Just When You Thought Scary Snakes Were Bad

Just when you thought that scary snakes were about as bad, as it could get... along come a giant Sea Lamprey: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/15/what-is-this-alien-like-creature-found-in-new-j ersey-and-yes-its-real/
Now you REALLY won't want to go for a swim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfWHqrYUqo
Wonder if they have those things in Lake Minnetonka?
Hunt

Geesus... BIll ! I was scared enough before this...just about life in general...now I'm shaking in my boots !
hehe... good shark music.. I think Steven S used that same composer for a bunch of his work ??? Seem to think that for some reason...
LOL... what a hoot...
Its definitely time for a beer !
thanks for the laugh !

Similar Messages

Just When You Thought it Was Safe to Sleep Over the Pet Shop

Well, talk about "scary snakes:" http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/05/escaped-python-kills-two-young-children-in-canada/
If you live above a pet shop, with scary snakes, do not close your eyes!
Hunt

That is why I’ve only allowed my daughters to have hamsters. They are so cute and cuddly. However, both hamsters have bitten my finger, and have drawn blood.
The ironic thing is that I have no recourse for these vicious attacks on me. In nature, when an animal attacks, the only defense is to fight back. Even though I weigh at 10,000 times more than them, morally I cannot squash them like a bug. I cannot call the police/Animal Control to report a vicious animal. I cannot sue my daughters for pain and suffering. Kaiser will not give me counseling for this traumatizing event.
Life is so unfair.
New movie – Hamsters on a plane?

Just when you thought it was safe ...

Yes, I'm back. (Sorry Craig !)
I wonder if any of the Krazy Old Krew is still here that will remember me.
Anyway, just want to take a moment to mention that I've finally had enough free time to spend some reading the2nd Edition of Practical Workflow for SAP (2009) and I can't put it down. It's way more interesting than Avatar ...
Second, congratulatons to SAP for committing the resources to help Workflow into the future and congratulations to Joceyln, Erik, Ginger, Oliver, Somya, Silvana, Susan, Thomas, Paul, Mike, Alan, Shalini, Jorn, and Ted on a phenomenal, truly truly impressive job on the 2nd Edition !!!!!
Third, I'm back in a position where I may have interesting work-related issues to blog about again, so look for some upcoming blogs under Ranting (you know - the "no points awarded category - so no one can complain about point-harvesting) ...
Best to all, whether you remember me or not.
djh
Edited by: David Halitsky on Mar 11, 2010 8:34 PM

Thanks for the link to V's bloglist, Stephen.
Although I applaud both his effort and perspective as valuable, I do think he may be ignoring two very simple economic drivers in his discussion of SI's:
functional specs are relatively high-margin, low-risk work products
(low-risk because intrinsically untestable prior to actual development, high-margin because SI's bill out SME's high)
code is a low-margin, high-risk work product
(high-risk because intrinsically testable, low-margin because SI's bill out developers low relative to SME rates)
Are these key drivers in the SI business model?
And if so, is it any wonder that a project fails after being front-loaded with too many SME's who can never contractually be held accountable by the customer for inadequacies in their specs, assuming they're even still on the project when the inadequacies are discovered during development? Is it any wonder that there often doesn't seem to be enough time and money left to get develoment done properly and that developers must often participate directly with customer personnel in ex post facto "design by defect" cycles?
Suppose each SI were required to enter each of its SME's in a central registry along with the name of each of the functional specs the SME had completed for any previous customer.
Suppose further that for each of an SME's functional specs in this registry, the previous customer who paid for the spec could enter the number of defects that arose during develooment due to inadequacies in the functional spec.
Would the resulting information in the registry differ in principle from the kind of information which (I believe) is currently available to prospective patients regarding OR mortality rates of possible prospective surgeons?
(PS - that was not the upcoming 'rant' topic I have in mind ... it's way too obvious for anyone who's been around the block once or twice.)
Best
djh

