NO MORE BAD PICTURES

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:47:53 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
. com...
Calculator still easier to use than sliderule. No ?

Sliderules got us to the moon...


I still have my first computer; a Radio Shack Pocket Computer (it
wasn't given the "1" title; RS didn't know how successful it would
be).
I remember thinking that this was more computing power than what was
in the Gemini spacecraft, and it rivaled the Apollo spacecraft's
onboard computing power.
:-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

We are de-volving amazingly capable nerds...into dependant weasel nerds...

We'd never be able to actually *think our way* to the moon again.
Some computer would have to think for us.

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:47:53 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
. com...
Calculator still easier to use than sliderule. No ?

Sliderules got us to the moon...


I still have my first computer; a Radio Shack Pocket Computer (it
wasn't given the "1" title; RS didn't know how successful it would
be).
I remember thinking that this was more computing power than what was
in the Gemini spacecraft, and it rivaled the Apollo spacecraft's
onboard computing power.
:-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

We are de-volving amazingly capable nerds...into dependant weasel nerds...

We'd never be able to actually *think our way* to the moon again.
Some computer would have to think for us.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:09:18 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:47:53 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
. com...
Calculator still easier to use than sliderule. No ?

Sliderules got us to the moon...


I still have my first computer; a Radio Shack Pocket Computer (it
wasn't given the "1" title; RS didn't know how successful it would
be).
I remember thinking that this was more computing power than what was
in the Gemini spacecraft, and it rivaled the Apollo spacecraft's
onboard computing power.
:-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

We are de-volving amazingly capable nerds...into dependant weasel nerds...

We'd never be able to actually *think our way* to the moon again.
Some computer would have to think for us.


I was going to cover this in more detial the first time, so here
goes...
You're right; if we let the 'old ways' be forgotten, they are, well,
forgotten.
But that's not to say all of the old ways are better than the new
ways.
Going to the moon today would take the use of technologies the 'old
way' didn't have an inkling of. Yes, the new technologies do rely on
computers more than the old ones do; that's not bad, it's a
consequences. Consequences are't either bad or good, they just are.

One consequence of, for example, a cut in the funding for new
submarine technology, and a failure to build more current submarines
(not that I'm saying this should happen) is that he yards that build
the subs would, of necessity, convert the facilities for building the
subs into other uses, and the men who were building them would go to
other jobs, or simply leave the yard altogether.
Then, when we need new subs, who's to build them? As a consequence of
no more sub building, we can't build any subs unless we pour large
amounts of money into the facilities that build them, which adds a
tremendous cost to building the new subs.
The fact that building the subs instead of stoppiong the building
would also cost money (with at least the benefits of having the subs)
doesn't seem to mean much; what means something is that high cost of
building the new subs.
[BTW, this is one major reason we keep building aircraft carriers]

We haven't built any new spacecraft in some time (decades).
Techniology has marched on. Building new ones now will mean entirely
new research, and computers will be a major part of that research. The
computersw ill take the mundane part of 'thinking' off the shoulders
of the reseaschers, and let them do the creative parts of the research
that's needed.
Seems like a good thing, to me.
I'd love a new spacecraft; think of the photo opportunities
(obligitory photo stuff).

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:09:18 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:47:53 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
. com...
Calculator still easier to use than sliderule. No ?

Sliderules got us to the moon...


I still have my first computer; a Radio Shack Pocket Computer (it
wasn't given the "1" title; RS didn't know how successful it would
be).
I remember thinking that this was more computing power than what was
in the Gemini spacecraft, and it rivaled the Apollo spacecraft's
onboard computing power.
:-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

We are de-volving amazingly capable nerds...into dependant weasel nerds...

We'd never be able to actually *think our way* to the moon again.
Some computer would have to think for us.


I was going to cover this in more detial the first time, so here
goes...
You're right; if we let the 'old ways' be forgotten, they are, well,
forgotten.
But that's not to say all of the old ways are better than the new
ways.
Going to the moon today would take the use of technologies the 'old
way' didn't have an inkling of. Yes, the new technologies do rely on
computers more than the old ones do; that's not bad, it's a
consequences. Consequences are't either bad or good, they just are.

One consequence of, for example, a cut in the funding for new
submarine technology, and a failure to build more current submarines
(not that I'm saying this should happen) is that he yards that build
the subs would, of necessity, convert the facilities for building the
subs into other uses, and the men who were building them would go to
other jobs, or simply leave the yard altogether.
Then, when we need new subs, who's to build them? As a consequence of
no more sub building, we can't build any subs unless we pour large
amounts of money into the facilities that build them, which adds a
tremendous cost to building the new subs.
The fact that building the subs instead of stoppiong the building
would also cost money (with at least the benefits of having the subs)
doesn't seem to mean much; what means something is that high cost of
building the new subs.
[BTW, this is one major reason we keep building aircraft carriers]

We haven't built any new spacecraft in some time (decades).
Techniology has marched on. Building new ones now will mean entirely
new research, and computers will be a major part of that research. The
computersw ill take the mundane part of 'thinking' off the shoulders
of the reseaschers, and let them do the creative parts of the research
that's needed.
Seems like a good thing, to me.
I'd love a new spacecraft; think of the photo opportunities
(obligitory photo stuff).

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:09:18 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:47:53 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
. com...
Calculator still easier to use than sliderule. No ?

Sliderules got us to the moon...


I still have my first computer; a Radio Shack Pocket Computer (it
wasn't given the "1" title; RS didn't know how successful it would
be).
I remember thinking that this was more computing power than what was
in the Gemini spacecraft, and it rivaled the Apollo spacecraft's
onboard computing power.
:-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

We are de-volving amazingly capable nerds...into dependant weasel
nerds...

We'd never be able to actually *think our way* to the moon again.
Some computer would have to think for us.


I was going to cover this in more detial the first time, so here
goes...
You're right; if we let the 'old ways' be forgotten, they are, well,
forgotten.
But that's not to say all of the old ways are better than the new
ways.
Going to the moon today would take the use of technologies the 'old
way' didn't have an inkling of. Yes, the new technologies do rely on
computers more than the old ones do; that's not bad, it's a
consequences. Consequences are't either bad or good, they just are.

We agree on the "neutral" nature of this.

One consequence of, for example, a cut in the funding for new
submarine technology, and a failure to build more current submarines
(not that I'm saying this should happen) is that he yards that build
the subs would, of necessity, convert the facilities for building the
subs into other uses, and the men who were building them would go to
other jobs, or simply leave the yard altogether.
Then, when we need new subs, who's to build them? As a consequence of
no more sub building, we can't build any subs unless we pour large
amounts of money into the facilities that build them, which adds a
tremendous cost to building the new subs.
The fact that building the subs instead of stoppiong the building
would also cost money (with at least the benefits of having the subs)
doesn't seem to mean much; what means something is that high cost of
building the new subs.
[BTW, this is one major reason we keep building aircraft carriers]

We haven't built any new spacecraft in some time (decades).
Techniology has marched on. Building new ones now will mean entirely
new research, and computers will be a major part of that research. The
computersw ill take the mundane part of 'thinking' off the shoulders
of the reseaschers, and let them do the creative parts of the research
that's needed.
Seems like a good thing, to me.

Me too!
I just find it fascinating that most engineers no longer could do it if they
had to.
But that's not all that unique.
Most computer designers couldn't build a typewriter either.

-But that's OK too.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:17:11 GMT, Phil Wheeler
wrote:



Michael Benveniste wrote:
On 22 Sep 2004 09:23:20 -0700, (John Smith)
wrote:


Calculator still easier to use than sliderule. No ?


I keep a slide rule handy in case of emergencies....
http://upload.comcast.net/rulesRulez.jpg


Not too good to balance the checkbook, though.

And frying pans make lousy torque wrenches, too. So ...?

I still have a "Sly Drool" too.

Phil

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:55:52 GMT, "Nick C"
wrote:


"silvio" wrote in message
...
Since the digital camera came up there is not bad pictures anymore..all
the
pictures are good...is this right??


I'm on the side of the group that says no. Going digital does not in itself
make esthetically better pictures. I would tend to say, if a digicam user
was not aware of the nuances involved that separate a casual snap shot from
a composition when using film, a digital camera will not awaken the user.

However, a good digital camera could be an asset to someone who has a
sincere ongoing interest in improving photographing skills. But composition
and lighting are independent studies and merit just as much importance as
the camera being used.

However, a digital camera may well speed up the process if
used correctly.Instant feedback and re-shooting can help one improve
more quickly. But that's not what the OP was asking.

Processing a photo is very important too, but that
would be a separate subject.

nick