The Cuda jetpack lets you fly underwater

Standard

It’s 2018 and jetpacks are finally here, but they don’t really propel you in the air yet… Archie O’Brien’s Cuda, developed with 3D Hubs, is the world’s fust backpack-sized jetpack that propels you underwater!

Pulling water from the front and pushing it out the back with incredible force, the Cuda is a relatively tiny contraption that fits right on your back, and when triggered, gives you a boost, propelling you at the speed of 8mph underwater with no effort.

Enticed by the Seabob, a hand-held water scooter, Archie built the Cuda as a low-cost alternative to the otherwise $10,000 Seabob. Built with 3D Hubs (the massive online manufacturing facility), Cuda went from idea to prototype in just a year, and featured a new propulsion system altogether (as opposed to being a shrunken version of a jet-ski). Using the services and materials provided by 3D Hubs, Cuda has a metal-turned driveshaft, a CNC milled heatsink, a completely 3D printed body PLA plastic body, and a carbon-fiber dust infused polymer for the propeller that gives it high strength and low weight. All 3D printed parts are coated with an epoxy resin to improve their performance and integrity underwater, while all the electronics are placed in waterproof compartments, sealed with silicone.

Using the Cuda is as simple as controlling the speed with a hand-held remote, and the direction with your body. Made out of 45 3D printed parts that can be assembled in just near 10 minutes, the Cuda is patent pending and may go into production as early as 2019, from where it could be used for anything from entertainment to emergency… for now, Archie’s plans are to use the Cuda to swim alongside dolphins!

Designers: Archie O’Brien & 3D Hubs

cuda_1

cuda_2

cuda_3

cuda_4

cuda_5

cuda_6

cuda_7

cuda_8

cuda_9

cuda_10

cuda_11

cuda_12

from Yanko Design http://bit.ly/2zJqS2p
via IFTTT

29 common claims and bogus ‘facts’ about food that are false or very misleading

Standard

corn gmo genetically modified food reuters

Food is wonderful. It tastes good, fuels our bodies, and gives us a great excuse to bond with friends and family.

But because of food’s importance in all cultures, and our health — you are what you eat, the old adage goes — it’s a minefield for misleading and sometimes hysterical claims.

Some eating-related myths, misconceptions, and inaccuracies have been passed down through the ages, though the internet age has given rise to puzzling new falsehoods and diversions.

To help combat food fictions, we’ve rounded up and corrected dozens of the most shocking food "facts" in this list. (If you’re hungry for more myth-busting, peruse our list of 101 science myths.)

SEE ALSO: 17 ‘facts’ about space and Earth that you thought were true — but have been debunked by science

DON’T MISS: It’s time to stop spreading these popular myths about animals

MYTH: There are bugs in your strawberry Frappuccino.

This one is no longer true.

Before April 2012, Starbucks’ strawberry Frappucino contained a dye made from the ground-up bodies of thousands of tiny insects, called cochineal bugs (or Dactylopius coccus).

Farmers in South and Central America make a living harvesting — and smashing — the bugs that go into the dye. Their crushed bodies produce a deep red ink that is used as a natural food coloring, which was "called cochineal" red but is now called "carmine color."

Starbucks stopped using carmine color in their strawberry Frappucinos in 2012, and alternatives exist that are made in part from sweet potatoes. But the dye is still used in thousands of other food products — from Nerds candies to grapefruit juice. Not to mention cosmetics, like lovely shades of red lipstick.

MYTH: There’s beaver butt secretions in your vanilla ice cream.

You’ve probably heard that a secretion called castoreum, isolated from the anal gland of a beaver, is used in flavorings and perfumes.

But castoreum is so expensive, at up to $70 per pound of anal gland (the cost to humanely milk castoreum from a beaver is likely even higher), that it’s unlikely to show up in anything you eat.

In 2011, the Vegetarian Resource Group wrote to five major companies that produce vanilla flavoring and asked if they use castoreum. The answer: According to the Federal Code of Regulations, they can’t. (The FDA highly regulates what goes into vanilla flavoring and extracts.)

It’s equally unlikely you’ll find castoreum in mass-marketed goods, either.

MYTH: Coffee stunts your growth.

Most research finds no correlation between caffeine consumption and bone growth in kids.

In adults, researchers have seen that increased caffeine consumption can very slightly limit calcium absorption, but the impact is so small that a tablespoon of milk will more than adequately offset the effects of a cup of coffee.

