They have been trying to paint not that scary a picture of the nuclear accident in Japan, but what they have said is frightening enough when you think about it a bit.
This is pretty much game over for nuclear power. It could be argued that Chernobyl was an example of the risks of nuclear power in a totalitarian society (i.e. no oversight) with a significantly lower level of technological development, and not that applicable to an advanced democracy. After all, Three Mile Island, while serious, was kept from being a catastrophe by both mandated safety systems and skilled technicians.
But Japan is not the ex-USSR. It is neither totalitarian nor technologically backward. Game over.
They’ve given up on trying to control it because there’s too much radiation at the plant. That means it’s going to spiral far further out of control than it has already.
And I’m not being pessimistic by comparing it to Chernobyl, I’m being optimistic. Chernobyl involved but a single reactor. This involves multiple reactors, and multiple spent fuel storage ponds. Far, far more nuclear material than Chernobyl.
I’ve generally really enjoyed the Panasonic DMC-LX3 I bought a few years ago. It’s much better designed than the previous compact digicam I owned, and has already outlived it. That is not a terribly big surprise, as my previous compact digicam was a Canon, and in surveys, Panasonic beats Canon handily in customer satisfaction (at least for compact digicams; I doubt most of those polled used professional- grade SLR cameras).
But, it’s still a compact digicam, and as such still limited in comparison to an SLR. And so far as SLR cameras go, I have no plans to replace my two film SLR bodies.
It’s more than just the technical nightmares of my last foray into the digital SLR world; a digital SLR is simply not as suitable as a film one for primary interest of taking close-up photographs of plants in natural areas that might be far from the nearest road.
First, digital SLR bodies are heavy and bulky. Even bodies considered “light” inevitably are heavier and bulkier than a Pentax K1000, which back in its day was regarded as large and heavy for a 35mm SLR. That extra weight and volume is a major annoyance when it all has to be carried on my back in a pack with limited space.
Second, digital SLR lenses are heavy and bulky compared to film SLR lenses. This is because they contain motors and electronics to support autofocus. Autofocus being virtually useless for close-up photography, this means I would be forced to carry more weight to support a feature I am not even interested in. And one has to buy new lenses if one buys a DSLR, because the smaller sensor size on DSLR bodies means that the fields of view for your old film lenses are now all different. That 100mm macro lens is now more like a 150mm one (which can get awkward in tight spaces), and that 24mm wide angle lens is now more like a not-so-wide 35mm one.
At least one can still focus an autofocus lens in manual mode. Some complain a great deal about how the focus lacks the same “feel” as the focus mechanism of a traditional all-manual lens. They have something of a point, but frankly, it’s not that big of one. In contrast, the viewfinders of modern autofocus cameras (and all DSLR bodies are autofocus) are adversely impacted by the need to support the autofocus feature: they are inevitably dimmer and harder to use for manual focusing, because the reflex mirror is only partially silvered, because the autofocus sensor needs to rob some of the light.
So in general what I would end up with is a camera whose feature set subtracts from its usability. I wouldn’t mind so much if it was a feature set that I mostly wouldn’t use, if it had no such adverse aspect. But, as it is, no sale.
The bulk and weight issue even extends to the four-thirds format SLR cameras. Because of their intrinsically bulkier bodies and lenses, they end up being about the same size as my full-frame Pentax SLR bodies. Moreover, the lens selection for four-thirds cameras is quite limited, and they still have light-robbing half-silvered reflex mirrors.
The new mirrorless micro-four-thirds cameras finally do end up being lighter than my film equipment. That would be enough of a sales point to get me to buy one, despite the limited lens selection, if their electronic viewfinders weren’t still significantly inferior to optical ones. In particular, such finders don’t show a truly live view, and the time lag gets more and more excessive the lower the light levels get. By the time one gets to the light levels found on a Northwest forest floor on an overcast spring day, we’re talking about up to a second of lag time.
I’d have to guess that eventually, if the format lasts, micro-four-thirds might just get me to mostly retire my film SLR outfit. They will get better, and if part of that getting better is reducing the lag time in the finder to imperceptible levels even in low light, then my main objection to the things will be nullified. And I’d be able to cut some weight and bulk when hiking.
But, not yet.
So, I have a need to use database transactions in C#. The first example I run across involves a tangle of try, catch, and finally statements, which brings back bad memories of how awkward Java was to program with while using transactions.
“Wouldn’t it be nice,” I thought to myself, “if the SqlTransaction object implemented IDisposable and just did the right thing so that you could use the using statement and have things just work?
Monthly Index for 2011 |
Index of Years