Monday, September 08, 2008
Genesis
After three weeks in the Garden of Eden, God came to visit Eve. 'So, how is everything going?' inquired God.
'It is all so beautiful, God,' she replied. 'The sunrises and sunsets are breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful, but I have just one problem.
It's these breasts you have given me. The middle one pushes the other two out and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on branches and snagging them on bushes. They're a real pain.'
And Eve went on to tell God that since many other parts of her body came in pairs, such as her limbs, eyes, ears, etc. She felt that having only two breasts might leave her body more 'symmetrically balanced'.
'That's a fair point,' replied God, 'But it was my first shot at this, you know. I gave the animals six breasts, so I figured that you needed only half of those, but I see that you are right. I will fix it up right away.'
And God reached down, removed the middle breast and tossed it into the bushes
Three weeks passed and God once again visited Eve in the Garden of Eden.
'Well, Eve, how is my favorite creation?'
'Just fantastic,' she replied, 'But for one oversight. You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has a ram and the cow has her bull. All the animals have a mate except me. I feel so alone.'
God thought for a moment and said, 'You know, Eve, you are right. How could I have overlooked this? You do need a mate and I will immediately create a man from a part of you. Let's see... where did I put that useless boob?'
'It is all so beautiful, God,' she replied. 'The sunrises and sunsets are breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful, but I have just one problem.
It's these breasts you have given me. The middle one pushes the other two out and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on branches and snagging them on bushes. They're a real pain.'
And Eve went on to tell God that since many other parts of her body came in pairs, such as her limbs, eyes, ears, etc. She felt that having only two breasts might leave her body more 'symmetrically balanced'.
'That's a fair point,' replied God, 'But it was my first shot at this, you know. I gave the animals six breasts, so I figured that you needed only half of those, but I see that you are right. I will fix it up right away.'
And God reached down, removed the middle breast and tossed it into the bushes
Three weeks passed and God once again visited Eve in the Garden of Eden.
'Well, Eve, how is my favorite creation?'
'Just fantastic,' she replied, 'But for one oversight. You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has a ram and the cow has her bull. All the animals have a mate except me. I feel so alone.'
God thought for a moment and said, 'You know, Eve, you are right. How could I have overlooked this? You do need a mate and I will immediately create a man from a part of you. Let's see... where did I put that useless boob?'
Sunday, September 07, 2008
D90 video
[Thanks to Neutral Day]
Nikon D90 video sample.
Sadly you can't have autofocus while video'ing with the D90. But you can have manual focus, which you can't with most camcorders. And you can use lenses with shallow depth of field (blurred backgrounds), which you can't with any.
Pizza with the nikon d-90 from MOVIE GUY on Vimeo.
Nikon D90 video sample.
Sadly you can't have autofocus while video'ing with the D90. But you can have manual focus, which you can't with most camcorders. And you can use lenses with shallow depth of field (blurred backgrounds), which you can't with any.
Pizza with the nikon d-90 from MOVIE GUY on Vimeo.
Affirmation girl
This is brilliant.
I just realized this was made by LisaNova, who I've blogged before.
Seriously, I think Lisa is so brilliant that she is almost hard to watch. Just amazing. Such good looks combined with such power as a writer and as an actor, that's more than rare.
Here she is when she's not playing a character.
I just realized this was made by LisaNova, who I've blogged before.
Seriously, I think Lisa is so brilliant that she is almost hard to watch. Just amazing. Such good looks combined with such power as a writer and as an actor, that's more than rare.
Here she is when she's not playing a character.
Lego transvestites
Lego transvestites.
"Even my kid was like “Fucking-A, this shit is disturbing” except that she’s three so it was more like she picked up the girl/boy and said in a really deep, masculine voice “My name is Lori?”"
"Even my kid was like “Fucking-A, this shit is disturbing” except that she’s three so it was more like she picked up the girl/boy and said in a really deep, masculine voice “My name is Lori?”"
One-minute recap
Thanks to Conscientious for the links, a one minute recap of:
The Democrat convention and
The Republican convention.
Spot on, don't miss them
The Democrat convention and
The Republican convention.
