Thread: Post Pictures of Your Everyday Life

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I love Chomsky for his critiques of the global elite. I think that, while being a little one sided, they're for the most part, on point. I'm not much of a socialist though.

But yeah, great taste.

I don't follow all of his ideology either but yes, a lot of what he says is spot on. He came to Brussels a year ago. The man can just talk and talk and talk and it keeps on being interesting. I'm surprised his books are so thin!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Back to Gemini Springs today...and DAMN is it hot in FL.

Spoiler for Feelin the burn.:

http://i.imgur.com/yGP2r.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/9Amql.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/8zxnl.jpg

Speaking of 'burn', I saw this huge plume of smoke in the air to the east. Knew it was somewhere in Volusia County, but couldn't tell how far away it was. Turns out there is a 40-acre brush fire burning in New Smyrna Beach, which has already taken one mobile home, along with another burning in Lake County, which I believe is west of me. It's gonna be a long, hot summer here...

http://i.imgur.com/RONXZ.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/iLjHL.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/uuwGg.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/Z043H.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/dQuwG.jpg

Wow, is that yet another wild fire since the last set of pics? None of that heat in England... any point of telling you the predictable? Naa, but I will anyway, it's windy and rainy.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I love Chomsky for his critiques of the global elite. I think that, while being a little one sided, they're for the most part, on point. I'm not much of a socialist though.

But yeah, great taste.

Agreed on good taste.

PS... to be fair, I don't think Chomsky's much of a socialist either. At least, not in the sense that comes to mind for most people, insofar as what comes to mind for most people is state socialism. If Chomsky's a socialist, it's anarcho-socialism.

Should you including this distinction, or am I barking at nothing here?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

If Chomsky's a socialist, it's anarcho-socialism.

Should you including this distinction, or am I barking at nothing here?

I've heard him use the term libertarian-socialism and I suppose that's what I was referring too. Anarcho-socialism is about the same thing. It sounds very nice but is a little too much like democracy for me. I frankly believe that it would be much more feasible to ensure individual liberty by finding a philosopher king/queen and giving that person near complete authority than it would be for a bunch of humans to not, in the long run, turn over as much authority as they possibly can to whoever is snaky enough to trick them into doing it.

So yeah, I'm no fan of anarchy, democracy or anything that reeks too strongly of letting any average person have a say in anything other than their own life. People are just not well enough adapted to rational thought for that to be a good idea. If you wanted to require some sort of voting license that required passing tests to measure capacity for rational thought then that might be a good idea too. I would also want that system to require tests to vote on matters that require a particular domain knowledge. On the whole, I think that having a philosopher emperor would be much cleaner.

What would a modern-day philosopher king look like? Is there anything I could read about that?

Not that I know of. A big problem with the idea becoming popular is that to accept that it is to fundamentally reject the idea that all people are created equally. This is fairly well ingrained into post-enlightenment culture. However it seems to be a plain fallacy that all people can think rationally so I have no problem abandoning it.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Wow, is that yet another wild fire since the last set of pics? None of that heat in England... any point of telling you the predictable? Naa, but I will anyway, it's windy and rainy.

Yuup. We're kind of notorious for brush fires down here. This is only the beginning. I'm sure there'll be a lot more where those came from, this summer.

Tommo, remember when I was talking about the strip where the cyclists would ride on the street instead of the bike path that the state spent all that money on building just for them/us? This is that exact area, right in front of my job. The cyclists just ride on the road, slowing everything down for all the cars, when this bike path is literally a few meters away from the roadway.


Some more from today:

that's silly! I hate biking on roads (with cars). obviously a lot of bikers don't, but still... why not just hop on the trail?

edit: how do you carry your camera on your bike? I love taking pictures and want to take my camera with on rides, but I hate "wearing" it in my bag while riding. I'm trying to find a good way to mount it on my bike.

Originally Posted by sefalik

that's silly! I hate biking on roads (with cars). obviously a lot of bikers don't, but still... why not just hop on the trail?

I dunno. I never understood that, either. =/

Originally Posted by sefaik

edit: how do you carry your camera on your bike? I love taking pictures and want to take my camera with on rides, but I hate "wearing" it in my bag while riding. I'm trying to find a good way to mount it on my bike.

Unfortunately, it's just good ol' fashion cellphone camera work. I either stop riding and snap a pic or grab a moving shot while on a straightaway. I'd love to mount one on the bike, though.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I dunno. I never understood that, either. =/



Unfortunately, it's just good ol' fashion cellphone camera work. I either stop riding and snap a pic or grab a moving shot while on a straightaway. I'd love to mount one on the bike, though.

You have a decent cellphone camera.

An 8MP camera takes a decent picture. Cellphone cameras have come a long way.

8MP camera? You should see the quality of my 2MP handphone camera. It's amazing for 2MP!

I went to the park today and I like the little bit of beach I can find there. It was sealed off from public but I wanted to go down so badly that my friend agreed to climb over the barrier with me. It wasn't as great as the previous beach I found but nonetheless I still love it. I told my friend I had to go because I felt the sea was calling out to me.

Spoiler for Labrador Park in Singapore:

Say "Hi!" to my feet!

