The bargains with analog are all on the equipment end. But over time, the cost of film wasted + cost of development (not the mention time spent developing) overtakes the equipment costs of digital photography. Of course, you do still get much higher quality with analog (especially using medium or large format!) when making large prints.
If your goals are to take 1000s of pictures of your cat (like my wife does), then I completely agree. And obviously digital makes a lot of sense for the professional who also makes 1000s of exposures a year. I personally have different goals-- I shoot less exposures and try to get more keepers that turn into frameable pieces of art.
Providing that your film-holders are all in spec, putting the sheet at the same plane as your ground-glass, that the guides are holding it flat, and that you aren't one of those wierdo's who's stashed a freezer full of Super-XX from the 70s(nice tones, but hardly sharp) or shooting Efke 25 (for any LF stopped down for depth of field, exposures long enough that rocks get bored and start to fidget) You might actually get sharper pictures from a decent medium-format, just due to film-flatness issues. Calumet roll backs, Pentax67, or RB 67s are pretty cheap, and have the same aspect ratio (roughly) as 4x5. Plus you can afford color film for those.
I also shoot with a Mamiya C220. And I have a Calumet C2 roll back. The problems you mention might happen if you shoot with garbage equipment. Film holders, even older used ones, are usually fine. I've checked many with a caliber.
After spending all day in front of the computer, I just love going into my darkroom to make some real silver halide prints instead of staring at Photoshop. With today's bargain prices for analog photography, I encourage people to jump in! I got an enlarger for $75 at a garage sale. With 4x5" negatives from my large-format camera, the prints are stunning. (a 4x5" negative gives about 200+ megapixels of resolution).
Another example of piss-poor game journalism. I can care less about emotional attachment. When it comes to gaming, artificial intelligence is grossly inferior to human intelligence.
I believe the War Powers Act only applies to "declarations of war". For example, Vietnam was not a war and did not need approval from congress. The last declaration of war was WWII. The only thing that needs approval is budgeting appropriations.
Regardless, failing to check the mistakes of the Executive Branch is a failure in itself, but not as serious as the mistake itself.
Yes, I had thought about that. However the President is the "Commander in Chief". He can send troops without Congress approval. Congress voted to fund the troops, arguably on cooked intelligence.
If that is the case, you would have to tell it to every Democrat that voted for the war as well.
They trusted their leadership. Consider a CEO at a big company who was pushing for a huge agenda. Would you hold the underlings, "supporting" the CEO's agenda, just as accountable as the CEO?
I agree with you. I use Linux every day, all day, on my workstation at work. I've tried using Linux as my home desktop OS on and off since 1995. Yup...too clunky. $200 for Windows XP Pro is chump change. Well worth the money IMHO.
Never have I seen papers or research that implies the number of system calls correlates to security. What's next, implying MS-DOS is more secure than Linux based on numbers of system calls and lines of code?
Yes indeed. Good hardware + good drivers, Windows "just works". I used Windows NT 4.0 for nearly 4 years without seeing a single BSOD. I used Windows 2000 for 3 years without a BSOD. Windows XP never crashes either on my HP Pavilion.
The only time I've seen BSOD is with a home-built VIA-based machine that used lousy drivers written by a teenager in Taiwan.
I hate to say it, but the Linux device driver model is inferior to Windows. Many device drivers directly access things in task_struct. Of course fields often change between Linux kernel releases. You ever wonder why nVidia drivers are so problematic across different kernel releases? Yes, this is no problem if every device driver is open-source and recompiled with each kernel release. Sorry, but the entire world does not accept open-source, including nVidia.
Windows isn't perfect, but the Windows 2000/XP/Vista device driver model is fairly good. For the most part, nVidia device drivers released in 6 years ago will still work with the latest "service pack" of Windows XP.
Furthermore, Microsoft has worked hard on static model checking of device driver code. Anything that gets Microsoft-certified (or whatever) has passed the static model checker.
