Digital camera for rocket photography???

According to Chris Taylor Jr :
Heh.
Apropos nothing in particular, blacksmiths are having a heck of a time trying to obtain "the good stuff" (for artwork, historical versimilatude etc). Apparently _nobody_ has made wrought iron in decades.
For the most part blacksmiths have to make do with hot rolled - which isn't the same thing at all. Or scavenge wrought iron from old barrels or wheel rims.
Reply to
Chris Lewis
Loading thread data ...
I thought the NAR safety code made nails obsolete.
Zack Lau W1VT
Reply to
Zack Lau
Chris, I think all the name calling is immature. Please, get a grip. As far as the debate goes, I win, hands down. I'm calling Mark Simpson to have my trophy engraved.
The steel from 100 years ago, poured from the old recipie, isn't obsolete, it still meets the needs it did then.
****************************************************************** from your post earlier: it only becomes obsolete because YOU bought the wrong camera [ed insert, "STEEL"] OR the camera [ed insert "STEEL] you WANTED did not exist yet. simple as that.
YOU obsolete the camera [ed insert, STEEL] NOT the other way around. you say wait I can not print nice 8x10 from that 1.3mp. so what. you could not print nice 8x10's from that camera from day one. it was NEVER an ability that camera had. so YOUR desires of it have "changed" to be those that are outside of its abilities. not the other way around.
it was obsolete the moment you bought it. it never "goes" obsolete.
************************************************************************
Point, set, match.
Todd, Mark, Mike..., I am now the champion, I have beat him at his own game!
steve
Reply to
default
And in the case of the Titanic, that sort of steel miserably failed to meet the needs it was suggested to fulfil by it's manufacturers very shortly after it was made. Unless finding and rusting on the ocean floor was among the major design requirements, it was a pretty good example of an item becoming obsolete (for a specific application) by proving it was not suitable to the tasks to which it was applied. Yes, in a technical sense, that steel meets the needs it did actually meet back then, but it clearly did not meet the needs which it was advertized and sold to meet. But I digress.
Neutrodyne
Reply to
John H. Smith
Hmmm... so you're saying that "running into icebergs" was part of the design spec, but a materials issue kept it from being met by a design that should have been adequate to withstand such a collision? Interesting...
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
It is "typical rmr logic".
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Oh. I thought he was trying to suggest unanticipated low-temperature embrittlement or something...
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Don't they still use square nails for horse shoes?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
But everyone on RMR tries to pound them into round holes...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Ya get more bite that way.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
when an atom decays it has one less. its still a finite number at any one point in time.
so no I did not forgot nor even need to recall.
Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
I simply responded in kind. he told me to get a grip so I responded accordingly.
no it did not meet the needs it did then or they would not have changed it. they changed it BECAUSE it did not meet the needs. it sufficed but did not meet it.
the point was the recipie went obsolete NOT the nails themselves.
35mm MEETS the needs of most photographers so it does not change much.
digital cameras do not yet "meet the needs" of most peoples desires hence why it keeps "changing" it will eventually level off and meet the needs of most users. at that point it will stabilize like 35mm has today unless the "needs" change etc..
IE digital could go much higher than 35mm resolution while at the same time NOT making the camera that much larger or more expensive or harder to "deal with" which is the limiting factor in film camera's and why most like 35mm even though 120 is far far superior etc..
so now I get to say point set match. try again.
My point still stands. the digital camera does not GO obsolete. if it does not meet your needs it was never "current" to begin with it was obsolete on creation. thats because its immature. IT (digital technology) is not yet mature.
my point still stands. you apply the word obsolete improperly.
Chris Taylor
formatting link

