If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
On 2013.03.30 18:56 , Michael wrote:
I've seen a lot of them taking flash photos of fireworks. That's double stupidity. Unless you're filling in some foreground with the long exp. shots of the actual FW. -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
"Michael" wrote in message news:2013033018562548688-adunc79617@mypacksnet... Watch the Olympic opening sequence to see how many morons think a puny on camera flash can illuminate an olympic stadium at night time. They have no idea how the flash works, and no idea how to turn it off anyway. Their camera is always set to auto, and simply fires the flash in such circumstances, because it has no idea either. Still remember the moon landings where millions of pictures of blank TV sets were processed in the following weeks. The flash exposing the cabinet just fine :-) At least the morons get to see their mistakes immediately now, knowing what (and how) to change is entirely another matter though! And I can't count the number of times I've helped people with expensive DSLR's that have no idea how to change even the most basic settings! Their comment is always the same, "must read the manual one day". They never do :-( I've seen a lot of them taking flash photos of fireworks. That's double stupidity. Like the stadium shots, the flash won't ruin the shot at least. Of course their slow exposure without a tripod will usually do that for them though. :-) Trevor. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:59:01 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg : wrote: : Infinity measured in miles is approximately 1.6 times farther than infinity measured in meters. : OOps, I meant kilometers. : You haven't understood 'infinity' yet, have you? : What is mo no money in pesos or no money in USD? The latter. It can give you millions in undeserved credit and the opportunity to get stinking rich again. Since I have no money in USD, I am practically stinking rich? Gotta tell my bank ... No money in pesos gives you a few centavos in your hat while playing the cornet on a dusty street in Tijuana. .... while you, not having any money in pesos are playing in Tijuana. I should visit you there from my undeserved credits and photograph you with all the cameras I can buy now! But please, Wolfgang, don't give us another chance to underestimate you. You underestimate me no matter if I give you a chance. Surely you realize that Mr James was being facetious. He was plain wrong, not facetious. His math teacher's rotation in the grave would be enough to generate all the electricity a medium size town needs. -Wolfgang |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:27:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: : Robert Coe wrote: : On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:59:01 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg : : wrote: : : : Infinity measured in miles is approximately 1.6 times farther than infinity measured in meters. : : : OOps, I meant kilometers. : : : You haven't understood 'infinity' yet, have you? : : What is mo no money in pesos or no money in USD? : : The latter. It can give you millions in undeserved credit and the opportunity : to get stinking rich again. : : Since I have no money in USD, I am practically stinking rich? : Gotta tell my bank ... : : No money in pesos gives you a few centavos in your : hat while playing the cornet on a dusty street in Tijuana. : : ... while you, not having any money in pesos are playing in : Tijuana. I should visit you there from my undeserved credits : and photograph you with all the cameras I can buy now! : : But please, Wolfgang, don't give us another chance to underestimate you. : : You underestimate me no matter if I give you a chance. : : Surely you realize that Mr James was being facetious. : : He was plain wrong, not facetious. His math teacher's rotation : in the grave would be enough to generate all the electricity : a medium size town needs. I shouldn't bother, but I'm going to call your bluff. Please tell us what the first two infinite numbers are "inifinity measured in miles" and "infinity measured in meters" (or kilometers, or Planck constants, or sizes of the universe) are all exactly the same. For photography purposes any long enough distance has no difference to infinity, no matter how you measure such distances. and why the second is larger than the first. That you will have to ask the one who made the claim, a certain ", unless you want to sponsor me a mind reading course. Or were you talking about aleph-null and aleph-eins? In which case --- no, they're not *numbers*, they are *sets*. I won't even ask you to prove (although it has been proven) that there is no number between them. That depends entirely on your choice of axioms and choice of definition of Aleph-eins. If you define the latter as the smallest infinite *set* larger than aleph-null, it's by definition; if you define aleph-eins as the set of real numbers, you need to prove the continuum hypothesis --- which is a ... bit problematic, unless you have fun with additional axioms. And between them the two *sets* aleph-null and aleph-eins still have infinite numbers, uncountable infinite numbers, to be exact. :-) -Wolfgang |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote: I shouldn't bother, but I'm going to call your bluff. Please tell us what the first two infinite numbers are "inifinity measured in miles" and "infinity measured in meters" (or kilometers, or Planck constants, or sizes of the universe) are all exactly the same. For photography purposes any long enough distance has no difference to infinity, no matter how you measure such distances. You are winning the prize as the most comedy-challenged poster in the history of rec.photo.digital.slr-systems. Good work, Wolfy! Of course, that performance in itself is ROFL material. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:37:25 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : I shouldn't bother, but I'm going to call your bluff. Please tell us what the : first two infinite numbers are [...] No, they are not sets. They are the (infinite) numbers of *members* incorporated in two different sets. I leapt to the conclusion that transfinite arithmetic is beyond your reach, and you seem to have proven me correct. So tell me, what are the first two infinite numbers? You seem to be bursting to tell everyone how smart you are! (But you do get a few points for Googling the concept, which allowed you to maintain some minimal pretense of understanding. Very frankly, I didn't think you would manage to do even that.) Your skill in judging people is unsurpassed. BTW, in an English-speaking newsgroup, you really should refer to "aleph-one" rather than "aleph-eins". (Auf Deutsch, aleph-eins ist richtig, natürlich.) So you'd advocate "aleph-zero" in an English-speaking newsgroup, too? -Wolfgang |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Food for thought, camera access to events
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:17:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: : Robert Coe wrote: : On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:37:25 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : : : I shouldn't bother, but I'm going to call your bluff. Please tell us what the : : first two infinite numbers are : : [...] : : No, they are not sets. They are the (infinite) numbers of *members* : incorporated in two different sets. I leapt to the conclusion that transfinite : arithmetic is beyond your reach, and you seem to have proven me correct. : : So tell me, what are the first two infinite numbers? You : seem to be bursting to tell everyone how smart you are! No, I'm giving you an opportunity to show us how well you understand transfinite arithmetic. How can it be that one of the numbers (aleph-1) is larger than the other (aleph-0), given that both of them are infinite? The proof is actually quite simple. If you're stumped, Wikipedia must surely have it. : (But you do get a few points for Googling the concept, which allowed you to : maintain some minimal pretense of understanding. Very frankly, I didn't think : you would manage to do even that.) : : Your skill in judging people is unsurpassed. : : : BTW, in an English-speaking newsgroup, you really should refer to "aleph-one" : rather than "aleph-eins". (Auf Deutsch, aleph-eins ist richtig, : natürlich.) : : So you'd advocate "aleph-zero" in an English-speaking newsgroup, : too? Not necessarily (although I have heard it called that). The word "null" is just as understandable in English as it is in German. In the math class where I first encountered the number, the professor called it "aleph-null". And aleph-1 was referred to as "c", which stood for the "cardinal number of the continuum". I'm not even certain that at the time (the late 1950s) it had been proven that there are no other numbers between aleph-0 and c. I've since read that it's now known to be the case (which may account for the adoption of the term "aleph-1"), but I don't recall seeing the proof. Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Food for thought | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 21 | October 28th 10 08:01 AM |
$400 - $500 digital camera for indoor sporting events | Rodrigo C. | Digital Photography | 0 | October 20th 05 04:43 AM |
Best digital camera- EASE, FACES, EVENTS | Rebecca Webb | Digital Photography | 0 | March 29th 05 06:08 PM |
Best digital camera- EASE, FACES, EVENTS | Rebecca Webb | Digital Photography | 0 | March 29th 05 06:08 PM |