darryl-taylor

<p>As is usual when intelligent people begin to discuss concepts and ideas; it's all getting quite deep, so I'll inject a comment from the shallow end.<br>

With regards the original question as to the apparent difference between a picture of a nude, and a picture of a naked person, a simple grammatical rule springs to mind. For the most part naked/nakedness/nude/nudity etc. are interchangeable, but you don't hear of prisoners or victims being forcibly stripped nude. I would assume that this property of the word naked can affect our perception of the term, so that being naked is sometimes considered less a matter of choice than appearing nude</p>

I bought a D3000 at the start of the month and the first time I charged the battery the charger appeared to do nothing for the

first 90 minutes or so, being the trusting soul that I am I just left it and went for a walk. When I came back it was fully

charged and has charged with no problems ever since. I've had this with laptop batteries in the past as well; when charging a

new battery the chargers don't appear to be doing anything for ages, then they just seem to start working. I think it's

something to do with Li-on batteries.

As far as polarity is concerned; the chargers are internally rectified so the input to them can be connected either way

around (the UK chargers have our standard 3 pin plug on one end of the lead, and a figure 8 plug on the other end that can

be inserted in either orientation).

Hope that helps

I don't own an expensive DSLR, I'd lke to but at the moment it's just not an option, so I don't have a bias toward a certain set of features that I really must have on a camera. That said; in the future if there was a video/stills hybrid camera that allowed me to shoot action sequences in high quality, and then allowed the extraction of single frames for use as still images (due to a more advanced read/ write system) I'd buy one.

Just a thought, but if they keep developing the features along these lines it will eventually happen.

<p>At the risk of sounding way too cynical and showing myself up for the non professional that I am....<br>

if you're wearing your camera on a quick release clip whilst walking around a crowded city looking for that winning candid shot, what's to stop some light fingered scrote from swiping your pride and joy off of your belt and having it away on their toes?</p>

<p>At least with a strap they'd have to try and drag you along with it</p>

<p>1/250s is not the light speed.<br />Light speed is 3 x 10(8) m/s.</p>

<p>In a vacuum</p>

<p>Good points Larry and Ilia, Me get a life<br>

any life will do, your own would be preferable of course, but failing that latch onto any available</p>

<p>and that would be the problem with anyone who claims to understand art, they are assuming that they can relate to the emotions that drove the artist to create the work in the first place. How many people have researched the "meaning" of the Mona Lisa? It has to be one of the greatest works of "art" in the known world, which I can only say is complete and utter tosh, it shows DaVinci's exceptionally high level of craftmanship but was created to fund what he considered his art. Which was creating new and fabulous mechanisms to better understand and control the universe as he saw it, not making things that would allow people to carry on seeing the world around them in the way that they had been taught was normal.<br>

Art should cause the viewer to look at the world in a slightly different way, not necessarily adopt a new perspective in all that they do, but at least accept that an alternative perspective exists. The whole issue of "understanding" is an attempt to twist the artist's original view into something that conforms with a collective ideal of what the artist should have been trying to say, not always what they were actually trying to say. Curiousity is what drives humanity to make new discoveries, once an idea has been analysed and accepted/pushed into a ordered structure of recognisable subsets it ceases to be a work of art as it ceases to have the power of mystery.</p>

<p>I'm going before I get anymore involved</p>

<p>At the risk of proving myself to be the uneducated idiot that I probably am....<br>

I was always under the impression that art was a tool for communicating and relaying abstract concepts that the creator was unable to voice for whatever reason, be it lack of vocabulary or even lack of opportunity in the case of those individuals who felt persecuted and isolated in the extreme. If this is the case then once any other human being has understood the underlying message, the art has served it's purpose and as such could be classed as "dead" or spent.<br>

I shall leave it to those who have a greater grasp of these things to argue about it, I'd rather be taking average pictures that remind me of how I felt when I was "there"</p>