Comment You can add all the very you want (Score 2) 130
Yes, it's possible, but very very unlikely.
That means over a long enough time, it will happen.
Yes, it's possible, but very very unlikely.
That means over a long enough time, it will happen.
Isn't it the first thing they teach you in Criminal 101: Don't keep a journal!
Possibly, but in Criminal 504 (Profiting in the Long Term) they teach you KEEP a journal so you can write a fully revealing book later.
He may go to jail for a bit, but he can profit afterward - just hope he had the journal backed up somewhere they could not reach it.
He didn't remember the exact group he spoke to, so he said he was sorry if it was affiliated with the KKK... but it turned out it was not the same group at all.
If you'd only read the original link you responded to, you would know that also.
Good enough for 90% of clients out there. For the other 10%
My guess is 90% of people would agree that cookies made from ingredients are way better than the nasty packaged dough. Just like Hungry Man style meals are in decline...
12 minutes later, hot chocolate chip cookies.
Make cookies with a recipe that uses actual butter just once and compare them you to "Toll House" and you will never go back.
Plus you get to decide the kind and QUANTITY (hint: a lot) of chocolate you use in your own custom cookies. And it's really simple to just add a few things together to make real cookies.
You wouldn't grow your own wheat, sugar cane, raise chickensc, etc for the ingredients for your choclate chip cookies. Just go buy the dough from the store.
That's quite a leap man. No I would not grow my own sugar cane, but store bought dough is disgusting compared to small effort to make your own cookies from ingredients you buy at a store...
1) Most of the patrons in the bar are under canopies, out of view of the camera.
2) The camera is positioned explicitly so pretty much all the people you would be able to see - you are looking at their backs.
3) That camera is obviously about the view FROM the bar, not about the people there.
" Many bars employ photographers to wander through the crowd taking photos"
Name one, that is not in South Florida, with a Girls Gone Wild truck parked out front.
What I *can* see happening in "Many Bars" is a photographer first being assaulted and then being ejected for taking random photos of everyone there.
My point was that politics sometimes sometimes follow facts, often they don't, but that doesn't change the nature of the facts themselves.
Yes, totally agree.
Concluding "any facts politicians agree on must be wrong" is as stupid as suggesting the reverse.
Now there you lost me again. The link you provided was the very essence of that - PI as 3.2. I would claim that in general politicians are not scientists and you can say with 99% certainty that any bill such a group tries to pass related to science is going to range from wrong to horribly wrong.
Yes, in fact I would say ""any facts politicians agree on must be wrong", almost by definition!
The article linked says the bill implied Pi should be 3.2...
So you really want to bring that up in the context of a bill that claims humans cause substantial warming? Or that the warming we see is anything to be concerned about?
Observable reality is what it is, no matter how much a law rounds or chastises.
I've been around a few Glass users. I didn't find it creepy from the recording aspect since we are already recorded everywhere already anyway.
I do think it just plain looks ugly though, and bulky enough I wouldn't want it on my face. That was the thing I never got about Glass really - people generally don't wear glasses if they can help it, to the point where people have invasive laser surgery so they don't have to wear glasses... suddenly we are supposed to want to wear them all the time? It just never made much sense to me, not as much as watches do (not talking about the Apple Watch specifically, just the concept of a smart watch).
I can see glasses having some very specific HUD kinds of uses - like sunglasses for driving, or snow goggles each with very specific displays. But I just don't see it being a good form for general use for a wide range of people.
That's all true but for most people 28-50 pixels face is close enough, especially considering the burden carrying a real DSLR and lenses - even smaller mirrorless cameras mean a case and some weight. Some people will do it (I've done it) but fewer and fewer... the iPhone 6 plus IS also works pretty well for helping with lower light.
The iPhone burst capture also really helps with low light, I've used the same technique on "real" cameras where in a burst one will be sharp as it was taken at just the moment your hands stopped shaking briefly.
It also doesn't really matter if just 20% are keepers, because the images are easier to deal with on a smartphone (for most people). You don't have to go through the effort of getting them off the camera and deciding what you like, you can either deal with them in the moment or in brief moments while waiting for something.
What you say is true about digital zooms, you might was well crop - only now you are framing for the crop live on screen essentially, meaning no work later.
In thinking about photography for the masses, what most people want is zero work later. People who are not photographers want no post-process at all, so the closer anything gets to that the more people will use it.
Interesting that the advice to prepare for both Santa and SWAT are identical... Hmm.
Nobody is replacing their DSLRs with cell phones, within some small epsilon.
Quite a few people are, which is why the market is shrinking rapidly. Especially at the low end, which you just said...
if you try to use a cell phone to take photos of your kid's stage play, you'll annoy everyone by standing up in the front row
I've done just that - only from the back row. You can easily attach teleconverters if you want zoom, and frankly lots of people are willing to use digital zoom also. The result you get is much better than the 6x6 pixel thing you describe, even with digital zoom. The fact you can attach external lenses makes a smartphone as versatile as a DSLR to someone that would have only had one or two lenses anyway.
I also have a DSLR, and a lot of lenses. But I also use the iPhone for photography a lot because it is REALLY GOOD at that. Between custom software and an really excellent sensor, there are a number of times where honestly the iPhone is absolutely the best camera for the image at hand, and of course it is always with me which is the first requirement for taking good pictures.
This is incorrect. The process is called deconvolution.
Yes, I know about that...
It's limited by your knowledge of the len's point spread function
Which varies per lens and is different across the whole lens so GAME OVER MAN.
Hackers of the world, unite!