Advertising seems to be largely responsible for this myth: Cereal manufacturer named C.W. Post was trying to market a morning beverage called "Postum" as an alternative to coffee, so he ran ads on the "evils" of Americans’ favorite hot beverage, calling it a "nerve poison" that should never be served to children.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

from SAI https://read.bi/2zJTWH1
via IFTTT

This Living Wall Is The Most Gorgeous Soundproofing Option We’ve Seen

Standard

Belgian company BuzziSpace teamed up with American designer Cory Grosser to create a nature-inspired solution to noise reduction.

Trying to soundproof your space so that it’s completely devoid of noise can be rather tricky, but outside-the-box thinking led Cory Grosser + Associates to using preserved reindeer moss as a main material for his series of geometric framed wall panels.

Dubbed BuzziMood, the acoustical wall panels can be arranged into various patterns to reflect individual design aesthetic. They’re made from metal and coated in powder and are available in seven geometric shapes and sizes, as well as two shades of moss.

The greenery serves as a natural noise absorber and is a low-maintenance option that requires no watering, adding to the overall appeal of the lush living wall.

Another positive aspect of the green, noise-canceling framed panels is their naturally calming properties. As Interiors and Sources points out, “greenery in contract environments has been shown to improve employee happiness and wellbeing,” making BuzziMood an ideal addition to neutralize the oftentimes distracting atmosphere of busy workspaces.

The botanical noise buffers are one of BuzziSpace’s many innovative acoustic options for office spaces. Among their other selections are the BuzziDesk, a desk divider screen that maximizes privacy and reduces noises from nearby telephones and computers while also eliminating desk clutter; BuzziGrid, a sound buffer that hangs from the ceiling and reduces echo in large spaces such as meeting rooms and lobbies; and BuzziBack, a customizable, colorful wall or cabinet panel that doubles as an sound absorption screen and a pin board.

For more tips on how to soundproof your space through design, check out our suggestions on how to block out noise from your neighbors while preventing the random noises inside your noise from disturbing others.

from Apartment Therapy http://bit.ly/2JrLmw8
via IFTTT

Yes, open office plans are the worst

Standard

If you’re endlessly distracted by your co-workers in the gaping open office space you all share, you’re not alone. Compared to traditional office spaces, face-to-face interaction in open office spaces is down 70 percent with resulting slips in productivity, according to Harvard researchers in a new study published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B this month.

In the study, researchers followed two anonymous Fortune 500 companies during their transitions between a traditional office space to an open plan environment and used a sensor called a “sociometric badge” (think company ID on a lanyard) to record detailed information about the kind of interactions employees had in both spaces. The study collected information in two stages; first for several weeks before the renovation and the second for several weeks after.

While the concept behind open office spaces is to drive informal interaction and collaboration among employees, the study found that for both groups of employees monitored (52 for one company and 100 for the other company) face-to-face interactions dropped, the number of emails sent increased between 20 and 50 percent and company executives reported a qualitative drop in productivity.

“[Organizations] transform their office architectures into open spaces with the intention of creating more [face-to-face] interaction and thus a more vibrant work environment,” the study’s authors, Ethan Bernstein and Stephen Turban, wrote. “[But] what they often get—as captured by a steady stream of news articles professing the death of the open office is an open expanse of proximal employees choosing to isolate themselves as best they can (e.g. by wearing large headphones) while appearing to be as busy as possible (since everyone can see them).”

While this study is far from the first to point fingers at open office space designs, the researchers claim this is the first study of its kind to collect qualitative data on this shift in working environment instead of relying primarily on employee surveys.

From their results, the researchers provide three cautionary tales:

  1. Open office spaces don’t actually promote interaction. Instead, they cause employees to seek privacy wherever they can find it.
  2. These open spaces might spell bad news for collective company intelligence or, in other words, an overstimulating office space creates a decrease in organizational productivity.
  3. Not all channels of interaction will be effected equally in an open layout change. While the number of emails sent in the study did increase, the study found that the richness of this interaction was not equal to that lost in face-to-face interactions.

Seems like it might be time to (first, find a quiet room) and go back to the drawing board with the open office design.

from TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2KW9NaN
via IFTTT

Astronauts explain why nobody has visited the moon in more than 45 years — and the reasons are depressing

Standard

apollo 11 astronaut planting flag moon nasa 371257main_Flag_full

  • The last time a person visited the moon was in December 1972, during NASA’s Apollo 17 mission.
  • Over the decades, NASA planned to send people back to the moon but has yet to succeed.
  • Astronauts often say the biggest reasons why humans haven’t returned to the lunar surface are budgetary and political hurdles — not scientific or technical challenges.
  • Private companies like Blue Origin or SpaceX may be the first entities to return people to the moon.

