crappyjones123

with so much hoopla around these mirror less cameras, i get the feeling that it has been more or less a failed experiment. the nex 3 and 5, it feels were far more successful. the 5n seems to be gaining a bit of ground with the 5 users but the nex 7 probably due to the cost hasn't been as successful. probably the lack of native lenses. one can adapt a bunch of rangefinder glass but one doesn't need $1000+ body to do that. for people that know what they are doing, the nex 5 is "good enough." the x100 seems to come in second place in terms of market adoption. anything after that doesn't seem to have stuck from the little i have read. i still have the nex 5 body (sold the lens) and am contemplating just keeping it and buying another zeiss lens down the line. or getting a zf lens for my d7000 and getting a f-e mount adapter. hmm

Never heard of him but god damn. What a life indeed.

The one with the guys and the tree is making me super dizzy.

That doesn't look like a bad haul duggeh. Not bad at all. Post results pls.

Happy bday dawg

Happy bday sir

i borrowed the neighbors 11" dell inspiron until i decided to get the 13". took it to school for a week. keyboard felt cramped. it was a pain. didn't need a month to find out it wasn't working for me.

fyi, if you buy a thunderbolt monitor at the same time as a macbook air with the applecare, the applecare applies to the monitor as well. only applies to things purchased together as a bundle though. can you wait until early march? when I had the thinkpad and the iPad, the tp stayed home for heavy duty stuff and for lots of typing whereas my books, music, labs etc went with me on the iPad. it was a great solution. when the tp passed away, the iPad alone didn't cut it for writing 20 page long reports and i got the macbook air. the mba made the iPad superfluous since the only reason the tp stayed home was the weight. given how light the mba is, i don't mind carrying it everywhere i go. if all you need is something for content consumption on the go, depending on the price of the new iPad, you might be able to save a few bucks. that said, if you have a machine at home, the 11" would be just fine, i think, for portable use. i just can't live with a 11" screen as my only screen. the 13" does feel cramped at times but what it lacks in size, it more than makes up for in portability and weight.

Please tell me you are at a work computer nate and not allowed to install any other browser.

I think I was invited at the sarasota meet at genes a few years ago. Came along. Found a Very nice place to hang out with some of the most generous people I have ever met.

bryan, send that usb stick back if you still have it. it could make a journey back to you. possibly.

john, whatever size you decide, check out bhphotovideo.com. they still have the deal that I got a few weeks ago - free parallels or some other software (i got parallels) and apple care for $95 (usually $250-300). i don't know what to do with parallels as i don't have a (legit) copy of windows but it was just an initial problem. now that i have gotten used to the mac os and have found mac equivalents that do the same thing that the pc program did, i am less and less inclined to get windows on this thing. i have the 13" mba and love it. 11" would have been a bit too small for me as it is my only computer and i do enjoy watching movies/tv shows on it. yes i could get a bigger monitor but 99% of my time using it has been spent at the university library or well just outside home so dual monitors seems like a waste of money.

went back to the nikon lens today before i gave up on af altogether. MUCH better. Don't think I could have gotten this shot with manual focus that quickly. Pulled out the camera of the bag, click, done. might get some zf glass just to satisfy the mf monkey on my back but Im pleased with the sharpness of the lens, at least in the center. in retrospect, i wish i had picked a higher f stop to get the front 2 flowers in focus as well but i know better for next time. essentially a 100% crop. just had to move the boundaries out to get all the flowers in the image. as far as pp goes, how does one prevent washing out parts of those petals that you see washed out? the image straight out of the camera seemed really really saturated.

Lightroom 3 for 70 bucks on bh today.

Seller claims camera shake is throwing off the auto focus as the lens was fine with him. I dont understand how that makes sense when the af shots were taken with the camera on a cement platform and shit was blurry when the hand held shot with manual focus was much better... Thoughts? Ari, I'll try the suggested when I get home tomorrow.

body is a d7000. it does have af micro adjust but the option doesn't highlight with the sigma lens. it does so with the nikon lens however. ill look in the manual again today in case i did something wrong but it didn't let me go into the option last night. purchased it on fm from a guy with good feedback so hopefully things can be resolved. it wasn't cheap (not for me at least) and i would prefer not to buy more gear just to get this to work correctly.

i recently got a sigma 30/1.4 for nikon. with manual focusing i am getting fairly sharp images but with af i haven't really gotten any images where the focus was where i wanted it to be. on a shelf with af with focus point on the bottle closest to the camera - http://imgur.com/Ke2R7 on a shelf with af with focus point on the bottle farther away from the camera - http://imgur.com/KOEPt with mf, hand held using live view - http://imgur.com/BAfsQ all shots were taken wide open in aperture mode but the results have been the same with the lens stopped down and in other shooting modes. all the shots were indoors but outdoors i have back focusing issues as well on all shots. the nikon 35/1.8 lens i was shooting for the past week with is not as sharp nor does it give as nice colors but it focuses accurately so i know the body is ok. i pmed the seller and am waiting for a reply but what are my options if he doesn't offer any help

where is shelly? i feel weird around all these biologists...

1. increase sample size. 2. decrease noise. 3. 4. profit.

Lehmann is a typical grad text. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0387949194 I'll see if I still have my copy. It had a nice rigorous treatment.

didn't know biology was moving away from it. it is still the back bone of model testing for robustness and risk analysis. at least for the things i worked on, i couldn't go 5 pages without confidence intervals making an appearance. whacha coin with anova beefy?

im assuming you are talking about the probability of a type 1 error. how does one define low, even in the context of the null hypothesis? surely, the drug companies would like low to be 10% so they can peddle their wares but would you prefer to take a drug that the fda cleared for consumption at alpha = 1% or alpha = 10%. "low" could mean different things depending on who is looking at things. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/signif4.pdf how does one provide confidence intervals without alpha being predefined?

"hmm...crappy is right but i can't let that pass. so i am going to backtrack and say that the preciseness doesn't matter even though i tried to correct him on it (and failed)" just admit you were wrong instead of trying to safe face. sorry to thread crap doug but needed to get that out.

absolutely wrong and utterly misleading. see the example under statistical significance. http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/sigtest.htm any elementary stat book will explain why it is necessary to give a significance level or a p value otherwise the test is meaningless.

i could, for alpha = 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% i know its just the pedantic mathematician in me talking but it leaves this weird feeling in the back of my throat whenever people talk about statistical significance without mentioning the significance level.