#ctein

[aaburjaile]

#saturnreturn #johnsandford and #ctein #1newyorktimesbestseller #theyearis2066 #sciencefiction #scifi #bookworm #booknerd #books #hardcover #notdigital 👍👏👏👏👏💯👍‼️ (at Hudson, Massachusetts)

[cooljacekkursky-blog]

Saturn Run by John Sandford, Ctein torrent

Auto Draft #bookpaperback #byJohnSandford #Ctein #review #SaturnRun

Saturn Run by John Sandford, Ctein torrent

The year is 2066. A Caltech intern inadvertently notices an anomaly from a space telescope—something is approaching Saturn, and decelerating. Space objects don’t decelerate. Spaceships do.

A flurry of top-level government meetings produces the inescapable conclusion: Whatever built that ship is at least one hundred years ahead in hard and soft…

View On WordPress

[bronze-and-blue-eagle]

Saturn Run by John Sandford and Ctein- 2.5/5

In John Sandford’s newest release, a groups of American and Chinese astronauts race to Saturn after evidence of aliens is discovered on one of the planet’s moons. Taking place in the far future, this hard scifi narrative has a compelling plot and main cast of characters, but tries to balance too many threads of story. The plot of the first 2/3s of the book is slow to the point of boredom, the next 1/6th is compelling and paced perfectly, and the last 1/6th feels as if Sandford is attempting to shove all the plot he forgot about into the final few chapters. The main characters are well-developed and compelling, but the peripheral characters are numerous and flat, showing up once or twice then disappearing. Stylistically, the book is a nightmare- it reads like a science textbook with a few snippy quotes copy and pasted in. I would recommend this book to those who are very interested in science, as it tries it’s best to stay accurate- not being a theoretical physicist myself, I wouldn’t know- but not to anyone looking for a light fun read, or a deep and riveting narrative.

[webecluttered]

Saturn Run John Sandford and Ctein $6.99 [Item#408]

Saturn Run John Sandford and Ctein $6.99 [Item#408]

eBook Edition Click below to purchase ePUB Format [stripe name=”THM CB” amount=”699″ description=”Item#408″ success_redirect_url=”https://userscloud.com/qc9nbkbc3yzj” sale_notice_emails=”[email protected]” payment_button_label=”BUY NOW”] “Fans of Lucas Davenport and Virgil Flowers will eat this up.” –Stephen King For fans of THE MARTIAN, an extraordinary new thriller of the future from #1…

View On WordPress

[dearsusanphoto]

#397. Ctein on thinking like a master printer

#397. Ctein on thinking like a master printer

My resolution for this end of year is to become a better, more prolific printer. It’s my sad premise that most of our photographs collect dust in hard drives and social media and never make it to the the physical object stage that used to be the end goal of any photography some decades ago. To help us all become better at the craft, printer extraordinaire Ctein has agreed to answer a few…

View On WordPress

[alkanphel]

Put a physical camera loaded with film in my hands, and the photographs I see are appropriate to that camera.

This is a pretty ancient post by Ctein on The Online Photographer, but I happened to stumble upon it and thought it was a good read, because it highlights what might seem to the opposite of an axiom that we always like to throw around: "It's the photographer, not the camera."

I would agree with Ctein in that the camera in your hands greatly influences what you shoot, and it just doesn't influence the quality of your photos. My style changes slightly with different cameras but yet the reason behind why I take each shot is still independent from the camera.

[silezukuk]

As a layperson, how can you distinguish Good Science from Bad Science? [...] Please understand that "good" and "bad" aren't the same as "right" and "wrong." Bad science is almost always wrong, at least 99% of the time, so it's good to be able to sniff it out. But, on occasion, it proves correct. There are a few historical examples (Newton's theory of gravitation). Conversely, Good Science, while usually right, is regularly proven wrong (last year's report of faster-than-light neutrinos); that's part of the point of science. Picking the Good Science doesn't guarantee that you're correct, but picking the Bad Science almost always guarantees that you're not.

ctein

The Online Photographer: Bad Science vs. Good Science: A Guide for the Layperson, part I

[silezukuk]

[...] The problem with crackpots is that they can truly blind you with science, or at least with lengthy discourse and arguments about minutiae that you can't possibly fully dissect. Nor should you even feel obligated to try. [...] Sometimes [crackpots will] claim that other scientists have been bought off by the lure of grants and prestigious positions. The problem with this thinking is that all research involves money. Everyone gets paid for what they do. You can't use money to demonstrate that one scientific position is correct and another isn't. It's an ad hominem game that anyone can play, declaring the other side's information to be corrupted by money. And both sides do. It doesn't really help you, as a layperson, to distinguish Good Science from Bad. It just reinforces people's prejudgements.

Ctein

The Online Photographer: Bad Science vs. Good Science: A Guide for the Layperson, part II