According to Chris Taylor Jr :
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.
Chris, I think all the name calling is immature. Please, get a grip. As far as
debate goes, I win, hands down. I'm calling Mark Simpson to have my trophy
The steel from 100 years ago, poured from the old recipie, isn't obsolete, it
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!
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.
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...
I simply responded in kind. he told me to get a grip so I responded
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
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
my point still stands. you apply the word obsolete improperly.
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.
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
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 ??
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.
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:
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
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....
- Rick "Sarcastic bystander" Dickinson
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!