Landing 12 people on the moon remains one of NASA’s greatest achievements, if not the greatest.

Astronauts collected rocks, took photos, performed experiments, planted some flags, and then came home. But those week-long stays during the Apollo program didn’t establish a lasting human presence on the moon.

More than 45 years after the most recent crewed moon landing — Apollo 17 in December 1972 — there are plenty of reasons to return people to Earth’s giant, dusty satellite and stay there.

Researchers and entrepreneurs think a crewed base on the moon could evolve into a fuel depot for deep-space missions, lead to the creation of unprecedented space telescopes, make it easier to live on Mars, and solve longstanding scientific mysteries about Earth and the moon’s creation. A lunar base could even become a thriving off-world economy, perhaps one built around lunar space tourism.

"A permanent human research station on the moon is the next logical step. It’s only three days away. We can afford to get it wrong, and not kill everybody," former astronaut Chris Hadfield recently told Business Insider. "And we have a whole bunch of stuff we have to invent and then test in order to learn before we can go deeper out."

But many astronauts and other experts suggest the biggest impediments to crewed moon missions over the last four-plus decades have been banal if not depressing.

It’s really expensive to get to the moon — but not that expensive

Saturn V rocket dawn 1967

A tried-and-true hurdle for any spaceflight program, especially for missions that involve people, is the steep cost.

A law signed in March 2017 by President Donald Trump gives NASA an annual budget of about $19.5 billion, and it may rise to $19.9 billion in 2019.

Either amount sounds like a windfall — until you consider that the total gets split among all of the agency’s divisions and ambitious projects: the James Webb Space Telescope, the giant rocket project called Space Launch System, and far-flung missions to the sun, Jupiter, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, the Kuiper Belt, and the edge of the solar system. (By contrast, the US military gets a budget of about $600 billion per year. One project within that budget — the modernization and now expansion of America’s nuclear arsenal— may even cost as much as $1.7 trillion over 30 years.)

Plus, NASA’s budget is somewhat small relative to its past.

"NASA’s portion of the federal budget peaked at 4% in 1965. For the past 40 years it has remained below 1%, and for the last 15 years it has been driving toward 0.4% of the federal budget," Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham said during a 2015 congressional testimony.

Trump’s budget calls for a return to the moon, and then later an orbital visit to Mars. But given the ballooning costs and snowballing delays related to NASA’s SLS rocket program, there may not be enough funding to make it to either destination, even if the International Space Station gets defunded early.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today’s dollars.

"Manned exploration is the most expensive space venture and, consequently, the most difficult for which to obtain political support," Cunningham said during his testimony, according to Scientific American. "Unless the country, which is Congress here, decided to put more money in it, this is just talk that we’re doing here."

Referring to Mars missions and a return to the moon, Cunningham added, "NASA’s budget is way too low to do all the things that we’ve talked about doing here."

The problem with presidents

Trump astronaut

The Trump administration’s immediate goal is to get astronauts to "the vicinity of the moon" sometime in 2023. That would be toward the end of what could be Trump’s second term if he is reelected.

And therein lies another major problem: partisan political whiplash.

"Why would you believe what any president said about a prediction of something that was going to happen two administrations in the future?" Hadfield said. "That’s just talk."

From the perspective of astronauts, it’s about the mission. The process of designing, engineering, and testing a spacecraft that could get people get to another world easily outlasts a two-term president. But there’s a predictable pattern of incoming presidents and lawmakers scrapping the previous leader’s space-exploration priorities.

"I would like the next president to support a budget that allows us to accomplish the mission that we are asked to perform, whatever that mission may be," astronaut Scott Kelly, who spent a year in space, wrote during a January 2016 Reddit Ask Me Anything session (before Trump took office).

But presidents and Congress don’t seem to care about staying the course.

In 2004, for example, the Bush administration tasked NASA with coming up with a way to replace the space shuttle, which was due to retire, and also return to the moon. The agency came up with the Constellation program to land astronauts on the moon, using a rocket called Ares and a spaceship called Orion.