GE has a wonderful ip range. 3.0.0.0/8
Now, i believe that's more than China has;)
Yup. Its insane the GE has more IP addresses allocated than most other countries. When I was an intern there, I pinged until I found the lowest active IP address. I don't remember exactly what it was, but is was not 3.1.1.1. Not positive, but 2.x.x.x and 1.x.x.x are unused? The one division of GE I interned at had over 3000 subnets alone.
I heard of General Electric doing this at a few of their old, large buildings because the AC wiring couldn't handle power-demand of the next PC upgrade cycle. Instead of incurring the cost of rewiring the entire building, they installed low-power terminals at desks. Makes sense to me. GE has some very old office buildings (they are an old company!).
I first tried Linux in 1995 (Slackware). It was cool, but the install lasted a few weeks. Used HP-UX at work/school for most of the next 4 years. My home PC ran Windows NT 4.0 for most of the following 4 years. I never saw one crash or BSOD with NT 4.0. Stable as a rock.
Nonetheless, I tried Linux on my home PC again in 1999 (Redhat). Install lasted about a month. Tried Linux on my home PC again in 2001 (Debian). Better, but not as good as Windows 2000. Win2K was a great Microsoft release....just as stable as NT 4.0, but now games actually worked. Woot!
Tried Linux on my home PC again in 2003. Nope...getting hardware to work still took too much of my time. And I'm a techie.
During much of the past 6 years, Linux evangelists have proclaimed it "is ready for the desktop". Well I have used Linux on my desktop at work for the past 6 years. Yes, a great technical platform for scientific computing and software development. But sorry, unless things really have changed in the last 3 years, Linux is not an OS for casual home use. I keep trying, but I keep going back to Windows. Ubuntu looks promising, but I've been sold on a lot of promises.
Note: I've never had a Windows 95/98/Me product on any of my machines.
I was under the impression that the XBox360 was a far better value for $399. Especially since games look the same and that many game developers (including Carmack) are whispering that the 360 performs better than the PS3.
But then I realized that if you want to connect the 360 via 802.11, they want an additional $99 for a WiFi adapter!! Now we are up to $499 and getting to the PS3 price range. And WiFi is included with the PS3...
I have the exact opposite experience, especially when it comes to power supplies.
Yes, the BIOS options are scaled down, and if you need support, dealing with the OEM is a pain. Frankly I don't care to tinker with BIOS anymore and I can support myself.
Things have gotten less proprietary in the last 5 years IMHO.
I built my own machines for a long time. But sometime last year I realized I could buy an HP machine from Circuit City for way less money. For $550, I got a machine that had a CPU that, at the time, cost over $300 alone from newegg.com for the identical model (AMD X2). For the extra $250, I got 1GB ram, 250GB disk, case/PSU/nifty_media_ports, DVD-Burner, and a license of WinXP Media Center edition.
The machine is rock solid. I added a recent, high-power video card and the stock power supply didn't flinch a bit. This is consistent with a prior Dell machine I used to own (1GHz PIII). The little 200-watt power supply held up and provided stable power no matter what I threw at it, including a Geforce4 Ti4400 (state-of-the-art back then) and filling the machine with 4 hard drives. Meanwhile all my friends were replacing 400-watt power supplies that couldn't keep their machines stable when adding new hardware.
If its your hobby and you get enjoyment out of home-built machines, then thats great and more power to you. But it no longer makes economic sense to DIY machines.
I know this. But using the T1000 Niagara processor as an example platform for a scientific programming language is just plain wrong!
My experience with the Niagara is that your program better have NO serial bottlenecks. A parallel, 32-thread make of Firefox is twice as slow as a 2-threaded make of Firefox on a Core 2 Duo.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or ignorant. One of Sun's latest jewels is the 8 core Niagara and it behooves them to come up with ways of keeping all 8 cores going on a processor.
And Sun's latest 8-core jewel, the Niagara T1000, has a _single_ floating-point unit shared by all eight cores. Running scientific codes on the Niagara is not a good way with keeping all 8 cores busy!
Game developers I know say the same thing. In fact they go further in claiming that the PS3 has serious GPU issues causing them to treat the PS3 inferior to the Xbox360 when it comes to programming for the lowest common denominator.
