jmiki8

+1 to Red Iron Crown I'm sad to say (I'm a cyclist too), but here in Hungary the majority of cyclists are very rude, and don't obey even the most basic rules, like stopping at the red light, and giving way to the right. My "favourite" kind of such people are the ones who ride at like √2 km/h in a way you can't pass them in the narrow bicycle lane. When you manage to get in front of them, they pass you again at the next corner (through the pedestrian crossing), while you wait for the traffic light's green. After that you have to pass them again... I hate them so much! Also, their actions are very dangerous, I've seen a lot of ugly accidents resulting in broken limbs (of ran-over pedestrians, and/or the cyclists themselves) or worse injuries. Many of these careless cyclists ride right behind trucks and buses, and when those large vehicles hit the brakes, things go wild. Also, they are very unpredictable. They change lanes so rapidly that even the most careful drivers have no chances of avoiding an accident. Here in Budapest the number of cyclists are rapidly increasing. There are many of them who haven't brought their bike out from the garage for years, and aren't adapted to riding on the city's roads. Police is very tolerant with them. This is not the case with drivers. I think this is very unfair. Forcing cyclists to follow the rules would be good for everybody. Of course, there are a lot of disrespectful motorists who use their 1-2 tons of steel to frighten the cyclists, or are simply not careful enough. I have been riding the bike to everywhere (instead of mass transit) for 3 years, but I haven't caused any accident, damage to property or injuries (for others or myself), even if I meet rude drivers and cyclists everyday. The most important thing is to be careful, and learn to handle these careless guys safely, because they will always exist.

Cool! But didn't you mean coffin instead of grave?

Finding the perfect spot: 30 mins Setting up the camera: 5 mins Waiting for the ultra-rare vintage tram: 20 mins An unaware old couple photobombing the picture: Priceless Needless to say, it was really difficult to contain my rage, even if it wasn't their fault (You can't send pedestrians to $@#&ÄÂß×!! just because you are taking a picture.). Btw, what kind of telescope do you have?

I'm currently studying transportation engineering, mostly because of my love of railways (and aviation). Here are some pictures taken at my favourite spotting sites: I also love to visit transport hubs like stations and classification yards, but I won't bother to dust off my harddrive for pics.

You can, the link at the bottom of my previous post shows that method.

This is the best choice. Hobby and professional astrophotographers use mostly telescopes, and the real experts even have motorised mounts for them, which are able to keep track of sky objects as Earth rotates. Just note that you have to be able to go out to the field or live in the countryside as even the slightest air/light pollution will ruin your pictures. However, this hobby is very expensive, as shooting photos in the dark night sky is one of the most demanding jobs for a camera. A camera sensor collects way less amount of light than the human eye, therefore a telescope powerful enough for observation may not always fit well for photography. Most dim objects like nebulae need long shutter speeds which are only possible with continous tracking, although shiny objects like the Moon or planets may not require that. Telescopes with focal ratios (focal length/diameter) of e.g. F/10 are instant no-no for photography, you may need large apertures like F/5 or so. Also, don't go nuts with the focal length, as heavy scopes fitted on cheaper mounts may be too wobbly even for observation as focal length goes up. But yeah, I must tell again that unlike observation, astro-photography is very expensive thing to do, as it involves a more powerful (and heavier) scope sitting on adequate mechanics. By expensive, I mean usually like (more) thousand $$$ (based on Hungarian prices). A cheaper, but decent scope costs like ~$500, and you would still need a motorised mount for the best results, which costs almost as much (if not more) as the telescope itself. If you are not that perfectionist, you could use some tricks, as this page says. This reduces costs a lot (and image quality a bit). I guess with a similar setup which is mentioned there, you chould get an adequate setup for like $250.

I have some "model planes", which can barely reach the island airstrip, but they have very low stall speeds, and are quite fun to land at various points at KSC. With these RC planes KSC becomes a big airport. I have some unusual weapons too, not very practical, but maybe interesting. I forgot to mention that the ML-2 "Smart bomb" has a small steel beam inside.

GTA V for PC, so I can waste my first year at the university LOL

This is very cool! I use flags as others have said, but this looks awesome.

