Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu (Score 1) 153

Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.

How does this excuse having a terrible interface?

You only think it's terrible because you don't need what it does. If you did, then you would think it's a great interface, because it does what you need. This is how I can tell you don't need a DSLR. You need a simplified, Fisher-Price camera. Sometimes those are great, and I have one. When I am just taking snapshots, that's what I use, because it is simple and good and small and light. I don't use the DSLR at all unless I need something it's got that the super zoom doesn't, like RAW. It doesn't have any more lens.

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands.

So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast.

Yes, that's what they have done. You're just seeing settings you don't need to change and thinking about how inconvenient all those settings are for you, because you think the universe revolves around your balls.

There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere.

You are completely incorrect. No camera has more than three or four levels of menus and I can navigate a menu structure like that much faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket. I may not have a spare hand at all, so the phone might not be an option at all. I can work my phone menus with one hand. I cannot work the phone and the camera at the same time with one hand.

Your solutions are dumb because they make the situation more complicated. All cameras will eventually have fancy-pants multitouch displays and then there will be absolutely no benefit whatsoever to phone interfaces. In the interim, that kind of functionality is of use only to a subset of users. If a brand did what you describe then the professionals would go elsewhere and the company would rapidly gain a reputation for making toys and then go away.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 604

Having no children is also sociopathic - because there would be no next generation of a society.

That would be true only if you couldn't count on other people having children. I'm not buying into eugenics arguments either; stupid people have smart kids and vice versa. It looks like intelligence is more environment than genetics. We need some people to breed. We should (as a species) stop being shit to women who don't breed, so that the ones who really want to (and preferably those who are good at it) can make babies. People doing a shit job of making babies and subsequently doing a shit job of raising them is why we can't have nice things.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 604

Yeah, we don't do things like dig huge holes under our homes,

With a backhoe. Ever used a backhoe? It makes digging a five foot trench trivial.

install piping that must be highly corrosion resistant,

You may have heard of this stuff called plastic.

and fight the continuous buildup of mold and other biological growths.

It's a non-issue due to constant air movement. But I guess you're smarter than the various people who are actually doing this already.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 604

Yikes! That's a wake up call right there. Always envisioned right-wing reactionary militants as the catalyzing agent for population reduction wars. Just goes to show that any authoritarian agents with power-centric ideologies they value above the sanctity of human life are dangerous as fuck.

You don't get it even slightly, do you? It's going to be the right-wingers who kill you for threatening the environment. Only complete fucking morons think that AGW is invented. The wealthy know that it's real. That's why, for example, Trump is concerned about climate change threatening his golf course. One of the final acts of the Bush administration was to formally acknowledge AGW. The left will keep trying to keep everyone alive, fed, and the like right up until the planet becomes unlivable. The wealthy, on the other hand, have no compunctions about throwing you into the log chipper as the first step on the way to becoming soylent green.

Comment Re:Checklist marketing (Score 5, Informative) 153

What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all?

Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists. Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem. If you find DSLR settings confusing, you would almost certainly do just fine with a super zoom compact.

You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands. I might be on a moving vehicle. I might be in a constricted space where I can't let the camera go and let it hang on its strap. I might need to change the setting faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket.

Comment Re:Features you don't need (Score 2) 153

If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone.

No. NO NO NO. Photographers already have to deal with their gear being fiddly. They don't want to have to have their phone out so that they can get the full interface to their camera. That would be beyond idiotic.

It's very easy to fix this kind of problem, make people drill down further for the more advanced features. There's no need to take anything out.

Comment Re:CAGW in a nutshell (Score 2) 604

The 'skeptics' point to the observed reality and show that the dire predictions made in the past don't come close to observed behavior,

The problem with this idea is that they're cherry-picking predictions. There are dire predictions which do come close to observed behavior, and these are the ones we've been using most often. The way in which they don't match observed behavior is that observed behavior is actually worse. For example, polar ice is melting substantially faster than predicted by any credible model. If you don't think this change in albedo is going to have additional effects, you're not thinking.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 604

In contrast, keeping a house warmer than the outside is much cheaper. Humans with no technology are 100W heaters. All other machines that we put in a house generate heat as a waste product. With modern insulation, it's very easy to reduce the outflow of heat. Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.

It's very easy to keep a house cooler than the outside cheaply. You sink ducts into the ground where they get cooled to 50 degrees, and you use slow, low-power fans to move that air into your house. Sadly, we don't do this, nor do we install adequate insulation into most homes. They are overwhelmingly still insulated with fiberglass, which is practically ancient technology today.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 5, Interesting) 604

Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not).

Why would you think that? Having children is a sociopathic act when we're overpopulated. At our current level of behavior, Earth is over its carrying capacity. People having children aren't thinking of society, they're thinking of themselves.

Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die?

That, in turn, is only because they are stupid and ignorant. It should be obvious that we are all living on the same planet.

Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.

Herd animals are easy to panic. That's why appeals to emotion work. If you tried them with predators, you'd just get your face bitten off.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 604

Why the hell should anyone care about abstract "people"?

Because they are "people"

If they don't, I argue that they aren't actually people, and we'd be better off without them. AKA you.

Another argument is that sooner or later the men with guns are going to realize that the environment has to be protected. And then they will find that you muck up the numbers, and will have to be removed from the equation in order to make them come out correctly. Buh-bye!

Comment Re:Only time will tell (Score 1) 604

These have been increases in temperatures.

What have?

This implies global warming.

What does?

Since we are still at the infant stage of understanding and accurately predicting what will happen over mid to long spans of time it's best to stop arguing,

Actually, we're well past infant. We can make pretty good predictions. The only way in which they aren't very good is that things are actually getting worse faster than predicted.

try to pollute less since that just makes sense,

To a lot of people, it doesn't. Consequently...

and enjoy our lives.

I'm trying, but people who don't believe in polluting less are making it difficult. That's why we need to force them to behave better. And that's why we need to argue about it.

Life is too damn short to fight about issues primarily created and controlled by oil, gas, and energy corporations.

This issue was created by physics. Try to keep up.

Comment Re:So global warming started... (Score 1) 604

It is because we burned all that that we sit here with 2016 technology not dying of different diseases and injuries and infections and feeding many multiples of people per acre than they did.

No. That's only because we burned some of that. Most of what we burned, we burned for profit and greed, not human advancement as a species. Not even accidentally. Most of the unnecessary energy output goes directly to padding pockets.

Comment Re:Shows cumulative as well. (Score 2) 604

So many like to point to industrial revolution for causing this.

That's because humans now emit more CO2 than volcanism.

Yet, what this study is really saying is that for centuries, if not millenniums, man had been overwhelming nature and slowly breaking down its ability to absorb the co2.

Yes, that is also true. We were deforesting the planet in pursuit of war. Most of the really heavy deforestation came when the big countries went naval warfare. We were cutting them down, making them into boats, then putting them out into the ocean and sinking them and losing that wood forever.

Of course, today we're still doing the equivalent; just try getting a permit to cut down a tree in Japan and use it for something, but they are buying California's redwoods as fast as they can be shipped over there. Then they are coating them in tar and sinking them under the ocean for storage. What are the odds that some cataclysm will remove them from the equation? Pretty goddamn good in Japan. We're cutting down the redwoods for nothing, as a species. Just to move some numbers around.

If there were such a thing as karma, humanity would deserve to die.

Slashdot Top Deals

If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke

Working...