No, different foams were used. There is an entire PDF report on foam somewhere on NASA's website that I've read. I wish I had the link. Your selective reading is only for the "domes, ramps, and areas where foam is applied by hand". That is a small fraction of the tank. The other report I read a couple years ago basically says they mucked around with foam formulations multiple times in the mid-90s for environmental reasons.
I don't read FoxNews or any other conservative source. I'm pretty liberal. Pollution due to spaceflight represents a TINY portion. I just can't believe NASA engineers are mucking around with designs to be environmentally friendly. Just insane if you ask me. If there were supply issues with the original formulations, fine. But from what I've read, the decision to muck with the foam formulations was based on environmental concerns rather than supply chain issues.
I voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and most other Democratic candidates. Did you not read the NASA link I posted? The fact is, foam never fell off in big chunks when the freon-based methods were used. NASA can try and cover their asses all they want. The link is obvious.
And the parent poster apparently goes to great lengths to design around electrolytic caps based on his political views where maybe his resources would be better spent elsewhere.
Yet another NASA engineer who potentially compromises the design of a spacecraft in the name of environmentalism. You wanna know why the Space Shuttle is having all these recent foam problems that crashed the Colombia? Because they switched the formula to remove freon in order to be more environmental even though the EPA gave NASA a special waiver. The original design worked, but it used freon in the foam. Don't believe me? Here is a journal entry from NASA's website in 1997!!!: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/ka tnik/sts87-12-23.html
During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of "foaming" the external tank had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter. Foam cause damage to a ceramic tile?! That seems unlikely, however when that foam is combined with a flight velocity between speeds of MACH two to MACH four, it becomes a projectile with incredible damage potential. The big question? At what phase of the flight did it happen and what changes need to be made to correct this for future missions? I will explain the entire process.
Yet somehow this never got mentioned by the mass media back when Colombia disintegrated over Texas.
Slashdot Mirror
The bargains with analog are all on the equipment end. But over time, the cost of film wasted + cost of development (not the mention time spent developing) overtakes the equipment costs of digital photography. Of course, you do still get much higher quality with analog (especially using medium or large format!) when making large prints.
If your goals are to take 1000s of pictures of your cat (like my wife does), then I completely agree. And obviously digital makes a lot of sense for the professional who also makes 1000s of exposures a year. I personally have different goals-- I shoot less exposures and try to get more keepers that turn into frameable pieces of art.
Providing that your film-holders are all in spec, putting the sheet at the same plane as your ground-glass, that the guides are holding it flat, and that you aren't one of those wierdo's who's stashed a freezer full of Super-XX from the 70s(nice tones, but hardly sharp) or shooting Efke 25 (for any LF stopped down for depth of field, exposures long enough that rocks get bored and start to fidget) You might actually get sharper pictures from a decent medium-format, just due to film-flatness issues. Calumet roll backs, Pentax67, or RB 67s are pretty cheap, and have the same aspect ratio (roughly) as 4x5. Plus you can afford color film for those.
I also shoot with a Mamiya C220. And I have a Calumet C2 roll back. The problems you mention might happen if you shoot with garbage equipment. Film holders, even older used ones, are usually fine. I've checked many with a caliber.
After spending all day in front of the computer, I just love going into my darkroom to make some real silver halide prints instead of staring at Photoshop. With today's bargain prices for analog photography, I encourage people to jump in! I got an enlarger for $75 at a garage sale. With 4x5" negatives from my large-format camera, the prints are stunning. (a 4x5" negative gives about 200+ megapixels of resolution).
Yesterday I sat in a coffee shop for 3 hours. I heard two groups of people discuss who they thought was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
Another example of piss-poor game journalism. I can care less about emotional attachment. When it comes to gaming, artificial intelligence is grossly inferior to human intelligence.
I believe the War Powers Act only applies to "declarations of war". For example, Vietnam was not a war and did not need approval from congress. The last declaration of war was WWII. The only thing that needs approval is budgeting appropriations.