It looks like a mirror lens, basically the handheld version of a Maksutov telescope. This lens has mirrors instead of prisms to direct light rays into the CCD or the film. I have tried similar lenses, and I have to say that they aren't really good. They are very hard to focus, the picture is usually soft at the edges, and the thing is really suffering from vignetting. If these problems don't bother you, there is another: the so-called "donut effect", which means that lights not in the focus will appear like little circles. This may produce interesting results on your pictures, but I guess you wouldn't really like them. I also noticed that this particular lens has an aperture of F/8, which is a bit weak. It may be suitable for well-lit settings, but in cloudy weather it would become useless (unless you raise the ISO to super-noisy levels). Forget taking photos of moving subjects, because you won't be able to choose high shutter speeds. The lens has some pros through: -It's very lightweight, and small compared to other kinds of telephoto lenses. -It doesn't suffer from color errors, due to the absence of prisms. If you want to take photo of stars, you should buy a genuine telescope. If you are interested in nature and trekking, there are a wide range of fieldscopes from Nikon, Skywatcher, etc brands, which offer proper camera mounts (usually T2). They are not cheap (the cheapest & decent ones cost like ~$250), but they are worth saving. You probably wouldn't be satisfied with this lens, and regret investing into it. I have also thought of buying similar lenses for contrail spotting, but now I decided to save money and buy a 8" Dobsonian telescope later. It's big, heavy (like ~20 kg), a bit difficult to transport (requires a car or a hand cart at least), but easy to (dis)assemble, and produces high quality images. By the way, this low price for an optical instrument is nonsense. To see sharp images of distant objects, these devices have to be produced at like 1/10 millimeter or even higher precision. This precision can't be reached on the assemly lines of toy factories, therefore they won't be cheap.

My real name is Miki J. (nice try Google, but not now), and my first email username (at Hotmail ) was to be jmiki. The username had been taken, and jmiki8 was one of the offered alternatives.

1000mm telescope? The focal length alone isn't enough to describe a telescope. What kind of telescope is it? Newtonian? Apochromat? Maksutov? How long is its primary mirror's diameter (if it has one)? I have tried an SW 200/1000 Dobsonian (1000 mm focal length, 200mm mirror diameter), and that's pretty awesome. It gathers a lot of light (f/5 aperture, hell yeah). I will invest soon into my own 200/1200 Dob, to shoot contrails. Please note that a telescope's primary job (especially if you use it for astro-photography) is to gather light, and not to magnify distant objects. Btw, this is what I shot today: a long exposure pic (~1 min) using a 10-stop neutral density filter I bought recently (yeah, I forgot to resize it, sorry about that): This is the "Inner lake" near Tihany, Hungary with the famous(?) abbey in the background. Note the almost perfect mirror-like water resulting from the long exposure which eliminates the waves. My "weapon" is an old-ish Nikon D80 (2006), the great-grandfather of the more famous Nikon D7100. It's pretty cool even today, I'm not planning to replace it soon (it has <30000 shutter actuations, and it should die around ~100k clicks). I have 2 lenses for it, a 18-70mm f/3,5, and a 55-300VR f/4 (for all those plane-spotting needs ). Before this configuration I had numerous cams: a Canon SX40HS bridge camera, and even before that a Canon A430 compact. My first digital camera was a HP C200. The very first camera I owned was a compact film camera from a minor japanase brand which I don't remember. Back in those times I used to borrow my father's Nikon F601. [Camera nerdness intensifies]

I love swedish war machines (my country uses some JAS-39 Gripens, and used swedish weaponry during its history), and these are really cool replicas! My favourite is the APC, sadly my computer probably wouldn't be able to handle it.

I have tried it once, broke my arm, and never tried again. Bicycle FTW.

You can simply remove the fuel from the fuel tanks in the SPH, and see where the dry COM is, without touching the tanks.

I don't think (if they existed) zombies would be undead. That could be only possible in magic-worlds. A body (especially as complex as the humans') needs a powerful nervous system (including the brain) to be able to move, do activities, or even to live. A virus or bacteria isn't complex enough to manage that task alone. There could be a virus which would infect the human's brain, but the human (or its zombie body) would still need that infected brain to interact with the environment. There are examples in the nature for mind-control, like fungus responsible for the so-called "zombie ants" (google it). So I think that zombie still needs a brain to control its body, without it it would be a lifeless corpse.

My ISP's connection is becoming slower and slower, i'm really considering to leave them.