NASA spent $9 billion over five years designing, building, and testing hardware for that human spaceflight program. Yet after President Barack Obama took office — and the Government Accountability Office released a report about NASA’s inability to estimate Constellation’s cost — Obama pushed to scrap the program and signed off on the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket instead.

Trump hasn’t scrapped SLS. But he did change Obama’s goal of launching astronauts to an asteroid to moon and Mars missions.

Such frequent changes to NASA’s expensive priorities has led to cancellation after cancellation, a loss of about $20 billion, and years of wasted time and momentum.

"I’m disappointed that they’re so slow and trying to do something else," Apollo 8 astronaut Jim Lovell told Business Insider in 2017. "I’m not excited about anything in the near future. I’ll just see things as they come."

Buzz Aldrin said in a 2015 testimony to Congress that he believes the will to return to the moon must come from Capitol Hill.

"American leadership is inspiring the world by consistently doing what no other nation is capable of doing. We demonstrated that for a brief time 45 years ago. I do not believe we have done it since," Aldrin wrote in a prepared statement. "I believe it begins with a bi-partisan Congressional and Administration commitment to sustained leadership."

The real driving force behind that government commitment to return to the moon is the will of the American people, who vote for politicians and help shape their policy priorities. But public interest in lunar exploration has always been lukewarm.

Even at the height of the Apollo program — after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto the lunar surface — only 53% of Americans thought the program was worth the cost. Most of the rest of the time, US approval of Apollo hovered significantly below 50%.

Today, 55% of Americans think NASA should make returning to the moon a priority, though only a quarter of those believers think it should be a top priority, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in June. But 44% of people surveyed by the poll think sending astronauts back to the moon shouldn’t be done at all.

Support for crewed Mars exploration is stronger, with 63% believing it should be a NASA priority, and 91% of people think scanning the skies for killer asteroids is important.

The challenges beyond politics

moon base made 3d printing

The political tug-of-war over NASA’s mission and budget isn’t the only reason people haven’t returned to the moon. The moon is also a 4.5-billion-year-old death trap for humans, and must not be trifled with or underestimated.

Its surface is littered with craters and boulders that threaten safe landings. Leading up to the first moon landing in 1969, the US government spent what would be billions in today’s dollars to develop, launch, and deliver satellites to the moon to could map its surface and help mission planners scout for possible Apollo landing sites.

But a bigger worry is what eons of meteorite impacts has created: regolith, also called moon dust.

Madhu Thangavelu, an aeronautical engineer at the University of Southern California, wrote in 2014 that the moon is covered in "a fine, talc-like top layer of lunar dust, several inches deep in some regions, which is electro-statically charged through interaction with the solar wind and is very abrasive and clingy, fouling up spacesuits, vehicles and systems very quickly."

Peggy Whitson, an astronaut who lived in space for a total of 665 days, recently told Business Insider that the Apollo missions "had a lot of problems with dust."

"If we’re going to spend long durations and build permanent habitats, we have to figure out how to handle that," Whitson said.

There’s also a problem with sunlight. For 14.75 days at a time, the lunar surface is a boiling hellscape that is exposed directly to the sun’s harsh rays — the moon has no protective atmosphere. The next 14.75 days are in total darkness, making the moon’s surface one of the coldest places in the universe.

A small nuclear reactor being developed by NASA, called Kilopower, could supply astronauts with electricity during weeks-long lunar nights — and would be useful on other worlds, including Mars.

"There is not a more environmentally unforgiving or harsher place to live than the moon," Thangavelu wrote. "And yet, since it is so close to the Earth, there is not a better place to learn how to live, away from planet Earth."

NASA has designed dust- and sun-resistant spacesuits and rovers, though it’s uncertain if that equipment is anywhere near ready to launch, as some of it was part of the now-canceled Constellation program.

A generation of billionaire ‘space nuts’ may get there

spacex bfr mars spaceship moon base 2

A suite of moon-capable rockets is on the horizon.

"There’s this generation of billionaires who are space nuts, which is great," astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman told journalists during a roundtable earlier this year. "The innovation that’s been going on over the last 10 years in spaceflight never would’ve happened if it was just NASA and Boeing and Lockheed. Because there was no motivation to reduce the cost or change the way we do it."

Hoffman is referring to the work by Elon Musk and his rocket company, SpaceX, as well as that of Jeff Bezos, who runs a secretive aerospace company called Blue Origin.