Just When You Thought it Was Safe to Go to the Grill

Well, the backyard grilling session will never be the same: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/world-test-tube-burger-close-meat-short-flavo r-article-1.1417763
I guess that one would serve "near-beer" with the "near-burger?"
Hunt

they did great job... nice...
and YOU did great job on that ! good going ! really cool.
re: lighting , camera , etc.. I was watching my new antenna tv last night for a few minutes...( got rid of cable provider for tv so I can save $$ )... and was watching 'lifeboat'.
black and white, hitchcock IIRC ? and takes place on a small boat. This is hard to do. It would work well as a play on stage probably ( for all I know it was a play before it was a film ? ). But to do this as a film is very challenging for everyone. actors, crew etc.
For one thing it can get really boring fast cause you're stuck in this small 'space' ...( submarine movies are like this too, very challenging..which is why I liked Das Boot ). Also, there was some movie about conquistidors on a river ( raft ) ...by werner herzog
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068182/
that was really well done...in terms of being cramped for "space" but keeping the story dynamic.
Soooo, I was sorta watching the lifeboat thing and I know it's on a stage. It's not outside. I know it's lit to make it look like it is outside ( sunlight and big outdoor type lighting ).
I also know it is all 'hard light " ( getting back to the definition of lights )... and for the iso ( then it was called asa ) of the film, I KNOW the hard lights were arc lamps and really BIG hard lights ...
There was not a single soft light on this stage and the look of the thing was pretty impressive to me.
For one thing, it really looks like it is shot outside. Plus it looks like it is shot on the ocean. Plus it looks like these people ( actors) are really on a lifeboat... and THEN there's the actual story and characters and so on...
So when I SEE something done well, like your edit , and the product etc. I really appreciate it.
Thanks you warthog !

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...

Well, I'm back on an SAP gig more quickly than I expected.. Sorry for the false alarm.
Due to the nature of the gig, I won't be maintaining as high a profile here at Coffee Corner ... I know that will please many and disappoint few.
But I will be asking my usual questions in the relevant Forums, and I hope to get as much help from the usual suspects as I have in the past (Uwe, Rich, Suresh, a@s, nxo ... apologies to anyone I've left out.)
In fact, I'm about to post a question about restoring MaxDB tables down in the Trial Version forum right now, so if any of you have had DOKTL corrupted by a hard "down" on your PC, you may want to follow the thread ...
Best to all
djh

Damn it...! </kicking self> ... I thought of responding to your "Goodbye cruel world" post with an "I am sure you will be back", but didn't.
So you have a desktop in your hotel room, or did you convert the wardrobe closet into a server room and train the hotel staff to wear static-free Wellingtons (a.k.a. "gummboots")?
Cheers,
Julius
PS: Is there any way to place a "watch" on an SDN user ID?

When you do billing info do you get billed monthly or just when you purchase things

when you do billing info do you get billed monthly or just when you purchase things

It is no different from when you buy things using your credit card at a shop. IF you go to the shop today and buy something it will appear on the next monthly credit card statement. IF you buy nothing in th emonthly billing period then nothig appears on your card? Have you never used a credit card before? Are you for real?

Just when I thought I new how progressive and interlaced are working....

