English, is it difficult?

i think th problem here is the Malaysian it self especially Malay. they hard to accept other language in their society and don't want to try to learn and use English. maybe our government should focus more to people in rural area. teach them from beginning and try to avoid any discrimination among between among rural and urban area. every problem have their own solution and our job now is to find the good solution. English is easy and fun when learning it, just try and never afraid.

source:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_problems_in_using_english_in_malaysia

I'm quite agree with that statements. In case to improve english in community of Malaysia, extreme action must be taken. The mindset must be changed. Before we go discussion any further, goverment should make same drastic action like exposure to young kid. If it correctly taught, our country will have young generation with advanced in two compulsory languages, Malay(this is important) and second is English. It benefits ME and YOU when finding job and working with companies. It's such a great bonus.

While determining the world's tallest structure has generally been straightforward, the definition of the world's tallest building or the world's tallest tower is less clear. The disputes generally centre on what should be counted as a building or a tower, and what is being measured.

In terms of absolute height, the tallest structure is currently the Burj Dubai, although it will not hold the official title of "Tallest Building in the World" until the building is officially opened. The current official holder of the "Tallest Building in the World" is held by Taipei 101. In addition, there are dozens of radio and television broadcasting towers which measure over 600 metres (about 2,000 feet) in height. There is, however, some debate about:

whether structures under construction should be included in the list
whether structures rising out of water should have their below-water height included.
For towers, there is a debate over:

whether guy-wire-supported structures should be counted
For buildings, there is debate over:

whether communication towers with observation galleries should be considered habitable buildings.
whether only habitable height is considered.
whether roof-top antennas should be considered towards height of buildings; with particular interest in whether components that look like spires can be either classified as antennas or architectural detail.
The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the organization that determines the title of the "World’s Tallest Building," recognizes a building only if at least fifty percent of its height is made up of floor plates containing habitable floor area. Structures that do not meet this criterion, such as the CN Tower, are defined as "towers."

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world

In my opinion, the world's buildings are getting taller and taller, and it is never enough, continuous all the time. It is all about ego. Once the country has the building, it shows power. It was common phenomena in 1970s era in United State of America, the rapid growth of building was unstopable. In 1998 Malaysia has Petronas Twin Towers, the building that Malaysian can be proud of. Combining elements in its desgin, it shows harmony and the building is rooted in tradition and about Malaysia's aspiration and ambition. Instantly at that particular time, the world realize instantly about Malaysia and its characteristics.

Digital Camera Vs Film Camera

ADVANTAGES FILM:
IMAGE QUALITY RESOLUTION:

A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII. Film always wins here when used by a skilled photographer. One source of confusion is here, which uses bad science using prints too small (13 x 19") to show the difference. Also note that you're not even seeing the actual prints, but screen resolution images (about 72 - 100DPI) at that site. He throws away most of the resolution of the film. (It doesn't matter that his film was scanned at 3,200 DPI and it's completely irrelevant that the printer was set to 2880 DPI, since all that resolution was down-converted for your screen.) As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do. Forget the naive debate over pixel counts. There are far more important aspects to picture quality. If you do fret this, film has far more equivalent pixels, there's no question about that. I show this further down here. You also can see that in the March/April 2004 edition of Photo Techniques magazine where a guy actually shot USAF resolution targets with both 35mm film and a digital SLR and immediately discovered that even 35mm film has three times the resolution, duh. A great page by one of those people who actually has the time to post all this is here. This is much less important than "the look." Here is the biggest difference between film and digital. Just as one film looks different from another, digital looks very different from any film. Either you like it or you don't. Film is the result of over 100 years of refinement. Digital is just starting out. Pixel count is just a secondary issue. If you do fret the pixel counts, I find that it takes about 25 megapixels to simulate 35mm film's practical resolution, which is still far more than any practical digital camera. At the 6 megapixel level digital gives about the same sharpness as a duplicate slide, which is plenty for most things. Of course I use much bigger film than 35mm for all the pretty pictures you see at my website, so digital would need about 100 megapixels to simulate medium format, or 500 megapixels to simulate 4x5," even if the highlight issue was resolved which it isn't. This resolution issue is invisible at Internet resolutions or 13 x 19" Epson prints, but obvious in gallery size prints. 35mm is mostly used by amateurs at this time, since the news guys all went digital two years ago. 35 chromes' last vestige as of 2004 is monthly sports and journalism magazines. The travel mags usually are shot on 120. The key to resolution debates is to ask yourself how big you will ever need to print an image. If you are happy with small sizes like 13 x 19" then by all means digital cameras are all you'd need if you can work around their highlight issues. Some people want to ensure that we will be able to offer prints of any size to future clients, and big film provides this safety. And with that: OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.

source: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

camera digital vs film camera??
which camera is better.

after read all the information, both cameras have its own advantage. Digital is new in this century, but film was 100 years before, and film camera had evolved to new higher level of optics, that give higher precision of images. Using a film camera, means you need advanced scanner to show all the details in image printed. Furthermore, it's not practical today, as it is always need replacement for film, so it can be costly. Compared to digital camera, if you are advanced enough of the settings in digital camera, different between this particular cameras are not visible. Also, camera digital using memory card, which is much efficient and worry free about the cost.

This picture shows different of professional cameras film 1V and digital 1D canon

About myself

This is my second blog

My name is Fakhrul Amin. Im student of mechanical engineering in UMP with normal student's life. I'm camera freak with photography minds and thinking, and been joined in many events as official photographer. Been living in Ipoh Perak since i child, then moving in Kuantan Pahang in year 2007. Born in 1990. My previous schools and academic background

SMK Anderson Ipoh 2003-2007

SMK Bukit Rangin Ktn 2007

Matriculation KMPh 2008/2009

UMP 2009 till ......

This is my first entry in this blog, so let me introduce and tell about myself. Actually this is my first time I'm in university. Oh man, I'm here, what am I doing here? Although engineering is not my top wish list to be, I want to be a teacher actually. Continue my family generation, my father is a teacher, my mother is a teacher and my elder sister is a teacher. And i'm wannabe teacher too!! But maybe luck was not on my side at that time, and be chosen to take Degree in Mechanical Engineering at UMP. First time i checked at UPU official site, and be informed that I were chosen in that university, I had total zero feeling at that particular time like 'oh...., ok'. That is not customary for me. I'm just happy because it is located near to my house in Kuantan.

Engineering?? hm .. this is my long, long long path to go. This is what I want to be, and any interferences to weak me are totally be ignored. Do not give up Fakhrul. Yet I'm starting to love UMP.

BTW, do comment my blog, if anything just buzz me to let me know.

Regards,

Fakhrul Amin