Regardless, failing to check the mistakes of the Executive Branch is a failure in itself, but not as serious as the mistake itself.
Yes, I had thought about that. However the President is the "Commander in Chief". He can send troops without Congress approval. Congress voted to fund the troops, arguably on cooked intelligence.
If that is the case, you would have to tell it to every Democrat that voted for the war as well.
They trusted their leadership. Consider a CEO at a big company who was pushing for a huge agenda. Would you hold the underlings, "supporting" the CEO's agenda, just as accountable as the CEO?
I agree with you. I use Linux every day, all day, on my workstation at work. I've tried using Linux as my home desktop OS on and off since 1995. Yup...too clunky. $200 for Windows XP Pro is chump change. Well worth the money IMHO.
Never have I seen papers or research that implies the number of system calls correlates to security. What's next, implying MS-DOS is more secure than Linux based on numbers of system calls and lines of code?
Yes indeed. Good hardware + good drivers, Windows "just works". I used Windows NT 4.0 for nearly 4 years without seeing a single BSOD. I used Windows 2000 for 3 years without a BSOD. Windows XP never crashes either on my HP Pavilion.
The only time I've seen BSOD is with a home-built VIA-based machine that used lousy drivers written by a teenager in Taiwan.
I hate to say it, but the Linux device driver model is inferior to Windows. Many device drivers directly access things in task_struct. Of course fields often change between Linux kernel releases. You ever wonder why nVidia drivers are so problematic across different kernel releases? Yes, this is no problem if every device driver is open-source and recompiled with each kernel release. Sorry, but the entire world does not accept open-source, including nVidia.
Windows isn't perfect, but the Windows 2000/XP/Vista device driver model is fairly good. For the most part, nVidia device drivers released in 6 years ago will still work with the latest "service pack" of Windows XP.
Furthermore, Microsoft has worked hard on static model checking of device driver code. Anything that gets Microsoft-certified (or whatever) has passed the static model checker.
GE has a wonderful ip range. 3.0.0.0/8 ;)
Now, i believe that's more than China has
Yup. Its insane the GE has more IP addresses allocated than most other countries. When I was an intern there, I pinged until I found the lowest active IP address. I don't remember exactly what it was, but is was not 3.1.1.1. Not positive, but 2.x.x.x and 1.x.x.x are unused? The one division of GE I interned at had over 3000 subnets alone.
I heard of General Electric doing this at a few of their old, large buildings because the AC wiring couldn't handle power-demand of the next PC upgrade cycle. Instead of incurring the cost of rewiring the entire building, they installed low-power terminals at desks. Makes sense to me. GE has some very old office buildings (they are an old company!).
I first tried Linux in 1995 (Slackware). It was cool, but the install lasted a few weeks. Used HP-UX at work/school for most of the next 4 years. My home PC ran Windows NT 4.0 for most of the following 4 years. I never saw one crash or BSOD with NT 4.0. Stable as a rock.
Nonetheless, I tried Linux on my home PC again in 1999 (Redhat). Install lasted about a month. Tried Linux on my home PC again in 2001 (Debian). Better, but not as good as Windows 2000. Win2K was a great Microsoft release....just as stable as NT 4.0, but now games actually worked. Woot!
Tried Linux on my home PC again in 2003. Nope...getting hardware to work still took too much of my time. And I'm a techie.
During much of the past 6 years, Linux evangelists have proclaimed it "is ready for the desktop". Well I have used Linux on my desktop at work for the past 6 years. Yes, a great technical platform for scientific computing and software development. But sorry, unless things really have changed in the last 3 years, Linux is not an OS for casual home use. I keep trying, but I keep going back to Windows. Ubuntu looks promising, but I've been sold on a lot of promises.
Note: I've never had a Windows 95/98/Me product on any of my machines.
I was under the impression that the XBox360 was a far better value for $399. Especially since games look the same and that many game developers (including Carmack) are whispering that the 360 performs better than the PS3.