it still meets
Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
ROFL!!!
So true!
Randy
Reply to
Randy
Yes. My mother goes to auctions and buys antiques and stuff. She was proud to show the small bag or square antique nails that she bought. That is, until I explained that they were just common slightly rusted horse shoe nails.
I might add that digital nails help keep you from slicing off your finger tips with your hobby knife.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
THIS is a proper USE of the phrase.
your arguing semantics. pointlessly.
you can not measure IN motion you can only measure STILL when you measure you are measuring a small sliver of time a "freeze frame"
hence one of the problem with measure both speed and direction of subatomic particles etc.. etc.. etc..
with that definition in mind it stands to reason and is in fact perfectly corect to say FIXED is the proper word. since if you gonna COUNT he atoms you got to "freeze" the moment to do it and at that frozen moment in time there are IN FACT a FINITE and FIXED number of atoms in any given object in this universe.
at the next MOMENT its a DIFFERENT measurement so if the number is different then it does not matter. at that NEW moment the number once again still FINITE AND FIXED
so AGAIN when you get right down to it EVERYTHING is digital
you are NOT stupid so I assume your doing this just to rile me up ??
Chris Taylor
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
You seem to be channelling Robert E. McElwaine. Next, I expect you to end your messages by saying that "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED."
My arguing semantics _what_? Speak in complete sentences, please. Alternatively, learn to differentiate between homophones, and make at least *some* effort to capitalize the first words in your sentences.
Ok....
Heisenberg had a bit more to say about quantum physics than just that, but you're obviously acquinted with at least the "Cliff Notes" version of his uncertainty principle, so I'll let it go at that.
I think you're right about one thing: I am arguing semantics. But, as per Webster's 1913 dictionary, semantics is defined:
Sem`an´tics n. sing. 1. the study of the meanings of words and of the sense development of words; - formerly called semasiology. 2. a doctrine and philosophical approach to language and its relationship to thought and behavior, developed by Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950), which holds that the capacity to express ideas and thereby improve one's interaction with others and one's environment is enhanced by training in the more critical use of words and other symbols; - also called general semantics. 3. the meanings of words as they are used to achieve an effect; especially, the multiple meanings of words or the multiplicity of words having the same meaning; - used in referring to the confusion that can be caused (intentionally or unintentionally) by multiple meanings; as, there's no real difference, it's only a matter of semantics.
I'm referring, specifically, to definition 2. Cogent expression of one's ideas, concepts, thoughts and arguments is a prerequisite, in my opinion, of any intelligent conversation. It's duecedly difficult to carry on any sort of discussion with someone who ex-post-facto changes the standard meanings of words, like Humpty Dumpty on the other side of the looking-glass.
You made a claim that the number of atoms in a nail was a "finite fixed number of atoms". The word "fixed", when used to refer to a quantity, means that the quantity is a constant, unchanging number over a significant period of time. All quantities are unchanging over zero time -- there's no reason to call them fixed if you are referring to a zero time interval. Your use of the word "fixed" implied that you were talking about a quantity that didn't change over time. Trying to backtrack and revise and cover yourself by saying you meant that any one measurement would result in a fixed count is just silly, and smacks of disingenuousness.
Chris, you seem like a nice guy, and I look forward to meeting you some time. I love your "Nano Rockets", and I would love to see you get the Grrrrr to fly, someday. But, you say some of the silliest damned things at times, and do so in such a distinctive "style", that I can't help but leap into the fray and try to talk some sense into the conversation, if not into you, specifically.
I hope you take my comments as the good-natured ribbing they are intended to be. I don't mean to insult anyone, and I don't mean to get anyone "riled up". But, it's entertaining, sometimes, to poke a bit of fun at people when their arguments devolve rapidly into incoherent babblings. I've just noticed that yours tend to go that way fairly rapidly fairly often....
Cheers,
- Rick "Sarcastic bystander" Dickinson
Reply to
Rick Dickinson
ROFL!!!!!!
Stop it! You're killing me! : )
Randy
Reply to
Randy
If ABC had people that could write like this, they'd be #1 again.
Randy
Reply to
Randy
I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered the camera yet, third time should be the charm.
formatting link

formatting link
Reply to
SkyPirate
Are these zoomed way in? Using the stabilizer?
Since I've decided to wait a while before buying, keep me informed of your impressions of the camera. Or buy a better one next spring and sell me the used one cheap :-)
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.