Considering the first graphical web browser was written for the Next Operating system, I'm going to assume that your stupid little rant is to make you feel better about hating Windows (wow! aren't you a rebel!) and less about anything to do with software development... of which you obviously know nothing.

I was waiting for somebody to fall into the "BUT LIBRARIES!" trap...

You do realize that you just said that Windows 8 now follows the UNIX PHILOSOPHY because boy oh boy does it have libraries!

Oh... but you didn't really mean that you say? You meant.. MODULAR instead right? Well in that case, if you actually knew anything about SystemD, you would know that it *is* modular almost to a fault so that's no it either.

It sounds great in theory but...
1. If you really buy that principle and want to enforce it religiously, then please never use a web browser again (even Lynx!), not to mention any other complex program that isn't formed from a bunch of small "do one thing well!" utilities that are executed in a pipeline.

2. Please tear up your Richard Stallman fanclub cards because what little software he's written has mostly been Emacs and Emacs is the anti-UNIX based on the "pure" UNIX philosophy.

That't the issue: Every single person who hates SystemD because "UNIX PHILOSOPHY!!" has no problem violating that philosophy to actually get things done in a whole bunch of other areas. That's not even bringing up the fact that SystemD is.. wait for it... built from a bunch of individual utilities that can actually be used by non-systemd programs.

Oh the irony.

FBI's penis recognition system has to receive its funding yet.

Are these comfortable suits cheaper than normal clothing from automated production lines that I find equally comfortable? If they aren't as cheap, what is the justification for suffering the increased cost? What utilitarian value are they going to bring? (And increased washing costs and smug feeling about wearing fancy dresses don't count.)

You could as well ask the opposite question: what's wrong with not wearing a suit?

Would that be satisfied with me wearing a pocket protector? :-p

Again, if they are "usual", there can't be anything wrong with them, so what's the problem with wearing those?

What are you talking about? We're talking about perspective here! This is not about object size, not even about object size in the picture. It is especially not about detail size because the topic is how the photo object changes when the camera distance changes while changing the focal length so that the details have exactly the same size.

As I said, go get a refresher on geometry.

I don't see how that is related to you being dumb. :-p

Using KH-11? ;-) It's close enough, anyway.

You've just publicly proven that you're a moron. Does that make you happy?

Based on your "logic", you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to hide something using perspective from across a room. You also nonsensically talk about "close-ups" when pictures of objects taken using lenses of different focal lengths can actually have the same dimension in the photos, with only the amount of perspective being different. Perhaps you need a refresher on geometry?

If I'm not mistaken, the parallax explanation would require a distance of the button side of no more than 35 cm from the lens' front principal plane. Doesn't it at least suggest that they tried fairly hard to consciously push the perspective? The usual 100mm macro lens would only be able to fit it in diagonally, I think.

Yeah, I'm sure the postdoc herself would prefer a somewhat more polished text.

It's the Dawg Star, but navigating with it will be difficult. Too dim.

And you're puzzled by that? It runs Linux! ;-)