Lynx7725

If the root cause is correct, looks to be an expensive month for RR. And the wing damage on that Qantas is worrying. I presume there are supposed to be redundant systems -- what happened to those?

Oh yeah. That. Parts of an engine apparently fell off after a reported explosion. SIA and IIRC Quantas are grounding their fleet.

Oy Oy. Do you really want Cruise cozying up with Sharon Apple's grandmother? :lol:

Might as well ask here... Anyone has hit a problem with their Xbox Live connection? Mine kept complaining the MTU is too short. I'm on an Azteck router along with this PC, which manages to send packets with MTUs longer than what is stated over the same router. For some reason Xbox just refuses to connect. Anyone has a solution?

Looks a bit preggie, especially that bulge near the rear end... It looks.. technically interesting. Beauty though, still prefer the Tomcat.

To be honest, a capacity of 36 aircraft seems to make this a baby carrier. I'm not sure if the American pilots can land on something that small... Sounds like a committee decision -- hash of odd decisions mashed together into a half-baked pie. I think most likely the carrier will embark with F/A-18s. That's actually fairly common across Commonwealth nations, IIRC. (Australia has F/A-18s, Canada does too, right? India straight out won't use this carrier, but since they have their own...)

Hmm, a thought. What if they did the story about Maverick's father and Viper? Then Tom Cruise can show up in a "non-major" way...

I think the whole point was for it to jump in, kill everything with that ridiculous missile spread, and hence not need the rear visibility....

Speaking of Figma, I just received (but not yet taken out of parcel) the Red Figma Saber Fate Extra. Also had gotten the Alter Saber, so I'll take pics soonish and post up.

Have fun, boys.

Surprised only one mention for the ISD... and for an SSD at that. For me, the ISD, Interdictors, and SSD from Star Wars is very iconic as far as space warships go. Not so much the squid ships though.

It's Snyder, his 300 is quite watchable. Much the same styling. Depending on how it works out, it might be worth my time to take a look.

I was just wondering if the F-15 is going to 'delimit' itself and go chasing after the Shuttle....

Er, been meaning to post, but the JSF strikes me as very awkward looking. Not the worst by far but....

Could've fooled me, I swear those dual cockpit arrangement is the "in" thing this season... Just to put things back on track: That PAK-FAK pic EI put up, keeps reminding me of a term used to described another plane -- "flying prostitute", as there is no apparent visible means of support. . Problem is, I can't quite remember the original plane it referred to.. anyone?

My 2 cents... The first, I like. Not because it's a technical masterpiece -- others have highlighted the soft focus, but I think might be the person shaking his foot? Anyways, I like it because it tells a story. Composition is nice and lets the audience guess whether the subject is resting or waiting for the wedding. Builds an emotional bond/ understanding. #2, works because of the bokeh. Composition isn't great because the framing seems to draw the eye to the hair instead of the eyes. It's somewhat like portraiture work, just in an informal setting, but the framing needs work. This image is saved because of the nice bokeh which isolated the subject. #3, I can't see. The img tags are there but it's not loading. #4, I don't like. What's the story? 2 person standing around. No bokeh to isolate, no story to relate. Sepia also doesn't quite work in this case -- b/w and sepia I find is a case of seeing the light and contrast. In this case while the left side of the picture had good contrast to isolate, the right ended up with insufficient, so it broke. If I had a choice, I would prefer to back off with a long lens to capture both faces if possible, to see if we can grab any emotional content. I say the above, but to be honest I personally have a problem bringing emotional content into the images I take. A lot of it has to do with mindset -- am I taking to chronicle something, or am I going for the mood? Most of the time I'm in "reporting" mode, so I can't quite see or seize the opportunity for that great emotional shot.

Woah, FIGMA Alter Saber.

Given the certainty of RROD, more like a sure-win situation...

All other performance being equal, having a faster lens is always useful. You can always elect not to use the faster speed (i.e., stop down one or two on the aperture). DoF is an issue with these fast lens, but not unworkable. They cost more but generally brings more potential to the table. If you are doing planned shoots with good light control, you don't need the performance curve, but if you are going for unplanned, having that much more leeway is very useful -- you can't always plan for a tripod, that fleeting moment of art can disappear very quickly. It need not be that expensive. It really depends on your taste in photography, you don't need every lens. I have maybe 4 lens in my stable, 1 is a mistake (but I still like the lens), 1 is a kit lens (good when I didn't have options), and the other two are my primary use lens (35mm and 70-200mm). I got more support gear than lens: 2 flash, 1 flash commander, teleconvertor (which I don't use), batteries, tripods for the flash, bags, step rings up and down... The important thing is to know what and how you like to shoot, and selectively buy the right lens. Then learn to maximize the lens -- you get more value out of it. Shoot the crap out of it. If you find yourself not comfortable with the lens, it's the wrong lens. Resell or trade for something. To be honest though, I shoot on manual, so I'm fairly familiar with how to tweak settings to try to get what I want. In that sense I usually go through a lens more comprehensively than a P-mode or Auto shooter does. Admittedly though, the camera's usually smarter than I am...

Dude. You're not helping. I'd have asked for a parachute WAAAAY before it got THAT far.

