Edymagno: Hungary has been erased form my international destinations. Sad!
Aw, poor Hungary what's it going to do now?
Here's a reportage of sorts by a Russian designer Lebedev, who travels a lot and puts together these somewhat unorthodox reports, mostly photographing road signs, garbage bins, telephone booths, etc, and people of course. You can probably translate that page to read his comments to every picture, which are more or less his thoughts spoken out loud. At the bottom there are forward-backward links to other pages of the report, you can see other Balkan countries there as well (the one right after is about Bucharest and the one before is about Romania in general). http://www.tema.ru/travel/bexp-9/
crisno1: Romania looks sad and hopeless through the eyes of this photographer. This photos don't represent Romania. If you want to see the beauty of this country and its people, check out the work of Sorin Onisor http://www.sorinonisor.ro/ or Dan Mirica http://www.danmirica.ro/ and Bogdan Comanescu, who lives in Transilvania and some of his work was published in National Geographic https://www.facebook.com/bogdan.comanescu
Yeah, I mean he took a picture of a landfill... What for? What's the message here, "things built by the communists are in a state of decay 20 years after the communism is gone"?
des hill: average uninteresting snapshots, no photographic merit (shame the snapshotter didn't think to turn the camera to portrait format), scraping the barrel to milk the last £ or $ from whoever is silly enough to pay, methinks.
it's not about the artistic value, it's about the subject being photographed. I would love to see some boring unprofessional snapshots of Beethoven walking his dog. The crazy fans will be more than happy to see some pics they've never seen. For god's sake I heard that Elvis' barber managed to sell a jar of Elvis' hair, stranger things have happened.
BLongborough: Could you give us a few specs on the torch? Like its lens foal length and aperture, and its ISO range...?
it's a massive pinhole camera, can't you see?
ThorstenMUC: Am I the only one always reading this news wrong, when scanning over the news:Olympus OM-D... Olympus Stylus... Olympus torch... wait WTF? ;-)
good one :)
Waimak Stud: Um... Priorities? A country that doesn't yet want people to have equal freedoms under the law wants to send an Olympic torch into space? That doesn't make you look great, it kinda just makes you look like d1cks.
robjons I'd have to argue that the percentage of dead people is not a good safety indicator. So far both the Shuttle and Soyuz had two fatal launches/landings each, both have been launched 100-something times, just because the Shuttle can take on more people doesn't mean it's somehow less safe. However the fact that all Soyuz fatalities occurred within the first ten launches and that the same may not be said about the Shuttle is of some significance.
alegator: That first picture looks like a graveyard...I wouldn't enter a russian rocket, not even drunk.
Stating the facts is fine as long as they have something to do with the current discussion. Unfortunately this is where you have failed. Tune your vacuum tube radio, grandpa, and realize that it's not 1969 any more.
steelhead3: Putin will be on the next rocket (shirtless) to bring back the torch.
And Toronto mayor Rob Ford is doing crack in a drunken stupor down at the Danforth.
Early failures in the 60's? Oh man, that's an eye opener! How stupid are Americans to even allow their astronauts to get near a Russian rocket? They obviously haven't seen the terrifying "graveyard". Even a drunk person wouldn't get in one of those things, what does that tell you? They must be on some serious drugs - that's the only explanation. Possibly LSD. Overall the stereotypes are confirmed - everything Russian is junk and Americans are stupid.
Equal freedoms? Are you an American? Well then you must be a straight white male...
Like anyone's gonna let you in there anyway :) The crews of Challenger and Columbia would probably choose this "graveyard" landscape over the ocean view they had. Thank god they finally shut that space coffin down.
An utterly pointless waste of money. This is what separates us from the animals. It's beautiful.
parkmcgraw: 1) The term “sapphire glass” is an oxymoron being that glass is an amorphous material, where as sapphire is a crystal matrix. Disappointing for an “optics” related site to not know or be sensitive to the difference. But then again, most iPhone users are simply thumbology masters that graduated from some other toy, perhaps a Blackberry or PS2, and know little if anything about physics and optics. What’s next, degrees Kelvin?
2) Being that sapphire has a high index of refraction needs an optical coating to reduce reflections off the first surface do to impedance mismatch at the surface between n1 (air) and n2 (window). The article, from the attempt to scratch the surface of the window, reads as though the sapphire widow is without an antireflection coating.
Impedance mismatch, eh?
What's wrong with degrees kelvin? A quick search shows that the editors of Physical Review and Science are fine with it, but who are those people, right?
Calm down dude, it's not a window, it's a lens :)
Go to any amateur astronomy forum or pick up a magazine, you'll see thousands of pictures of planets, galaxies and nebulae that look exactly the same. So what? How many times have you seen photos of the mountains at the Moraine Lake, Banff, Canada? They all look almost exactly the same. Same goes for any other frequently photographed landscape.
Also, I can't imagine anyone actually paying money for either of the two photos...