Michel Aristegui

Michel Aristegui

Lives in France Tours, France
Works as a Mathematics Teacher
Joined on Oct 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bobbarber: If he said the things he's alleged to have said, then he shouldn't be a professor.

It's one thing to be a little gruff, and another to use language like bit***s when instructing students, or commenting on people's appearance, etc.

That said, these are just allegations, and also, there isn't much information about the process. Was he counseled at all, or did it go straight to "Gotcha!"

When I taught in high school there was a well-loved teacher, an older man, who was in his last year before retirement. He called a student an a**hole in front of thirty other students. Long story short, they kept him on. Looking back, it was probably the right decision. I think even the student involved came around to support him.

Everybody blames lawyers for our litigious society, but it's all of us. Everybody is trying to make a case, all the time. This kind of language is problematic, but were any solutions other than dismissal tried? There are other approaches out there.

@ BadScience
> We somehow have got to a horrible situation
> where people cannot interact with each other in an honest way.
> Young people cannot explore personal relationships
> in their real lives
> and now have to meet partners on dating sites
> on the internet.

I had heard of this trend in the United states but I couldn't believe the situation was as desperate as you describe it!

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: In the meantime, we have two narcisstic lunatics with freakish hairdos playing nuclear chicken.

But I love DPR, and it is OK to pause for some distractions. I usually back the woman's side of the story given the history of our species. Given that modern technology mostly ensures in focus well exposed pics, I wish I could develop a more artistic eye. But I think that is something you have to born with. My wife doesn't know an f stop from a doorstop, but she nearly always takes more pleasing photos. My approach is even a bilnd pig sometimes finds an acorn.

@ james s. kennedy
> I usually back the woman's side of the story
> given the history of our species.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to rely on the present facts?

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 06:31 UTC
In reply to:

Michel Aristegui: All the nonsense that originates in America arrives in France a few decades later. Happily I won't live long enough to see liberty of expression completely disappear in my country.

I agree that liberty of expression has limits. For example, insults should be avoided and grammar should be respected.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 13:28 UTC

All the nonsense that originates in America arrives in France a few decades later. Happily I won't live long enough to see liberty of expression completely disappear in my country.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 18:18 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

unbelievable: Honestly I don't understand that 1" and M4/3 mirrorless systems have not been sky-rocketing, because those systems currently form for 99.99% of mankind the optimal form factor: small (body & lenses), lightweight, decent photo quality (much much better than everything below 2/3') at just a small penalty compared to its oversize brothers (slightly reduced dynamic range).
Maybe its the relative high price tag of mirrorless compared to entry dslrs

Some photographers enjoy taking pictures, not just reviewing pictures. They need an optical viewfinder and a camera body comfortable to hold. Even if stabilization often counterbalances the fact that you can't comfortably hold a mirrorless camera, it has no effect on user experience.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

onlooker: Hipster special — on so many levels.

@ onlooker
Next time, after your shower, please waste someone else's time.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

Owen: Who the heck wants to go back to 36 shots per roll, sending it for processing and dragging out a Kodak slide projector that probably the damn bulb will burn out as soon as you're halfway thru viewing the slides.
I put up with film growing up and will never go back.

Nobody asked you to go back. Indeed nobody asked you anything.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 05:28 UTC
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (335 comments in total)
In reply to:

RamD: The only art is B&W, or "color is a childish obsession," or "no one sees in B&W," meaning what? While we aren't going to end the endless and generally useless debate about how much post-processing is "too much," the fact is the photographer is the artist and he or she is entitled to do whatever the hell that photographer wants with his or her own images. There are no "rules," least of all that only B&W or color is acceptable, or only the straight-out-of-the-camera image is acceptable (unless the photographer is a photojournalist). If you like the images, great. If you don't, that's fine as well, but for anyone to say that all B&W is worthless or vice versa, simply shows the lack of sophistication and appreciation of the person commenting.

Of course. That's why science is above art ...

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 19:26 UTC
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (335 comments in total)
In reply to:

RamD: The only art is B&W, or "color is a childish obsession," or "no one sees in B&W," meaning what? While we aren't going to end the endless and generally useless debate about how much post-processing is "too much," the fact is the photographer is the artist and he or she is entitled to do whatever the hell that photographer wants with his or her own images. There are no "rules," least of all that only B&W or color is acceptable, or only the straight-out-of-the-camera image is acceptable (unless the photographer is a photojournalist). If you like the images, great. If you don't, that's fine as well, but for anyone to say that all B&W is worthless or vice versa, simply shows the lack of sophistication and appreciation of the person commenting.

@ kodacolor200
Such as science.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 13:22 UTC
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (335 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: Many interesting comments here, my ‘two cents’:

Ansel Adams was a photographer, not a guru. I once attended a retrospective and the prints produced in the 1930’s were very different from those produced in the 1970’s. Seems high-contrast was a banker. The f64 group weren’t that interested in high DR – they wanted to emphasise the depiction of reality which was what, in their view, characterised photography.

This was in the ‘modernist era’ – eighty years ago – are we still busy trying to replicate it? Making the same images, aiming to replicate the ‘natural sublime’ that we all now know is irrelevant.

Guys, please, take a look at some other stuff. And Google “Anthropocene” We are well beyond this visual postcard nonsense.
Cheers.

> that we all now know is irrelevant.
> We are well beyond this visual postcard nonsense.