Originally Posted by Carrot

Say "Hi!" to my feet! [/SPOILER]

Hiii!! *waves*

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I've heard him use the term libertarian-socialism and I suppose that's what I was referring too. Anarcho-socialism is about the same thing. It sounds very nice but is a little too much like democracy for me. I frankly believe that it would be much more feasible to ensure individual liberty by finding a philosopher king/queen and giving that person near complete authority than it would be for a bunch of humans to not, in the long run, turn over as much authority as they possibly can to whoever is snaky enough to trick them into doing it.

So yeah, I'm no fan of anarchy, democracy or anything that reeks too strongly of letting any average person have a say in anything other than their own life. People are just not well enough adapted to rational thought for that to be a good idea. If you wanted to require some sort of voting license that required passing tests to measure capacity for rational thought then that might be a good idea too. I would also want that system to require tests to vote on matters that require a particular domain knowledge. On the whole, I think that having a philosopher emperor would be much cleaner.

Like an enlightened despote kinda thing?

We all know that the number of pixels in your camera isn't the only factor in the output quality of the photos it shoots, right?

Now I have to ask the question as it has always bugged me: Do megapixels increase the amount of pixels in a finite space, or does the picture become bigger to accommodate the increase in pixels? If the latter, then anything over 3 megapixels has relatively no use for common purpose (the size would be ridiculous). And if the former, then anything over 3 megapixels actually means nothing given that the typical monitor resolution is 1920x1080/1200, which is about 2.0-2.4 megapixels - so how would it be displayed?

Slightly off-topic, but meh. Please explain, or show that I'm talking nonsense.

I guess I can explain my shit quality pictures to my unsteady hand.

This was taken at:




Way more than needed, and with a small sensor, it's mostljust fun to zoom in on people at this size.

As for sensors:


Digital Camera Sensor Sizes & Types



In actuality, the size of your digital camera’s sensor is probably the most important component determining image quality in your camera. Unfortunately, it can be almost impossible to figure it out just by looking at the box in Best Buy, and it’s hard enough even inspecting a manufacturer’s web site.

Your digital camera’s sensor is the chip inside of it, covered with light-sensitive pixels, that takes in light through the lens and converts it to a digital image. But larger pixels are more sensitive than smaller pixels, which means that the larger your sensor, the more clear and accurate your picture will be. A larger sensor will also take better pictures in low-light environments.

This is why digicams boasting larger megapixel counts counter-intuitively capture images at a decreased quality. Digicams have smaller sensors, and so the pixels must be smaller and more densely packed. All other things being equal, the larger your sensor, the better your images will be, with less noise and increased dynamic range.

Like we said, it can be virtually impossible to tell sensor size on a digital camera, just from looking at the box. So here are some useful tips: the more expensive the camera with the lower the megapixel count, the larger the included sensor is likely to be. You can also extrapolate sensor size from the digital camera’s ISO range (check out our section on ISO for more about this): in theory, the higher ISO a digital camera supports, the larger the sensor. The problem is that camera manufacturers will technically support higher ISOs, but the results are pretty terrible… the hallmark of a higher ISO being shoehorned into a small sensor not designed to support it.

Ultimately, if you’re going to be shooting in a lot of low-light environments without a flash, or care about maximum image fidelity, buy a DSLR: the sensors in DSLRs are by definition larger, and offer a four times greater signal to noise ratio than digicams. Otherwise, spend as much as you can afford on the least megapixels.

One final note: there’s two types of sensors, CMOS and CCD. Don’t let these effect your decision: CMOS sensors use a little less power, but are a little less sensitive. The effect is marginal.

Yeah, that at least shows the data or true resolution of the image, but what about the displayed resolution? If my monitor can display 1920x1200 pixels across the total screen, which is 2.4 megapixels, then how can it display 4000x3000, i.e. 12 megapixels on one part of the screen? I mean, I don't disbelieve, I just don't understand how my monitor's limit can be circumvented to show the higher resolution.

Originally Posted by melanieb

Way more than needed, and with a small sensor, it's mostljust fun to zoom in on people at this size.

Yes, that part makes absolute logical sense to me: tons of megapixels = no visible loss of quality upon zooming in on a picture. It's likely that once you've zoomed into someone's face, that the amount of pixels are still above 1920x1200, and so nothing is visibly lost.

Originally Posted by melanieb

This was taken at:

And look:





Meh, photobucket is making it worse, though it's identical on screen.

I'm well aware of what resolution you see.

Of course, what you see on your screen after I post on the forum is different than what I see when I view the image. DV won't post images anywhere near the size they are capable of being viewed at.


But we all know that.


So let's move on.

Originally Posted by melanieb

So let's move on.

I'm glad you said that. Hehe.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Nice lighting.

This is downtown Jackson, Mississippi. I go there all the time for all kinds of reasons.





Here is a broader view of it. Jackson is the capital of Mississippi, and the building in the front is the State Capitol Building.



A view from a distance.



Hal and Mal's, one of my favorite local bars.




I live right by this body of water, the Ross Barnett Reservoir. I don't live on the water, but my next door neighbor does.








A swamp near the Reservoir. There are lots of these in the area.



Some Reservoir area residential property.







A lot of my neighbors look like this.