Spot on, don't miss them
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Trade secrets (updated)
Relevant to Canon trying to intimidate CanonRumors.com into not using the word Canon in a domain, is the case where Apple sued ThinkSecret.com for "knowing misappropriation and disclosure of Apple's trade secrets".
The lawsuit was later settled amiably as revealed here, but this older article has more information.
"...the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," Beckerman-Rodau said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."
Isn't that a strange law? So if somebody mails me to tell me that Nikon will reveal a 300-megapixel pocket camera next week, and I publish it (and it's true), I am liable to get sued by Nikon? That's just nasty.
If a company wants something to be secret, that's their problem, it's not mine. If I have signed an agreement with Apple to keep something secret, that's another kettle of fish. But seriously, how can somebody be legally bound to protect somebody else's secrets?
Update: "Noisy" has a perspective, based on Chuqui's comment.
I don't know, I don't really see how it hurts a company, except it's pride, by news of a product being leaked a few days early. I mean sometimes products are announced months before release. Hell, Samsung just announced a product which they say will be available in the spring of 2010!
Update:
Bert added:
Assume for an instant that you are working under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) for a client, say ABC corporation. You hit a snag and need some advice from Charlie. Normally, before disclosing any significant amount of sensitive information to Charlie, you should have him sign an NDA protecting you and your client. In practice however, pulling red tape every time you need to talk to a colleague would quickly bring everything to a halt, so you don't always do it. Military projects are the exception, everything bears red tape; as a result, being 3~5 years late on delivery is pretty much average...
It has therefore been acknowledged by the courts that it is normal and in your client's best interests to allow you to communicate freely with colleagues, within reasonable limits.
Now, what if Charlie can't be trusted? He is not bound by an NDA with your client, so he could, in theory widely diffuse any information you gave him. This is where the law you are referring to comes in play: if you clearly stated to Charlie that the information is confidential, then he can be held accountable for disclosing the said information.
The world and the American justice system being what they are, laws like this one, which exist only to plug holes in other laws, will be perverted by literal interpretation and end up being misused in a wide variety of contexts.
The lawsuit was later settled amiably as revealed here, but this older article has more information.
"...the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," Beckerman-Rodau said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."
Isn't that a strange law? So if somebody mails me to tell me that Nikon will reveal a 300-megapixel pocket camera next week, and I publish it (and it's true), I am liable to get sued by Nikon? That's just nasty.
If a company wants something to be secret, that's their problem, it's not mine. If I have signed an agreement with Apple to keep something secret, that's another kettle of fish. But seriously, how can somebody be legally bound to protect somebody else's secrets?
Update: "Noisy" has a perspective, based on Chuqui's comment.
I don't know, I don't really see how it hurts a company, except it's pride, by news of a product being leaked a few days early. I mean sometimes products are announced months before release. Hell, Samsung just announced a product which they say will be available in the spring of 2010!
Update:
Bert added:
Assume for an instant that you are working under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) for a client, say ABC corporation. You hit a snag and need some advice from Charlie. Normally, before disclosing any significant amount of sensitive information to Charlie, you should have him sign an NDA protecting you and your client. In practice however, pulling red tape every time you need to talk to a colleague would quickly bring everything to a halt, so you don't always do it. Military projects are the exception, everything bears red tape; as a result, being 3~5 years late on delivery is pretty much average...
It has therefore been acknowledged by the courts that it is normal and in your client's best interests to allow you to communicate freely with colleagues, within reasonable limits.
Now, what if Charlie can't be trusted? He is not bound by an NDA with your client, so he could, in theory widely diffuse any information you gave him. This is where the law you are referring to comes in play: if you clearly stated to Charlie that the information is confidential, then he can be held accountable for disclosing the said information.
The world and the American justice system being what they are, laws like this one, which exist only to plug holes in other laws, will be perverted by literal interpretation and end up being misused in a wide variety of contexts.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Coney Island circa 190
Socotra Island
An isolated island; darwinism in play. More.
This cool town is on mainland Yemen.
Also via Darkroastedblend:
Cool art from the Burning Man festival.
Christian Bale and Kermit the Frog, separated at birth?