Hey everyone.
I thought I new the difference between progressive and interlaced but I've still got a few questions. For the most part... i get it. Progressive is like 1 solid picture. Interlaced breaks up the picture into interlaced lines and 2 fields, odd and even . Great, that much I've got.
Here's my issues.
This is actually a compressor question but it starts off with Final Cut.
I shot some footage on Mini DV NTSC 29.97 interlaced.
When I edit it in Final Cut things look pretty good. I see a little interlacing in the preview window but that's ok, it's the preview window. I know there is a filter to de-interlace my footage but what is the option in my sequence settings of Field Dominance? There is an option of field Dominance- Lower, even and None. Lower and even I assume deal with interlacing fields. I assumed none meant progressive. What's the point of needing a filter if I can change the field dominance within my sequence settings? Does it do the same thing?
If I export this footage to compressor I use the H.264 codec from inside compressor.
I noticed that I can turn the Frame Controls tab of my setting on. I then have access to the resizing controls. Resize Filter... not sure what that is. Then Output fields. I change that to progressive. Which I assume deinterlaced everything... but then there is another option right below that to Deinterlace....? Didn't I just do that by saying their are no fields? On a final note after it exports and I go to look at the .mov... the footage is still interlaced.
One last thing with compressor. The above issues are all part of my setting inside of the inspector for the actual "codec" i have attached to the project. If I mouse click on the project itself... not the settings of the codec but the project itself, the information inside my inspector window changes. Now instead of Codec Settings I have A/V Attributes... there is an option there for Native Field Dominance? Which one do I change? How many field dominances are there? I have 1 in Final Cut another 1 in my AV Attributes of my project in compressor and a 3rd on in the codec settings.
I hope these questions make sense. They are confusing issues to me so I'm not quite sure how to ask them.
Thanks a lot.
-Drew

It's not surprising that you're confused. It's a pretty confusing subject. Hopefully, I can help you get some sense out of it.
Most of your questions stem from not quite understanding the definitions of "deinterlacing", "progressive frame rate", and "field dominance". Let's start with the last since it pertains to your first question.
When you have interlaced footage, you have 2 fields (as you noted) per frame. One field is drawn on the Odd (or Upper) scan lines of the TV. 1,3,5,7...down to 479. The other field takes the Even (or Lower) scan lines: 2,4,6,8...480. Together they are woven into a single frame.
The field dominance in your sequence settings determines which field is drawn first. DV and NTSC in general is Lower field dominant and if your footage is DV, you should not change this. Interlaced HD is typically Upper field dominant. Again, under most circumstances, this should not be changed. What will likely occur is a "tearing" of the image in movement, particularly noticed in pans or fast action. None draws each line successively which is how progressive footage needs to be interpreted.
However, progressive does NOT mean deinterlaced. Nor does deinterlaced mean progressive. If you use the deinterlace filter in FCP on your DV footage, you merely remove one field from your footage and REPLACE it with a copy of the field you kept. In other words, if you set the deinterlace for Upper, then the clip will copy the image in the Lower field and paste it into the Upper field. The footage will still be interlaced.
In Compressor, changing the Output to Progressive in the frame controls will make your interlaced footage progressive. This should always be done when the final viewing medium is a computer. You see, computer monitors always display thing progressively; they have trouble with interlacing frames. They are not built like TVs. If going to TV, then you want to keep it interlaced (unless you're going for the progressive look), as that is how standard def TVs are designed to view video.
The deinterlace option in Compressor is the same as the filter in FCP, but as you know now, that's not the same thing as making a file progressive.
Finally, the AV settings for the clip you placed in Compressor are the same as the sequence settings in FCP. They help the program determine how the file should be displayed. If you have DV footage, and you switch the dominance in that setting or in FCP, then you risk having your footage look jittery and generally no good.
I hope this clears things up for you a bit.
Andy

Just when I thought it was all fine

Just unplugged my 3 GS FROM BEING ON CHARGE over night. Have done one hour and 4 minutes of web browsing/ sky news app. 3G usage and the battery is down to 21%
ridiculous.
I have been using it on and off since I had it replaced last week and had been getting 4 hours usage, broken through out the day. Which was on par with my 3Gso I was happy enough.
The only thing I have done differently is charge it via my mains adPter and not through the USB. THAT shouldn't make a difference though!?

How bright is your screen? Is Bluetooth always on? Is Auto-Lock on? Do you Fetch your mail manually, hourly, or is it set too push? Are you on WiFi connection, 3G or Edge, is your signal good? Did you charge it and drain it fully before using it, do you let it drain all the way or is it always plugged in to charge when ever it can. These are things to consider.

Just when I thought the service couldn't get any worse...