But then I realized that if you want to connect the 360 via 802.11, they want an additional $99 for a WiFi adapter!! Now we are up to $499 and getting to the PS3 price range. And WiFi is included with the PS3...
I have the exact opposite experience, especially when it comes to power supplies.
Yes, the BIOS options are scaled down, and if you need support, dealing with the OEM is a pain. Frankly I don't care to tinker with BIOS anymore and I can support myself.
Things have gotten less proprietary in the last 5 years IMHO.
I built my own machines for a long time. But sometime last year I realized I could buy an HP machine from Circuit City for way less money. For $550, I got a machine that had a CPU that, at the time, cost over $300 alone from newegg.com for the identical model (AMD X2). For the extra $250, I got 1GB ram, 250GB disk, case/PSU/nifty_media_ports, DVD-Burner, and a license of WinXP Media Center edition.
The machine is rock solid. I added a recent, high-power video card and the stock power supply didn't flinch a bit. This is consistent with a prior Dell machine I used to own (1GHz PIII). The little 200-watt power supply held up and provided stable power no matter what I threw at it, including a Geforce4 Ti4400 (state-of-the-art back then) and filling the machine with 4 hard drives. Meanwhile all my friends were replacing 400-watt power supplies that couldn't keep their machines stable when adding new hardware.
If its your hobby and you get enjoyment out of home-built machines, then thats great and more power to you. But it no longer makes economic sense to DIY machines.
I know this. But using the T1000 Niagara processor as an example platform for a scientific programming language is just plain wrong!
My experience with the Niagara is that your program better have NO serial bottlenecks. A parallel, 32-thread make of Firefox is twice as slow as a 2-threaded make of Firefox on a Core 2 Duo.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or ignorant. One of Sun's latest jewels is the 8 core Niagara and it behooves them to come up with ways of keeping all 8 cores going on a processor.
And Sun's latest 8-core jewel, the Niagara T1000, has a _single_ floating-point unit shared by all eight cores. Running scientific codes on the Niagara is not a good way with keeping all 8 cores busy!
Game developers I know say the same thing. In fact they go further in claiming that the PS3 has serious GPU issues causing them to treat the PS3 inferior to the Xbox360 when it comes to programming for the lowest common denominator.
No, different foams were used. There is an entire PDF report on foam somewhere on NASA's website that I've read. I wish I had the link. Your selective reading is only for the "domes, ramps, and areas where foam is applied by hand". That is a small fraction of the tank. The other report I read a couple years ago basically says they mucked around with foam formulations multiple times in the mid-90s for environmental reasons.
I don't read FoxNews or any other conservative source. I'm pretty liberal. Pollution due to spaceflight represents a TINY portion. I just can't believe NASA engineers are mucking around with designs to be environmentally friendly. Just insane if you ask me. If there were supply issues with the original formulations, fine. But from what I've read, the decision to muck with the foam formulations was based on environmental concerns rather than supply chain issues.
Yes, I agree, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and most other Democratic candidates. Did you not read the NASA link I posted? The fact is, foam never fell off in big chunks when the freon-based methods were used. NASA can try and cover their asses all they want. The link is obvious.
And the parent poster apparently goes to great lengths to design around electrolytic caps based on his political views where maybe his resources would be better spent elsewhere.
Yet another NASA engineer who potentially compromises the design of a spacecraft in the name of environmentalism. You wanna know why the Space Shuttle is having all these recent foam problems that crashed the Colombia? Because they switched the formula to remove freon in order to be more environmental even though the EPA gave NASA a special waiver. The original design worked, but it used freon in the foam. Don't believe me? Here is a journal entry from NASA's website in 1997!!!: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/ka tnik/sts87-12-23.html
During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of "foaming" the external tank had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter. Foam cause damage to a ceramic tile?! That seems unlikely, however when that foam is combined with a flight velocity between speeds of MACH two to MACH four, it becomes a projectile with incredible damage potential. The big question? At what phase of the flight did it happen and what changes need to be made to correct this for future missions? I will explain the entire process.
Yet somehow this never got mentioned by the mass media back when Colombia disintegrated over Texas.