At the olympics, there's nairy a logo to see which is not a sponsor. Even toilet fixture logos were taped up.
This cool town is on mainland Yemen.Also via Darkroastedblend:
Cool art from the Burning Man festival.
Christian Bale and Kermit the Frog, separated at birth?
At the olympics, there's nairy a logo to see which is not a sponsor. Even toilet fixture logos were taped up.
A portrait lens
I just bought a Nikkor 85mm F:1.8.
For non-photo-geeks:
"Nikkor" is Nikon's name for their lenses.
85mm is considered a good length for a portrait lens for a 35mm camera (or slightly smaller, like most digital cameras with exchangeable lenses are).
And F:1.8 means it's a "fast" lens, which signifies that it has big-diameter lenses which take is a lot of light, so you can use it in low light situations. Also a "fast" lens is good for blurring backgrounds, which again is good for portraits.
All reviews hint this is an excellent lens, and it is not even very big or expensive. I'm much looking forward to using it.
Also, this may be just photo-nerd stuff: it's just a beautiful lens. Such a huge "hole" through such superior optical arrangements, it's gorgeous. It may only seem beautiful because I know what it is, but it is still a nice experience.
Thinking about it, I doubt you can build in image stabilization in a lens like this. I wish Nikon would get their act together and put the durn thing in the camera bodies. Other makers sell such cameras at competitive prices, so it can't be all that expensive.
For non-photo-geeks:
"Nikkor" is Nikon's name for their lenses.
85mm is considered a good length for a portrait lens for a 35mm camera (or slightly smaller, like most digital cameras with exchangeable lenses are).
And F:1.8 means it's a "fast" lens, which signifies that it has big-diameter lenses which take is a lot of light, so you can use it in low light situations. Also a "fast" lens is good for blurring backgrounds, which again is good for portraits.
All reviews hint this is an excellent lens, and it is not even very big or expensive. I'm much looking forward to using it.
Also, this may be just photo-nerd stuff: it's just a beautiful lens. Such a huge "hole" through such superior optical arrangements, it's gorgeous. It may only seem beautiful because I know what it is, but it is still a nice experience.
Thinking about it, I doubt you can build in image stabilization in a lens like this. I wish Nikon would get their act together and put the durn thing in the camera bodies. Other makers sell such cameras at competitive prices, so it can't be all that expensive.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Sony A900
Somebody finally beat Canons looooong-standing king-of-the-hill position in resolution terms in the DSLR arena. Sony did.
The Sony A900 has over 24 megapixels. That is really packing them in, even in a full frame sensor. It will be interesting to see how it deals with noise.
It's also interesting that Sony seems to have kept the very boxy look of this camera, instead of going for the soft, "melted" look which has been in vogue the past many years. Good for them.
As you know, I'm not eager to get on board with all those megapixels, but I'm interested because developments like this always push technology further. Like back when Kodak invented that awful "Kodak Disc" camera/film with a negative the size of a quarter of a postage stamp (literally!), then they had to invent a film emulsion with grain fine enough that some kind of picture could be produced by the tiny negative, and these emulsions then came to the aid of more serious formats like 35mm.
Similarly, I would not be surprised if the breakthroughs in low noise that resulted in the brilliant Nikon D3 actually came from research done in order to make a 20+ megapixel sensor with reasonably low noise.
The Sony A900 has over 24 megapixels. That is really packing them in, even in a full frame sensor. It will be interesting to see how it deals with noise.
It's also interesting that Sony seems to have kept the very boxy look of this camera, instead of going for the soft, "melted" look which has been in vogue the past many years. Good for them.
As you know, I'm not eager to get on board with all those megapixels, but I'm interested because developments like this always push technology further. Like back when Kodak invented that awful "Kodak Disc" camera/film with a negative the size of a quarter of a postage stamp (literally!), then they had to invent a film emulsion with grain fine enough that some kind of picture could be produced by the tiny negative, and these emulsions then came to the aid of more serious formats like 35mm.
Similarly, I would not be surprised if the breakthroughs in low noise that resulted in the brilliant Nikon D3 actually came from research done in order to make a 20+ megapixel sensor with reasonably low noise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)