I "upgraded" to 150Mb fios last September. Since then I've experienced consistent Internet service interruptions.
My calls to Verizon service tech support have been met with their replacing my router, ONT box, and continued assurances the issue would be resolved quickly. The latest time consuming interaction occurred this morning when their tech support engineer told me they would be working on the problem today.
Now I don't have phone dial tone. Could that be related to either verizon trying to fix the problem or perhaps some tech support guy being a bit vindictive?
I'm also wondering how much longer it will be, beyond the 30 minutes I've aloready been sitting on hold, before I can talk to someone at Verizon about the phone issue.

Same here. I upgraded awhile back to HS and have had problems with drops. However, it has become much worse. While watching a movie(s) from Amazon.com via Roku (wireless connection). The connection some time slows down until the movie freezes and I have to go out and return. Most of the time the connection just drops. I get a message from the Roku player to check my connection. I try several times without success. Then I notice the Internet connection light just goes out. Turn off/on the router "hope" the Internet light comes back on. After severe power off/power on it might stay on.
I had to do this so many times last night I just gave up watching the movie. I ended up connecting the Roku directly to the router with a cable. This worked better but the connection still went down twice. Very, very frustrating. I hesitate calling Tech Support because their "send a signal" very seldom works. Then they offer to send out a tech (with me possibly getting charged). Finally, the noise on my phones (yes using the filter on both) is so bad along with the "false rings" I just unplug the phones.

Just when you think you have it

Everything goes to hell.
I've had nothing but issues trying to get my MSI board up and going good. I've checked/replaced memory, bought new HD's. Replaced processor. Even RAM'ed one board. I then finially get my machine up and running using standard IDE drive. All seems to be going great. I decided to go back to the SATA drive.
Guess what. Crap again. It ran great for a week then I come into my computer room and see it rebooted. Sitting at the login screen go to log in. Won't log in. Now reboot. Won't come up at all. I reinstall XP after several attempts I get it accomplished. (most of the time it sees the hd but when it goes to check it it locks up) I finially get it up and going agian. Constant lockups. now I'm right back to where I was. A machine that won't run. Just sits at the XP load screen.
I'm giving up. As soon as the Nforce 3 250 board comes out I'm buying it.
Shane

well psu is the #1 prob with this board and the a64
mem is #2
well the enermax is quite popular, i was thinking about the 660, but nobody uses that one (too big i guess) but the 485 is another chice, as is pc power & cooling
tubo 510..looks very good. but $$$ i would go for a big one as the new video cards look hungry (taking 2 molex conectors)
as you can see i have a big load on mine and i have a bunch of usb stuff to boot,
the 9800 uses huge amounts of energy, and i suspect the pump can use more then your hard drives,
good luck

Image size and resolution....just when I thought I understood!

I couldn't find this question anywhere else, but I can't be the only one who's come across this:
I have an image in a folder...finder/explorer tells me that it's 638px X 479px, and 234KB.
I open it in Photoshop and go to Image Size. PS says it is indeed 638x479pixels, but that it's 5.4" x 4.06" at 300pp and the "pixel dimensions" add up to 895KB?
(Then, when I place it in InDesign, at 100%, it measures around 2.1" x 1.6"? What's going on? If I input those dimensions into the Image Size dialogue box in PS, without resampling, it would have to be 750.25ppi. Obviously it's not.)
How big is this file really? Which program do I trust...windows explorer or photoshop?

The ppi resolution is simply a number stored with the file to indicate how large to display the image. The height and width in pixels are part of the image data itself. So the pixel dimensions are always the number to trust.
You can open an image in Photoshop and in Image Size change the resolution (ppi) and if you don't check Resample Image the actual image data don't change at all, only the number stating the pixels per inch.
The reason the Pixel Dimensions size in KB is different in Photoshop vs. Explorer is that the file is likely a Jpeg, which is compressed. When Photoshop calculates pixel dimensions, it does this based on an uncompressed file (each pixel=3 bytes for an 8-bit RGB image.) When Jpeg compression is used, a pixel can be much less than 3 bytes, and the actual number varies depending on the image quality and how detailed the image is.
To see this, save your image as an uncompressed Tiff format and the size will very closely match the pixel dimensions. But if saved as a Jpeg, it will be smaller but still the same height and width and the same ppi.
If you are using CS3, it automatically uses a form of lossless compression if saving in PSD format with "Maximize Compatibility" disabled. So in this case the file size will also be smaller than the pixel dimensions number, but if saved in Tiff, it will match that number instead.