Clearly not as good? Eh, which book are you on by now?

A bit of a rush here, but since you did say you have a tight schedule -- hit Cathy in Peninsula Plaza first, then Alan in either Funan (nearby) or Sim Lim, and start earlier. Reason is that Cathy close quite early, so if you need to do comparison shopping and decide to go back to Cathy, than you at least got the opportunity. But to be honest I think Sim Lim is better for variety (but most of their prices are the same within the building). Our local IT show just ended, so if you are lucky you might hit a good deal.

Assuming you want to retain the DSLR longer than your holiday, which particular area do you want to shoot? That's the key item, and would impact on your lens choices. If it's travel pics, then tbh, a DSLR is overkill -- a Point-and-shoot might be better, lighter, and less logistically of a headache. Do pick one with a hotshoe and if possible, the ability to command flashes, since some of the subject matter (inside buildings) benefit greatly from a better, angled and off-body flash. So ask yourself, if you really do want to buy a DSLR, do you want to shoot long and narrow (birds, planes, pretty girls on the next street... ), long and wide (landscape, possibly architecture), short and narrow (macrophotography), or short and wide (er, I dunno, normal stuff? Includes arty arty fisheyes, I supposed)? Since we are short on time, a rough idea would do. My basic advice in the event that you really want a DSLR is this: get a decent body (which can support older lens), get a lens that is to your speciality (and try not to go with restrictive lens type like digital only), and get a decent flash unit. The body and flash, for Nikon, is reasonable. The lens, a lot less. In general, Nikon and Canon are about on par, it's just which PR you prefer. Try it out on a store to see which UI you prefer, and generally your first choice of UI is the right choice (UI is an intutive subject, you either love it or hate it. You can get used to a particular UI, but a UI you like is a better UI). Alanphoto at Sim Lim and Funan is generally viewed as reliable (if not inexpensive, especially the Funan shop..). The other camera speciality store that is reputable is Cathy Photo at Peninsular Plaza, but that's IMO a bit on the expensive side.

Generally speaking, all DSLRs are capable of doing part of this -- the aforementioned "bulb" mode. I know Nikon DSLRs can do this out of box. But they don't control sequence of shots; that's just not a common requirement. But there bound to be control software out there to do it. Astronomers use that kind of thing on a regular basis. To answer the lightning question, it depends whether it's daylight or night shoot. Daylight is easier to answer: pure dumb luck. You can increase the luck factor by doing hundreds if not thousands of shots at high shutter speeds (to compensate for ambient light), but it's just hard. Night shoot is simplier. Most night photos are pure trickery, from a perspective. Most night shot has no near focus (out to infinity), at the widest possible (no real DoF issues or possibility), has ISO cranked up as far as reasonable... so the only thing to play with is the shutter speed. This is necessary due to one overriding (and stupidly obvious) fact: there is insufficient light. So what really happens in night shoots is that you capture a time slice in a photo -- in essence, you converted a 4D situation (3D plus time) into 2D. Say you set the camera to take a 10 sec exposure. That's a 10 sec record of everything that happens in that scene. So for example, if the first 5 seconds is pitch black, the next had a lightning strike, and then pitch black again for another 5 seconds, then what you (hopefully) will get is a nice photo of a lightning strike. It's the same theory with fireworks shots. For example: ISO 200, f/5.6, 5s exposure. You can bet your donkeys that none of the live watchers remembered the fireworks like that.... because our eyes don't retain images the same way as a camera sensor. The photos you see of full bursts of fireworks can be instead wimpy flares, but captured in a camera it becomes a sensational trail of light. It's the same idea for those artsy-fartsy pictures with headlamp trails or tail-light trails in them. The camera's merely being used to compress a 4D construct into 2D, using the lack of ambient light to achieve this. It's not simple, and it's not easy, but it's doable; I'd shot the Orion constellation in a light polluted environment using a D70 with a 70-200mm... but damn tricky.

Trying not to stray into political discussions, but just as a background note... There is considerable friction over historical reasons between Japan and China, and Taiwan and China. In the former, it's about the Japanese invasion in the 30s and 40s and their current day interpretation of the events, plus some territorial disputes IIRC; the latter, as eugimon pointed out, an issue about "One China". Both aren't exactly background rumbling, but all involved are actively trying not to escalate it too much. And while neither are really "high-tech" in terms of airframe, we all know that if a shooting war starts, a US CVBG will be nearby... and that's, IMO, what PRC is concerned about. Eh, I assume you might not have too much contact with Far Eastern society Chinese... correct me if I'm wrong. There's two part to this. The first is propaganda -- remember that much of the official PRC releases are propaganda meant for both external and internal consumption. The line about "it's our own work!" is meant to be fed to the internal public for morale purposes. The second part is about "saving face" (but is tied to the first). If the PRC government admits to copying a design, traditional Chinese views have a tendency to see it as "losing face". Doesn't quite work out in a traditionally minded Chinese society. Individually they may all be willing to admit and credit as you said, but collectively they'll all toe the party line to avoid making the whole country "lose face". Ok, back to laughing about the possibility that the US might have to buy Russian airframes...