The most polite spin I can put on the cheering of these sorts of techniques, is that too many Hacker News members lack sufficient historical awareness to realize that these tactics are reminiscent of the public humiliation and crowd intimidation techniques employed by Italy's blackshirts in the 30s.
There are reasons why we have rule of law and courts. There are reasons why it is not acceptable for one group to retaliate against another group, no matter how strongly they may feel they are in the right.
Deadlifts are great. However, they are not nearly as effective as squats for leg work due to the lack hip depth used in the starting position of the deadlift.
Weight lifters who don't squat (and there are many of them) end up looking like ridiculous middle aged men who have massive torsos and spindly legs. Beyond appearance, one will also have very poor power generation.
On the off chance some people might takes billswift seriously and injure themselves, let me state that 'gradually increasing the weight' does not induce good form. Moreover, much of the benefits of deadlifts and squats will not be had either unless performed correctly.
Get 'Starting Strength' by Rippetoe and buy a few sessions with a (good) personal trainer who knows power lifting. Best money you'll ever spend.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not. A lot of people who lift hurt themselves at some point, especially as they get older. It happens, it is usually because of not focusing on form and pushing too hard.
It's easier to hurt yourself on the machines than it is with free weights. Your brain/body won't let you try to squat way more than you can actually squat. If you can override this instinct and actually try to throw up more weight than you can handle, the way olympic weights work make dumping the weight almost automatic. You will embarrass yourself but won't get hurt. You should be using a spotter anyway.
However, you can load up a hip sled machine with way more weight than you should be attempting and destroy your lower back or knees. Personally, I believe leg press machines and their ilk should be banned. I know too many people with fucked up knees and backs from using those (myself included.)
Rockwell is weird. Nobody in Indie production uses autoficus because even on pro camcorders like Vatican's it looks awful for most narrative work.
You do not need 45 people to do good, controlled work with a DSLR (or a film camera). 3-4 skilled folks are sufficient crew for most non-ensemble work.
Not to speak up too strongly for Rockwell (I think he has certain biases), but you are actually arguing his point. He says that nobody in Hollywood uses autofocus because it's rehearsed and it's the focus-puller's job, and that's precisely why autofocus is handier for home video.
But the whole point is that video DSLR's are aimed at amateur/indie film makers, not home video shooters. And Rockwell completely misses that, claiming that manual focus cameras are useful only in Hollywood-scale productions.
>For use by a single photographer, you can't get DSLRs to focus on things that move. If you can't shoot things that move, then why are you trying to shoot video? Video and movies need to track focus on things that move; that's the whole point.
>When I want video of my family, even if I'm also carrying my Canon 5D Mark II, I still carry a real camcorder!
"If you're doing the sort of Hollywood shoot where you have 45 people on a call sheet like transportation captains [lots of titles] then you might have a focus puller, and you might want to consider a DSLR in place of your Panavision or ARRI to save on film costs."
and
"If something moves, you need a focus puller and a special rig with special Hollywood focusing hardware to shoot with a DSLR.
DSLR video is for serious professional production, which is why you'll see it promoted as being used on big productions."
I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
It's called 'Hyperbole.' He's not just talking about 45 people productions. Seriously, you think he's sitting there counting, at if you have 44 people, he's saying you shouldn't use DSLR? But anything where you have a camera crew of multiple people.
The article is pretty clear. For home users/amateurs, it's not worth it. For more serious users with actual production costs, then you're talking.
> I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
I'm pretty sure he's okay with productions outside of Hollywood using it, too.
Home users/amateurs don't shoot narrative work, as a rule, just pictures of their kids.
People who do use cameras and camcorders for creative purposes like manual focus. A solo shooter can shoot video with manual focus. There are lots of adapters and so on to make it easier on small cameras like this.
ken rockwell is a photographer and has no credits in video production
Amateurs can get a Panasonic GH1 with the 14-140mm lens. This lens is optimized for video work and will autofocus, with a performance on par with regular video cameras.
You have to take his writing with a grain of salt.
Agreed. I've bitched about seeing right (or libertarian)-wing propaganda sites like mises.org here - same thing goes for motherjones - it's politics, and politics do not belong here.
It also has nothing to do with HN, as far as I can tell. And of course the "OMG, disaster could go on forever" is calculated to rile up their readers. I don't know, maybe I'm too skittish about off topic stuff, but I really like this site, and politics is an easy way to derail a community...
Yep, especially since BP's presentation to Congress [1] would indicate that that anonymous commenter doesn't have a complete understanding of what's going on.
Or, more importantly, the willingness to admit that fact, or to admit the truth. Initially they decried all the people who suggested the flow was much larger than their estimates. Then, more and more sources come out suggesting it. And just recently, they have admitted it might be true.
This seems to be modus operandi for companies these days. Deny everything, then weeks later come up with your own sources suggesting exactly the same thing, when the issue has died down.
Nothing that has happened in the last 40 years has given me any reason to believe that anybody, or even everybody in aggregate, has a complete understanding of much of anything that is going on.
It's a diagram of the failure modes of the BOP and some discussion of how it failed. I can't see any indication it shows the well under the BOP is intact or that the movement of high pressure oil-and-sand isn't chewing the assembly to pieces as BP tries to suck some of the oil out of the well.
As you and others have mentioned, deadlifts, squats, presses, and bench press are the most effective and time efficient. Don't waste time on bicep curls and other isolation exercises.
Good form is vital though, so get 'Starting Strength' by Mark Rippetoe. There are plenty of exercise books available, but this is the only one I know of which will spend 50 pages explaining the proper form for the squat. There's even a companion video for the book.
I also got the "Starting Strength" book. It's very thorough on the technique of all the basic lifts (squat, bench press, deadlift, overhead press, power clean).
It doesn't they very much about programming (i.e. how to and how much to increase the weights you lift), but you can get advise on these from other sources.
Yes, and I may even get it, now that I have probably started reaching the end of the beginner stage where a super simple program suffices. (I squat 1.5 my body weight.)
If you're targeting professional engineers, I'd worry that A. They could figure out the answer to these questions on their own, or if not, B. one of the large distribution companies would only be too happy to send out a sales engineer to assist with the decision making process.
Are you targeting the hobbyist market? I'm not sure how much money they might have.
> professional engineers
> A. They could figure out the answer to these questions on their own.
[harnhua] True - what they would gain by using our webapp is convenience and automated testing/evaluation.
> B. one of the large distribution companies would only be too happy to send out a sales engineer to assist with the decision making process.
[harnhua] Probably only if one is buying enough FPGAs/CPLDs to pay for that sales engineer? I reckon there should be many small-/medium-volume projects staffed by professional engineers who wouldn't attract such a level of customer service from the distributors.
Sales engineers who're skilled in FPGAs are probably in short supply.
> hobbyist market
[harnhua] Although there's little money there, we'd really like to make FPGAs easier to use for students and hobbyists as well.
I don't see a good reason why you'd want to make this into a web based application. I think you are making the right choice. I'd never upload my medical records to a third party website. Don't pull a Zuckerberg.
When I clicked on the "Go' button to compare to the Human Reference Genome, nothing happened.
I think the software might be more valuable if the user could get a quick overview of their personal risk factors for diseases. I didn't see a quick way to get that.
I'd make the software fun too - genes for eye color and so forth would be fun to compare with family members.
The ancestry report with the map overlay would be great if you could get it to work.
There are reasons why we have rule of law and courts. There are reasons why it is not acceptable for one group to retaliate against another group, no matter how strongly they may feel they are in the right.