Wow, just when I thought it would be faster - FAIL

Upgraded the LR3 Beta 2 to the full LR3 and it is slooow!
The beta was super fast and I'm not on an enrtry level machiene.
I'm also running Photoshop CS4 and it's still fast so there is somethng happening with LR that is not using the memory available in the most efficent was possible.
Is anyone else having the same problem and if there is anyone who knows where the problem is, please can you share!
Lots of Love xx

Yep, same here. running Win XP, 3GB internal, lot's of external memory.
Sliders act plain **** (when I try manual lens corrections I cannot see it changing before releasing the mouse, but it is not possible to change in small increments)
and what about backup (I do it every time LR is shut of... it takes here to make a back up of a catalogue of 23k+ files takes + 20 minutes
I am out of options I think

Just When I Thought All Was Well....

lol well here's another problem for you guys.
I synced all my videos onto my iPod, and they all work except for these 2 videos that I got off Veoh, that thing that lets you download videos. So two of the videos that I got from Veoh showed up in the Movies section of iTunes, & when I try to sync them the error msg pops up (Video cannot be synced because it cannot be played on iPod, and I click the plus button and it says the audio format is not supported.) So then I right clicked the video, and voila! Converted it to be playable on the iPod. One video finally was synced, but it turns out I can't hear it. sigh
Help?

Try using MPEG Streamclip to convert the videos; more information on this issue is available in this article.
(32187)

Just when Anton thought it was safe to go back in the water ... !

Psst - Anton - I'm BACK (in the Scripting Languages forum).
But on the plus side, John Benson has put some cool PERL into my thread there ... in case you care to take a look ...
How would you code this in Perl/PHP etc.?
Best regards
djh
Edited by: David Halitsky on Jun 30, 2010 11:26 PM

Damn it...! </kicking self> ... I thought of responding to your "Goodbye cruel world" post with an "I am sure you will be back", but didn't.
So you have a desktop in your hotel room, or did you convert the wardrobe closet into a server room and train the hotel staff to wear static-free Wellingtons (a.k.a. "gummboots")?
Cheers,
Julius
PS: Is there any way to place a "watch" on an SDN user ID?

Just when you think you know..

New to the HD side of PPCS3, was using 2.0 with SD camera for quite awhile and trying to replicate what I did on that side.
We have an opening avi that we embed in each video. In the SD side it filled the screen, looks sharp and crisp. That avi, obviously doesn't work in the HD side, 16:9. So recreated graphic by changing size to 1920x1080 and imported it to a new project. Did the movement and transitions and such and looks great in the editor. As soon as I export to AVI and try to use it in a new 16:9 HD project it's really small and doesn't fill the screen like it did on the post side.
I'm NOT a graphic artist, but can fudge my way around Photoshop Elements or even use a graphic from one of our staff that knows what they are doing. The problem doesn't seem to be the actual graphic but the way it's exporting (I think). I changed all the settings for the .avi (Movie) export but no luck. I've run out of hair and ideas.. Advice? comments? ideas?
Thanks!!!
/bill

>What should the settings be?
The settings should be what you
want. Start with a preset and change the settings that you want.
You will also find links to many
free tutorials in the PremiereProPedia that will quickly show you how things are done in Premiere Pro.
Cheers
Eddie
PremiereProPedia (
RSS feed)
- Over 300 frequently answered questions
- Over 250 free tutorials
- Maintained by editors like
you
Forum FAQ

Just When You Thought Scary Snakes Were Bad

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for