Quite obvious why the government bought the bullshit, as it fits well with some of the the absurd narratives of the current administration
ROFL!!! The only thing better than a politically unassailable excuse is a big, bold lie or, more accurately, a firehose of big, bold lies.
It sounds to me like he doesn't even know what the word "recant" means.
...or the words "rampant", "whiner" and "winner". He needs a dictionary in his Christmas stocking.
for the good of the community can transfer to Liberty U.
Speaking of Inner Fascism, your transfer would be to the "renowned" Hillsdale College.
Just your worthless opinion.
Come back in 8 years and I'll apologize if you were right.
You had best apologize now because in 8 years there will be nothing left of "Our Country". I do hope you enjoy living in Donaldland.
Yes, troll. Out of the last 50 hotels I have stayed in, perhaps two had charges that were very minimal.
My point is that offensive and exorbitant wi-fi fees are in fact far and few between, even as the typically "ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING" Slashdot article tries (and fails) to imply otherwise.
Non-free wi-fi is simply not a huge issue anymore because while many hotels may charge a nominal fee which is their right, they don't block you from creating a wi-fi hot spot.
You probably don't know this if you don't travel a whole lot, as I do.
Simply put, I travel a lot. I have rarely had to pay for wi-fi, and when I did, the cost was negligible, and hot-spots where not blocked if I had chosen to use my cell data plan.
Bullshit.
I do travel a lot and while I can usually access the "Free WiFi" at a luxury hotel from their lobby, if I need privacy or bandwidth I (my client) pays their outrageous rates.
Personal travel domestically I look for a Red Roof Inn. Dogs and strong, really free WiFi.
Shit, I'm also assuming USB2 is the rate limiter not the storage on either end.
Sounds like you need a new computer.
Sounds like your camera may just be total shit, even compared to camera apps on ancient Android phones!
100% quality level, when dealing with JPEGs, implies 0% compression. JPEG is lossy compression. 100% quality means there's no loss. Thus there's no (that is, 0%) JPEG compression going on. If there were JPEG compression happening, then the quality level inherently could not be 100%, because JPEG is a lossy format.
Sounds like you have no idea of what you are writing about. My camera captures a 24Mb raw file. The same capture at the highest quality JPG setting is 5Mb. So what happened to my other 19Mb of image data in your 0% compression scheme?
Anyone who uppercases it should be shot.
Whoa, dude, take a pill!
Just because the JPEG version was shit doesn't mean you don't have the RAW to submit to Reuters, it just means they'll be more suspicious of the image.
So no, "Wrong" is not how you would go about starting your post.
Yes, he's right. Wrong! Reuters won't take your exported JPEG. That's the whole point of the discussion. Camera JPEGs are for amateurs and hacks who don't understand or can't be bothered with image quality.
2. RAW is MUCH larger than JPEG, probably, JPEG's are enough for them
Right, Quality. That's why professionals shoot RAW and export a jpg that is optimized for quality AND size. You can't put camera jpgs and RAW files in the same category, there is no comparison.
But what is perfectly fine is to shoot in RAW + JPG and send in the JPG right away.
Obviously you have never seen the difference between a processed RAW file and a camera jpg. There is no comparison. Once the camera has made it's decisions and applied the JPG compression the image is set, only very minor adjustments are possible with fairly unacceptable results. More to your point, these adjustments would have to be made at Rueters by someone who wasn't at the scene, taking even more time than RAW processing / JPG export before uploading by the photographer.
Everybody that exists and takes pictures is a real photographer. So no.. not all..
The distinction being made is between a true "Professional" journalist and a "hack". Professionals understand the difference between careful RAW processing and default (or even enhanced) camera JPG processing. There are plenty of hacks out there making money using cameras with little or no understanding of photography. The original post has less to do with speed or format and more to do with badly processed images.
In 1869 the waffle iron was invented for people who had wrinkled waffles.