I hate Instagram, because most of its users pretend to be professional photographers, which they aren't. You can't take good quality pictures with a mobile phone. And I can't stand those "filters". Most Instagram users take a somewhat good picture, then destroy it by applying one of these filters, which are based on chromatical aberrations, vignetting, and other lens errors. The most annoying is when they say they are "photoshopping", while they don't even know what Adobe Photoshop is. Another problem with Instragram users is that most of them rely on the use of effects and filters instead of composing the picture itself. Most of them take photos of everyday situations, lampposts, trash bins, food, etc, then add some effects and call it photography. This ends up in a cr@pload of similar, boring and bad quality images. If you are really into photography, take photos with a genuine camera, and learn at least the basic stuff related to photography ( shutter speed, aperture, ISO-value, focal length, etc). And don't say you can't afford one, almost everybody can nowadays. A decent camera costs as much as a middle-end smartphone. It may not be a Nikon D4 or a Canon 1D, but you could still buy far better machines than those mobile phones (even compact cameras are better than those). If you still think that real cameras are expensive, you can effectively reduce costs by buying slightly used stuff (just don't let yourself fooled). A camera with like 20k shutter actuations (most middle range cameras are tested for 100k) is like new, and these second-hand models cost about half of the original price. I have an old-ish Nikon D80 from 2006, and it performs very well. Oh, and forget the megapixels!! Megapixels are far nothing compared to other properties of a camera. The resolution is not equal to image quality. Take an older 4-6 megapixel compact camera and a 8MP smartphone, you'll notice the difference. Of course, buying a decent camera will not make you a decent photographer, but you'd better invest in a starter equipment first, as you won't gain skills by using fully automatic smartphone cams. The mentioned starter equipment could be basically any lower-end camera with manual settings option (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus (if posibble)). So basically: Do you shoot pictures occassionally? Then stick to the phone's camera. Is photography your hobby? Then leave Instagram, and buy a more serious machine.

I have a ~$150 Huawei Y300 brick, and I'm totally satisfied with it. I can browse the Internet and use most of the apps from the android store. Its battery lasts for days with everyday use. I don't know how it is going in the U.S., but in Hungary you have to be really rich to afford one of these top-end phones (gadgets cost like ~1,5x more here than in the USA.: ~$800-900 for a Galaxy S5). I think it's waste of money to buy a high-end phone. -Fingerprint scanner? I'm sure the criminals have developed an efficient way to disable it. -129837123 Gigapixel camera? People who are really into photography know that megapixels are not the most important properties of a camera. Compare a beginner-grade Nikon D3200 DSLR to a top-level Samsung or iPhone (each phone costs about 2x more than the camera). If you want to capture a very interesting moment, and there isn't a camera sitting around, you could be happy with a lower-end phone cam. -And what happens if you lose/break your top-end phone? 90% of the people wouldn't afford a new one, I guess (well, in Hungary). -What would you use a 4 or 8 core processor in a phone for? Do you really need an artillery computer? Most people use these phones for basic stuff like Facebook anyways. -Screen with 12831293x21238941px resolution? Sure, it's very good to have a resolution which human eye cannot even detect on a screen no larger than a cinema ticket. -Water-proof casing? Really, do you flush your mobile down the toilet on daily basis, or what? So is it reasonable to invest a lot into these features which have a 99% probability that you won't make use of? Buy a basic smartphone and enjoy spending the remaining $$$$. Cameras, computers, gaming consoles, etc for example. There are things which can't be replaced with smartphones, and there are a lot of useless features which would be only pretty on the first and second sight. Btw, I owned a 3rd gen iPod touch too, therefore I know the pros and cons of the iOS. I prefer the Android for the wider range of customization it offers, although I can understand those who think the simplicity and elegance of the iOS is worth more.

Sometimes I put living kerbals in my commercial jet replicas for crash tests, to see how many would survive. With my A340-600 replica that means ~45 Kerbals (however they never include Bill, Bob or Jeb).

Why would be clipping a cheat? All of us DO use it, even if it's not turned on, as a bug still allows it in some ways. Then why not turn it on and be happy?

I flew a couple of times, and I really love it! You shouldn't be afraid of it. It's just the media which "enlarges" the possible dangers of flight. Aircraft crashes are very-very unlikely, that's why they are highlighted in the news/films if they happen. Car crashes happen like on daily basis, that's why they don't catch the news agencies'/movie makers' mind. The least satisfying thing you could encounter during a journey is the boredom, if the flight is way too long.

I hate EA, and the last game I bought from them was the FIFA 2007. All NFS and FIFA games become the same, same gameplay, same graphics, with some updated cars and football teams. (As Activision does with the Call of Duty series lol).

Awesome!!! What's its part count?

Mother of god!!! Amazing! How much does it weigh?