Trick image?
Interesting trick image. If you stare at it for more than 5 minutes, an Alistair Dabbs article appears.
Yep, coat, thanks.
My prospective client is staring at my nuts. The quality of my work is apparently not too important. What really matters are the warm bits that dangle between my legs. Indeed, the human resources rep is insisting that I be prepared to present my lobster and urchins on demand, as regularly as possible. You’d think I would be …
The image is free to use (emphatically not public domain, mind) and there are no objections or limits placed on its use, as published by the lady depicted and the copyright owner of the image.
While any objections on her part would not be particularly effective, I believe if you use an image for free, you should at least have the decency to ask the copyright owner if she is okay with being used as a caption image for an article like this.
Mind you, a reverse image search appears to make her the poster child of the Internet for sex in the workplace...
ha. I'm not not a man.nope. not anymore. I'm not even a number. We're all barely, and just about, a barcode these days.or the advanced might organisations might have us down using ocular biometic or fingerprint. DNA seqencing is coming onstream soon as the primary identity verification. They will take it from children at birth and embed it's code in your national insurance card.
*sigh* i thought i'd be long gone before this tracking junk happened. Or we'd at least have Mars to escape to easily. Shame on my short-shiited ness.Catch you on the flip side good folks.
A big plus for "Arse-eye" is the fact that it is gender neutral. The under-desk system would be "looking" at a different mass sizes for women than men. That may be seen as an advantage but the system might run into problems with transgender occupants. In fact, I just noticed that the word occu-"pant" is quite appropriate for Arse-eye....
TGIF...
Could you, or any other kind readers, determine the actual topic of this article? I read through it a number of times, but could not tell what was real, what was the author enjoying the writing, and what the story was about. Many pardons if it is obvious to others, but I didn't get it.
Could you, or any other kind readers, determine the actual topic of this article?
Yes.
Many pardons if it is obvious to others, but I didn't get it.
I would say the content of the comments section is sufficient evidence that the article was clear enough to a substantial audience.
Humor, of course, is not universal. We don't expect everyone to respond the same way to a given piece of writing.
One of those shelves that hang from a worktop, a hot water bottle or small electric heat-pad, a very small pivoting fan (or one of those Chinese cat statues that waves a raised paw).
Slide shelf under desktop beside knee, put filled hot water bottle and moving object on shelf, walk away. Come back at lunch time and remove for 20 minutes. Back to pub.
I leave it to my fellow commentards to add to the list a widget that generates keyboard activity to one's laptop or PC.
... and I'm willing to acknowledge someone else with a gripping hand argument ...
... I'm teaching my nieces & nephews the fine art of B&W photography. Film, darkroom, enlarger, et alia. No electronics need apply.
(Out of curiosity, am I the only ElReg reader who owns, and uses, a darkroom timer?)
(Out of curiosity, am I the only ElReg reader who owns, and uses, a darkroom timer?)
You might be, on account of a shortage of darkrooms. I can tell you one thing: using a smartphone for that would be a bad idea, mine flashes when it rings which could possibly make a mess of the exposure :).
I had a very nice Gralab timer given to me by my uncle, which was unfortunately stolen some years ago. I believe my wife has one she uses for cooking.
I actually have an entire darkroom setup, including long-since-expired chemicals, boxed up in my garage. I use the thermometer for measuring the air conditioner vents when I suspect under-performance. The print was last used to dry papers that had been soaked by a carelessly placed water glass.
It's a shame, really, but I lost interest in the hobby decades ago. I should organize the hardware and sell it on eBay or Craigslist or something.
Re: On the other hand ...
Clearly I am also an ElReg reader, and I do own and use a darkroom timer. I mostly use it in my own darkroom, developing B&W film and sometimes still colour C-41 film too, 120-rollfilm from my Mamiyas.
Not that I'm "anti-digital" at all, apart from my Canon EOS that darkroom timer is my own design and uses a 6809 microprocessor with memory and I/O etc. to save my typical process times and so on.
