollution as if global warming was a left-wing conspiracy ;-)
Wha? Can someone explain this?
Apparently, people are allowed to say "this show rocked" without providing their reasons, but you can't say "this show was pretty lame" without being attacked for not backing up your claim.
;-)
Well yes, and that's because the show rocked
Is the air-tight seal vacuum-tight though? If there's any gas inside the cartridge then it'll pop apart when the pressure drops, after which it's not much use for shooting things with...
Yay for disinformation indeed. Henry VIII had six wives. The pope granted him a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, but three wives later refused him a second one - it was only at this point that he founded the Church of England. All three of his surviving children gained the throne at some point after his death; "Bloody" Mary was the second, following the death of her younger brother Edward VI. After Mary herself died childless, Elizabeth I became the last Tudor monarch.
You were right about Henry's catholicism though - Britain only really became a protestant country under Elizabeth, although Edward VI made the attempt.
OK, I agree that when you need to photograph fast-moving objects close to the camera with a short depth of field or in low light, and aren't able to set the focus up in advance (ie you don't know how far away those objects are going to be), AF cameras are better. That's not a very common occurrence in my experience, but YMMV, etc.
I also agree that in practically all other circumstances, AF cameras are as good as manual cameras once you know how to use them properly.
That one advantage of AF over manual isn't enough to persuade me to pay the hundreds-of-dollars premium that a decent AF camera and lens setup incurs over a decent manual camera and lens collection (which I already have), and frankly I think that 9/10 new photographers would be better off saving the money too.
I remember thinking i'll sell all my canon gear if Pentax released a digital SLR
They have released one; it's called the "*ist D".
With a manual camera you can't turn AF on, so you'd miss all of the fast-moving shots.
Most AF cameras are pretty crappy as far as focussing manually goes - focussing aids such as the split prism and microprism collar that were common twenty years ago are virtually unheard of today, and the focussing screens in modern cameras are often made of optical fibre bundles or microlenses rather than ground glass, producing a much brighter image, but making it much harder to judge focus.
As far as your claim above goes, with a manual camera you'd select a narrower aperture perhaps, and then keep your camera focussed on the hyperfocal distance. Now unless your subject comes closer to you than half that distance, it will remain in focus and you can get your fast-moving shots just as well as with an AF camera
Sure there are some good reasons for getting AF (I'll probably bite the bullet when my eyesight starts to go in about thirty years' time), but in my experience, 99% of the time, photographers use AF as a way to avoid having to learn how a camera actually works.
I meant "all features common to both." D'oh! Still, it doesn't seem to have prevented my upkarmaing...
And I disagree with you. :-) The overwhelming majority of people who buy auto-everything SLRs never bother learning to do things manually. I think you're the exception, not the rule. Having said that, I think the thing that makes the *real* difference is how motivated one is to become a good photographer - that's far more important than what tool you choose to use.
If you're trying to fit a lens with a larger mount to a camera with a smaller mount, your adaptor will have to act as a short extension tube, which probably isn't what you want for general use. So it's not as simple as you make out, in practice.
There are usually several K1000s listed on ebay at any given time.