"There’s no question — if we’re going to go farther, especially if we’re going to go farther than the moon — we need new transportation," Hoffman added. "Right now we’re still in the horse-and-buggy days of spaceflight."

Many astronauts’ desire to return to the moon fits into Bezos’ long-term vision. Bezos has floated a plan around Washington to start building the first moon base using Blue Origin’s upcoming New Glenn rocket system. In April, he said, "we will move all heavy industry off of Earth, and Earth will be zoned residential and light industry."

Musk has also spoken at length about how SpaceX’s in-development "Big Falcon Rocket" could pave the way for affordable, regular lunar visits. SpaceX might even visit the moon before NASA or Blue Origin. The company’s new Falcon Heavy rocket is capable of launching a small Crew Dragon space capsule past the moon and back to Earth — and Musk has said two private citizens have already paid a large deposit to go on the voyage.

"My dream would be that, some day, the moon would become part of the economic sphere of the Earth — just like geostationary orbit and low-Earth orbit," Hoffman said. "Space out as far as geostationary orbit is part of our everyday economy. Some day I think the moon will be, and that’s something to work for."

Astronauts don’t doubt we’ll get back to the moon, and on to Mars. It’s just a matter of when.

"I guess eventually, things will come to pass where they will go back to the moon and eventually go to Mars, probably not in my lifetime," Lovell said. "Hopefully they’ll be successful."

Correction: A previous version of this story used an incorrect number of moonwalkers. During NASA’s Apollo program, 12 people landed on the moon, not 14 people. We regret this astronomical error.

SEE ALSO: 27 of the most iconic, jaw-dropping photos of the Earth and the moon from space

DON’T MISS: The space between Earth and the moon is mind-boggling. This graphic reveals just how big it is — and what’s out there.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here’s what NASA could accomplish if it had the US military’s $600 billion budget

from SAI https://read.bi/2LdsqGC
via IFTTT

6 shows Netflix should never have canceled, from ‘Gypsy’ to ‘Sense8’

Standard

sense8

Not too long ago, Netflix famously never canceled shows.

But over the past year and a half, Netflix has been on a canceling streak, cutting shows like "The Get Down," "Girlboss," and "Gypsy."

After a few years of being lenient on letting shows survive more than one season, this came as a surprise, especially considering some of these shows shouldn’t have been canceled in the first place — in our opinion.

Shows like "Everything Sucks!" which was canceled in less than two months and "Sense8," which has a lot more story to tell, deserved more seasons.

Here, we picked 6 shows Netflix never should have canceled, along with their Rotten Tomatoes critic and audience scores, and what made them special:

SEE ALSO: Critics love ‘Mission: Impossible – Fallout’ as much as Tom Cruise loves outrageous stunts

"Everything Sucks!": Canceled after one season

Netflix description: "It’s 1996 in a town called Boring, where high school misfits in the AV and drama clubs brave the ups and downs of teenage life in the VHS era."

Critic score: 71%

Audience score: 91%

Date released: February 2018

Date canceled: April 2018

Critics enjoyed this short and sweet show, which tells the story of a lesbian high-school sophomore in the 90s. At first, it seemed like a slew of 90s references set to a soundtrack filled with Oasis, but by the end of its first episode, it proved it was much deeper than that. A group of very passionate audience members has continued a relentless campaign to get Netflix to continue the show despite its quick cancellation in early April.

"Sense8": Canceled after two seasons

Netflix description: "From the creators of ‘The Matrix’ and ‘Babylon 5’ comes this tense series in which eight people can telepathically experience each other’s lives."

Critic score: 84%

Audience score: 92%

Date released: June 2015

Date canceled: June 2017 (a two-hour series finale came out June 2018)

Wacky but stunning, "Sense8" applied issues going on in today’s culture to its incredible sci-fi world. Its finale wrapped things up, but its premise and its characters had so much more to do and say. Like "Everything Sucks!" fans, "Sense8" obsessives still want Netflix to bring the show back, and haven’t gotten quiet on social media. 

"Lady Dynamite": Canceled after two seasons

Netflix description: "Comedian Maria Bamford navigates awkward dates, bizarre gigs and the fallout from a major breakdown in a funny and poignant series based on her life."

Critic score: 97%

Audience score: 79%

Date released: May 2016

Date canceled: January 2018

Maria Bamford, the star of "Lady Dynamite," is one of the most unique comedians today (or ever). She applied her strange but sweet spirit into this deeply personal but also incredibly funny comedy that showed what it’s like inside the mind of a troubled person. 

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

from SAI https://read.bi/2LlH8Id
via IFTTT

Ben Heck’s Atari 800 handheld

Standard

What are your favorite 8-bit computers from the ’80s? Ben Heck’s is the Atari 800, and what better thing to do as a final project than make it portable? That’s right, it’s time for a teardown. After pulling the Atari apart to reverse-engineer it, Ben uses Autodesk Eagle to create a printed circuit board. Join the element14 Community to share your builds, find help and engage with the team.

The words “Autodesk Eagle” should link to the following URL:
https://www.element14.com/community/community/eagle?CMP=SOM-ENGADGET-BENHECK-EP350-AUTODESK-EAGLE

from Engadget https://engt.co/2NVz8zl
via IFTTT

5 Tips to Help You Do Better Nighttime Photography

Standard

Nighttime photography offers the opportunity to observe and photograph some great astronomical subjects including the moon (as a whole or during different phases), stars, the Milky Way and even celestial events such as the Northern Lights. If you are new to night photography or want to improve your shots, here are 5 tips to help you on your way:

1. Decide on a subject

Nighttime photography 01 - northern lights over mountains and a lake

Capturing beautiful images at night is not as easy as you might think and camera techniques and settings differ greatly to photographing during the day. Turning up to a location in darkness and hoping to shoot as you would in the daytime can lead to disappointment. You won’t be able to see much by nightfall and finding a scene to shoot will be extremely challenging.

Whether your dream night shoot is to photograph the stars, the moon, meteors or the Milky Way, for example, decide on a subject first and then where you would like to shoot it.

It may seem obvious, but if you want to photograph the moon, there are different phases of the moon to consider.

Nighttime photography 02 - full moon landscape at night

You also need to be aware of the changes in light that can occur with a full moon or a new moon. Photographing under a full moon will make the sky and landscapes brighter. This means that you won’t be able to photograph as many stars as you would with a new moon but you will see a beautifully lit landscape with fewer dark shadows.

Neither of the phases is more photogenic than the other, they simply offer different opportunities and variations in lighting. Research the moon’s phase and plan where you would like it to appear in your image by using an app like PhotoPills or The Photographer’s Ephemeris.

Nighttime photography - stars and tree at night

2. Choose your shooting location during the day

Exposing yourself to a location and its surroundings during the day will help you decide what you want to shoot later at night.

Find a location before dark to avoid the frustration of seeing blind at night and a likely lack of decent images from the shoot. Give yourself time to find your spot and come up with a composition during the day to help you capture better images by nightfall.

Nighttime photography - star trails over a mountain valley

3. Include other elements

Once you have chosen a subject and found a decent location to shoot, your next task is to find a composition you like and that will work well combined with a beautiful night sky. Look for other interesting elements to add to your shots. Other subjects you can include with the moon and stars might include architecture, trees, the landscape or an interesting water source.

Nighttime photography - northern lights over mountains and waterfalls

4. Use a tripod

To stabilize the camera and capture sharper images, always use a tripod. You will need to operate your camera in near darkness and allow for longer shutter speeds in order to record a brighter image than the blackness you will initially see with your naked eye.

A tripod will help you to get the best image quality and a sharper shot. If you don’t have a tripod with you, you could improvise by finding a spot to put the camera down such as on a wall or ledge to keep it from moving when taking the photo.

Any image blur and camera movement can ruin nighttime photography. Even if your hands are as steady as a surgeon’s in the operating theatre, you will move the camera slightly while pressing the shutter button. So in addition to using a tripod, a remote trigger to fire the camera is another good idea.

Nighttime photography - crescent moon and clouds

5. Raise the ISO

You will find that if you want to shoot striking photos after dusk, you may need to use slow shutter speeds (long exposures). In order to maintain the quality of a photo that you can capture during the day when using a low rating of say ISO 100-200, this is necessary.

Sometimes a long exposure may not suit the subject you are photographing so to help you shoot faster (in other words, use a faster shutter speed) during low light, you will need to increase the ISO setting to accommodate.

Nighttime photography - stars and waterfall

The advantages of increasing the ISO to 3200 or 6400 include more detail in the image and a brighter exposure with a shorter shutter speed. However, this comes at a price as the higher the ISO you choose, the more noise will be evident in your image, impacting the overall quality.

I would recommend going for a balance between a slightly slower shutter speed from 1 to 30 seconds and a medium ISO setting of around 1000 or 3200 to get the best image possible without compromising too much on quality. Note: This will depend on your subject though as star trails or the Milky Way may require it higher.

Nighttime photography 08

Conclusion

Once you have experimented with these tips you will soon discover that photographing in the dark can be just as enjoyable and easy as shooting during the day. So what’s stopping you from getting out there and capturing your best ever night shots?

Do you have any nighttime photography tips you would like to share?

The post 5 Tips to Help You Do Better Nighttime Photography appeared first on Digital Photography School.

from Digital Photography School http://bit.ly/2uzFYSl
via IFTTT

A woman who has reviewed more than 40,000 résumés outlines the 8 most annoying mistakes she sees

Standard

job fair career resume recruit job application candidate

  • Résumés are a crucial part of any job search.
  • If you want to land your dream job, you’ll need to whip your résumé into shape.
  • Résumé Writers’ Ink founder Tina Nicolai shared some tips on how to go about doing that with Business Insider.

Résumés are important.

No one knows that better than Tina Nicolai. She estimated that she has read more than 40,000 résumés since launching Résumé Writers’ Ink in 2010.

That’s a lot of CVs. Over the years, Nicolai says, certain annoying mistakes tend to come up quite a lot.

Some of these errors may not seem like a huge deal. In a competitive job market, though, they might be the difference from snagging your dream job and having your résumé thrown in the garbage.

Here are Nicolai’s picks for the most annoying mistakes you can make on a résumé:

SEE ALSO: 17 annoying things job candidates do that make hiring managers not like them

DON’T MISS: 6 websites that will help you build your résumé if you don’t know where to start

SEE ALSO: The 13 most common résumé mistakes

1. Sloppiness

"The biggest mistake job seekers make: They are sloppy. They pay poor attention to detail. They are lazy!"

Nicolai said she has seen too many résumés with typos, unprofessional fonts, outdated information, and irrelevant information.

2. Summaries that are too long

Summaries are annoying when they are written in a formal tone and include too many adjectives, she said.

"After a while, the summaries can read like a lengthy chapter in a book," Nicolai told Business Insider. "It’s better to list a few bullets with pointed achievements and a branded tagline stating, ‘Known for achieving XYZ.’"

3. Too many buzzwords

Résumé jargon such as "out of the box," "team player," and "exceptional communicator" are "baseline expectations in today’s market," Nicolai said. "A person who truly is a ‘unique problem solver who works well in teams’ will convey this succinctly and creatively on their résumé through a combination of few words and imagery."

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

from SAI https://read.bi/2JrCvKW
via IFTTT

Ultra-sensitive radio telescope debuts in South Africa

Standard


South African Radio Astronomy Observatory

Another piece of the Square Kilometer Array’s puzzle just fell into place. South Africa has officially switched on MeerKAT, billed as the most sensitive radio telescope of its type on the planet. Some parts of the array have been gathering data, but it’s now nearly ready to use interferometry from all 64 dishes to map the normally invisible portions of space in exceptionally high detail. It should be completely ready for scientific experiments in about two months, according to Nature. However, you won’t have to wait that long to see fresh results — you’re looking at some above.

Researchers have produced a panorama of the Milky Way galaxy’s center (which contains a supermassive black hole) using radio, infrared and X-ray wavelengths that penetrate the gas and dust thwarting conventional telescopes. The image isn’t just pretty — it shows many of the sources of magnetized filament structures near the black hole that previously remained a mystery, potentially offering an explanation for how those filaments came to be.

There are already two projects underway to make use of the full telescope. One will study the level of hydrogen in galaxies , which could help fill out the history of the universe, while another will tackle fast radio bursts and other transients that remain elusive to astronomers. Ultimately, MeerKAT will accommodate eight large-survey projects that will give each team over 1,000 hours of observation time over five years.

Work to fold MeerKAT into the Square Kilometer Array won’t start until 2020, when it will gradually integrate with another 130 dishes in South Africa as well as a maximum of 130,000 antennas in Australia. When it’s ready, though, the SKA could provide insight that other telescopes just couldn’t match. It’s also a major milestone for space science in Africa. Although MeerKat is expensive at about 4.4 billion rand ($331 billion US), it’s already serving as a draw for scientists who would otherwise have to go to the Americas, Australia or Europe to gather the data they need.

from Engadget https://engt.co/2LpM3ru
via IFTTT