You see, electronics is applied in my darkroom, although the art of winding rollfilm onto the dev-tank spirals is all in the wrist action, done while sitting down with the important bits on my lap... ...
To use a box camera you need:
1. To understand that it can only take pictures outdoors, usually between 2 hours after dawn and 2 hours before dusk unless it is sunny.
2. The ability to thread 120 rollfilm correctly.
3. The ability to hold the thing still during an exposure around 1/50th second.
From memory, the failure rate of box camera exposures was quite high. Furthermore, most of them had crap winding mechanisms which gave out after a while. Fortunately they had so little use that most of them didn't wear out, because film and printing was so expensive.
Modern digital cameras can get a picture in a wide range of conditions, normally in focus and shake free, rarely go wrong and individual pictures are dirt cheap.
As for the cost, in the 1950s a basic Leica with standard lens cost roughly a working man's annual salary. The latest interchangeable lens Fuji, which is many more times capable than that Leica, costs around an average 1 month's salary.
I'm not sure what the conclusion from this ought to be, except that engineering rules.
Today, a Leica still costs roughly a working man annual salary... even back in the '50s there were cameras more capable than a Brownie but far less expensive than a Leica. After all all you needed was a shutter and a diaphgram. Russian Zenith cameras were among the cheapest, but you could also find cameras like Kodak Retinette.
Canon itself started as a company selling cheaper replicas of Zeiss/Leica rangefinder to American soldiers...
In fact the current Leica with a standard lens costs around £5000, so you're exaggerating. But my point is that back in those days, thanks to Cartier-Bresson and Snowdon, journalists were using Leicas as standard equipment. I remember Victor Blackman, the Daily Express photographer when it was a newspaper, with a Rollei TLR and a Leica as his daily kit. The current Leicas are Veblen cameras; the new Fuji has, I think, the same sensor and the lenses are just as good as the current Leica digital, and so is a realistic equivalent. A working photojournalist won't be using a Leica. That was why I made the comparison.
A modern DSLR or advanced compact replaces not only a film SLR or rangefinder, but also a 16mm ciné camera. It probably stands abuse better than either asnd is much less likely to go wrong.
I have a Fed 4 range-finder my father gave me as a present almost 40 years ago. Last tried it out about 15 years ago with some "colour" IR slide film and it worked! Even the exposure meter was still working (selenium cell, no battery required). Very sharp images even if heavy and a bit fiddly to use.
But modern digital cameras are much lighter and easier to use, and no cost/delay in processing film to see how successful (or not) you photos were.
"I'm not sure what the conclusion from this ought to be, except that engineering rules."
People rarely print out their digital pictures for posterity. They don't even back up the files. Even when they do - they don't re-copy within the lifespan of the archive media. The result will be a generation who have lost all their historical pictures - or can't read the media or process the format. They rarely edit them to the apparently most significant ones - which can sometimes be an advantage.
I have photographs of me and my family covering over a century. Merely keeping them away from heat and light means they can be digitally re-scanned at any time. Over the years digital scanning has improved to achieve somewhere near the same resolution and contrast as the originals.
My first camera was a Brownie that my parents loaned me. I think about half of the pictures came out...
120 roll film is still available.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Format_120&ci=2545&N=4093113317+4130468174
I used to have a Russian made Lubitel TLR (Twin Lens Reflex) that used 120 film. It had basic manual settings for F-Stop and Shutter speed. I used 100 ASA or 400 ASA Slide film. The results were spectacular. Shame that camera was stolen...
I need to go in search of a "Seagull" again.
... early adopters are already out there in force, (just not too much lest they end up having laundry-related problems).
Here you have some BrownEye stretch goals, which will be seen in an extremely positive way by HR people:
- Extensible and flexible DeepDive patented health checking technology to film the last meter inside the employee and provide valuable feedback of his inmost works. DeepDive can be used too to provide a comforting reward / discomforting punishment due to its patented StretchIt capabilities.
- Accurate SnapOff surgical add-on, to get rid of malignant portions of your employees as they work, thus allowing years and years of uninterrupted and happy service.