Pontificating, pontificating, pontificating ...
Today anybody can express his opinions thanks to the Internet. And the results are terrifying.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 07:56 UTC
On article In praise of shooting monochrome landscapes (335 comments in total)
In reply to:

RamD: The only art is B&W, or "color is a childish obsession," or "no one sees in B&W," meaning what? While we aren't going to end the endless and generally useless debate about how much post-processing is "too much," the fact is the photographer is the artist and he or she is entitled to do whatever the hell that photographer wants with his or her own images. There are no "rules," least of all that only B&W or color is acceptable, or only the straight-out-of-the-camera image is acceptable (unless the photographer is a photojournalist). If you like the images, great. If you don't, that's fine as well, but for anyone to say that all B&W is worthless or vice versa, simply shows the lack of sophistication and appreciation of the person commenting.

@ Kodacolor200
> Art is what separates us from animals as it is the base expression
> of our self awareness. The true value in Art is that it is something
> that you cannot quantify by standard measurements.

Things that you can quantify by standard measurements separate us from animals much more than art or even Art.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 07:47 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.

Pour mieux comprendre le pourquoi de cet adage, il faut considérer son symétrique : ce qui est mal compris s’exprime mal, c’est à dire « non clairement », de manière confuse.
Ainsi nombre de discours trop volumineux peu clairs et abscons, ou nombre d’explications confuses et peu compréhensibles révèlent l’incompréhension, la confusion, de celles ou ceux qui précisément les émettent. Et paradoxalement cela induit chez les personnes qui ne les comprennent pas le sentiment que c’est leur propre capacité de compréhension qui est en cause. Plus fort encore, dans cette logique de l’absurde on attribue aux auteurs cette qualité d’intelligence, puisque exprimant et donc (soi-disant) comprenant ce qu’apparemment on n’est pas à même de comprendre.
http://www.gillesguerin.com/philo/raison/adages-cit-diverses/enoncer-comprendre.htm

Needless to say, this trick doesn't fool me.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 04:52 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Vowel quality seems beyond your grasp.
Vowel quantity, alas, tends to disappear in French.
Anyway you made a big mistake comparing 'mot' and 'maux'.
So it's well within my grasp that you know things but that you don't understand them.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
Vowel quality seems beyond your grasp.
Vowel quantity, alas, tends to disappear in French.
Anyway you made a big mistake comparing 'mot' and 'maux'.
So it's well within my grasp that you know things but that you don't understand them.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 09:23 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
> Nope. I'm convinced there's a /statistical/ difference
> in the length of the [o] and [ɔ] sounds in French.

Certainly! But 'mot' and maux' are pronounced with [o]. Maybe I should point out that 'mot' is pronounced [mo] and not [mɔt].

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 07:20 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
You're wrong and you (probably) know it!
By the way I studied phonology and phonetics. Maybe I understood them a little better than you thanks to my scientific background. You seem to have studied those domains but apparently only with your memory. In an argumentation you should choose the relevant arguments, not recite a catalog.
However knowlegde of phonetics is not necessary to hear that the 'O' sound of 'boss' as pronounced by most Americans is different from the 'O' of 'bokeh' in the video.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 06:13 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

@ Antisthenes
There's no difference in French between "grand mot" and "grands maux".
Translation:
Il n'y a pas de différence en français entre "grand mot" et "grands maux".

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: It is not an issue with Pentax / Ricoh Imaging.
Problem is the mother ship, and one must read through the accounting language. Ricoh covers up lots of own incompetence here, and I'll explain why.
Ricoh Imaging, though, a totally separate and independent business unit, has been thoroughly reorganised by itself, and they design, develop and market products without *any* external help from Ricoh whatsoever.
Ricoh, however, did not repurpose some of their assets, and THAT they now wish to claim as "loss" in "camera business". Repurposing must be written off as cost for a new production. For Nikkei, all that "stuff" are "cameras". Despite that Ricoh Imaging does not create loss. In short, due to complicated internal accounting, people think who-knows-what. Ricoh is incompetent, and should have taken better care of assets, not under-utilize them.
Ricoh Imaging, though, does not make compact cameras for ages now, those fabs should have been taken care of, but Ricoh didn't do it.

@ Petreluk
I see that you didn't open the dictionary. Here's what you could have found: 'to speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you knew everything about it and as if only your opinion was correct'.
But what worries me is that you look sincere.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: It is not an issue with Pentax / Ricoh Imaging.
Problem is the mother ship, and one must read through the accounting language. Ricoh covers up lots of own incompetence here, and I'll explain why.
Ricoh Imaging, though, a totally separate and independent business unit, has been thoroughly reorganised by itself, and they design, develop and market products without *any* external help from Ricoh whatsoever.
Ricoh, however, did not repurpose some of their assets, and THAT they now wish to claim as "loss" in "camera business". Repurposing must be written off as cost for a new production. For Nikkei, all that "stuff" are "cameras". Despite that Ricoh Imaging does not create loss. In short, due to complicated internal accounting, people think who-knows-what. Ricoh is incompetent, and should have taken better care of assets, not under-utilize them.
Ricoh Imaging, though, does not make compact cameras for ages now, those fabs should have been taken care of, but Ricoh didn't do it.

@ petreluk
Maybe you should look up 'pontificate' in a dictionary.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 10:59 UTC
Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »