Caleb

@isherwood I’ve been operating washing machines for four decades, and the specific machine in question for nearly two decades, but this is the first time I’ve encountered the crud pictured. I don’t think my question is at all about operating the machine, or even maintaining it. I’m clearly asking for help in identifying said crud, which seems pretty on topic.

@Ruskes Never. If there's a special cleaning cycle on this machine, they've gone to some length to hide it.

@manassehkatz-Moving2Codidact It's a Roper Type 111, Model RAS7133K01.

@NateEldredge I believe that it's not any type of food. There was rather a lot of it -- I collected about 3/4 cup of the material in large chunks (between 1/2" and 1"), and I assume that more went down the drain before the clog happened. Nobody in the house would've hidden food, and in any case if they had I think it would've had to have been in much smaller chunks to get through the holes in the washer tub. The stuff is the texture overcooked pasta, but it seems like it was part of a larger sheet maybe 3/16" or 1/4" thick.

@Nelson Water was indeed everywhere. I assumed that it the sink had overflowed, since the drain was clogged with this stuff, but it's possible that the water came from the inside of the machine.

@theorist Isn’t “negative pressure” measured relative to atmospheric pressure? I don’t think you can have less pressure than a complete vacuum, so regardless of how the pressure in the xylem is lowered, one could still see it as the result of higher pressure at the other end. Whether we view the water as being pulled or pushed, the movement results from a pressure differential.

within my best interest to let him know What, specifically, do you hope to gain by telling him?

Have to go for now, sorry.

So if you park your copyrighted car in font of my house, I can't take a photo of my house? You've taken a very extreme position.

I think that's silly, and I think that no serious lawyer would make that argument for fear of being laughed out of court. Maybe there'd be a case if the photographer took shots from every angle and then used those photos to copy the paint job onto another car, or if he/she published those photos with the clear intent to help other people copy the paint job. But otherwise, it's just a photo of a car, not an effort to reproduce the art.

And let's say that the OP falls into that category -- no trademarks, just some mural or something. And let's say, further, that the OP then takes his/her custom-painted and copyrighted vehicle to the track and proceeds to race. Do you really think that taking or printing a photo of the car driving around the track is a violation of the OP's copyright?

@JerryCoffin Again, why do you think that there's any issue of copyright here at all? Just as with trademarks, you don't need to register a copyright to have one -- you automatically get a copyright on any original work that you create. So let's just assume , for the sake of argument, that anyone who has given their car a custom paint job has a copyright on that art.

We don't really know the details, but in either a or b, the photographer is well within his/her rights.

It seems pretty likely that the issue here is that the OP is a) annoyed that someone took their photo without asking, or b) the OP likes the photo that someone took of them and wants to use it without having to pay for it. Maybe some photographer took photos of all the cars at the event and then approached the drivers to try to sell them? (That's a very common business model at sporting events, btw.)

So that leads me to believe that your concern about copyright specifically is perhaps not a likely legal problem.

However, this question about whether someone can use a photo of someone/something that they don't own has come up approximately one zillion times before, and I don't recall anyone ever raising copyright as a concern except in cases where someone takes a photo of a photo or painting where it's clear that the main point of the photo is to reproduce the thing photographed.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and my guess is that you aren't either (because lawyers would never waste this much time giving free advice when they could be billing someone!), so probably neither of us is really qualified to give a definitive answer about your copyright assertion.

Being more generous, perhaps you're only concerned with the way the car is decorated: again, a single two-dimensional is nothing like a copy of the paint job on a car. And again, the OP has given no indication that there's anything specific about the car that's covered by copyright, so I think the general allowance for certain limitations, given the question, should more than cover your copyright concerns.

But let's say you could copyright a car; even so, then that would only prevent someone from making a copy of the actual car. A photo is not a car, so a photo cannot be a copy of a car.

First, I'm not convinced that you can copyright an actual car. I expect that you can copyright the art used to decorate the car, and you can get a design patent if you've if you've come up with a novel way to implement a car, and there are probably a dozen other forms of IP protection I haven't thought of.

@JerryCoffin The point of the second part of my answer is that (in the US) a photographer can generally use their own photo, subject to certain limitations. Use that constitutes copyright infringement would obviously be a limitation, but you have to assume a lot about the OP's question to get to the point where that's anywhere close to likely.

@Ryan My comment was too snarky, so I removed it. But in general, questions like "how do I get this look" are way too vague. Also, I think you'd be better off using that photo as inspiration and creating your own setup to get the shot you want rather than trying to deduce the details that someone else used in their shot. You probably don't have a full complement of pro lighting gear, so figure out how to create the look you want with what you've got or what you can easily make.

@EuriPinhollow Not only did the OP ask specifically about DSLRs and tag the question [DSLR], your answer is also specific to DSLRs and the portion of my comment that you quoted in your comment is specific to DLSRs. For that reason, pointing to non-DSLR cameras to support your answer is misleading. There are many kinds of cameras in the world, including fully manual SLRs that don't need any power at all. But those aren't relevant to the discussion, and neither are non-DSLR digital cameras.

@EuriPinhollow The OP asks specifically about powering a DSLR from USB. Saying that "many" DSLRs have a DC power jack seems to me to overstate the case -- "some" or "a few" would be better word choices. Including cameras that are not DSLRs in your list doesn't help when the subject is DSLRs.

If the proposal is to require more people to reject an edit, I think you'll get a lot of pushback there. There are already strategies place to increase the quality of reviews (the rep limit, of course, and periodic tests). At minimum, I think that if you're going to propose it, you'll want to have a number of examples where a good edit was improperly rejected or a bad one improperly accepted.

Displaying suggested edits in the revision history could get difficult and confusing when there are multiple edits to the same revision.

Agree. I don't think adding a year makes it less of a shopping question.

Good luck.

Again, though, we're only in January, so nobody is going to be able to definitively answer for 2018. 2017, maybe, but you should be able to discover that just by surveying the market.

Another problem with your question is that it's hard to know how to prioritize "thinnest body" vs. "fast lens". And are you also looking for the shortest lens?

Some interesting and useful questions that might inform your search are "What factors limit how thin an interchangeable lens camera can be?" and "Are there any interchangeable camera systems with sensors smaller than micro 4/3?"

Right -- that's definitely one strong indicator of a good question.

FWIW, the question as it stands does suffer from some of the same problems that a "what camera should I buy?" kind of shopping question does: the requirements seem very specific, so not likely to help anyone else, and the answer is likely to change every few months.

Well done @AJHenderson! Photo.SE will be in good hands.

Good luck!

Kind of punted on the make you more effective question -- it seemed hard to answer without sounding repetitive, and it was pretty late...

@AJHenderson Just saw your comment -- thanks for that. I think we all have an intuitive sense of what photography is and isn't, but it's not always easy to articulate.

Ah, thanks for that @AJHenderson. Will aim to get that done in the next couple hours.

@PhilipKendall Happy to answer the questionnaire once I find it. Sounds like it'll make itself obvious in a little while.

Thanks @AJHenderson -- and back at ya!

Sorry for the late entry, folks -- I just figured it was time to finally step up and at least offer to help out.

@Draken I think most people would find such comments inappropriate, or at least not particularly helpful to the goal of securing a job offer. When you're interviewing, you're a guest of the company, and guests shouldn't nitpick about their host's accommodations. Likewise, polite hosts shouldn't nitpick about flaws in their guests' appearance.

@Draken How would you feel if a candidate came in for an interview and, at the end, mentioned that the plants near the front door need some attention and the lobby could really use a fresh coat of paint?

What, specifically, do you hope to gain by "handling" errors in an applicant's CV? This seems like a case where you should MYOB.

What is effective field of view and how does it differ from plain old field of view? And how is a teleconverter effectively the same as digital zoom? A teleconverter is an optical device, nothing to do with digital zoom.

OK means allowable, acceptable, etc., but not necessarily ideal or optimal. Contrast with not OK: if something is not OK then you shouldn't do it at all. As you indicate, the need to check the type of something can be an indication of deeper problems in the code, but there are times when it's the most expedient, least bad option, and in such situations it's obviously OK to use the tools at your disposal. (If it were easy to avoid them in all situations, they probably wouldn't be there in the first place.) The question boils down identifying those situations, and never doesn't help.

If by "never" you actually mean "sometimes," then you're right.

;-)

Anyway, gotta run. Nice chatting with you!