HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:50:46 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

Uh, no. Sorry. The human pelvis is wider than that, even crushed.
Just because an octopus can squeeze itself out though a hole no bigger
than its beak, doesn't mean a human will squirt out a window similarly.

I see you still don't have an example. Cite ONE case where a human
being was blown out through an airliner window sized hole. Note the
parameters here, which are in line with the original discussion of
fireams in an airliner cabin.
3 November 1973; National Airlines DC10; over New Mexico, USA: The
aircraft had an uncontained failure of one of the wing mounted engines.
A piece of the engine struck the fuselage and broke a passenger window.
One of the 116 passengers was sucked out of the aircraft during a rapid
decompression. The remains of the passenger were not found.

NTSB Identification: DCA74AZ031
Does it specify that the hole remained only the size of the window, or
did the damage extend the aperture (g to use a photog term and have
some relevance to this group)? I'd wager on the latter.

Nope. You lose your bet.

Here's a photograph of the side of the aircraft, showing one missing
window. There's no enlargement of the window opening at all.

http://faalessons.workforceconnect.o...f_50e2efdca602

or

http://tinyurl.com/y69ed9

Who was the ejected pax? A child or full-size adult?


Christ! Do some fu&%^ Google of your own!

wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Not a Wankel, a diesel....
Oops. My bad. You were talking about diesels. Reading comprehension
not at its highest level this evening. Carry on....

Could you build a Wankel diesel?

No, but if you direct me to one, I could take a photograph of it!


Ok, let me rephrase that ... Could a Wankel diesel be built, i.e. could
a Wankel design develop sufficient compression for combustion to occur
in the absence of a spark plug?

Charles Gillen wrote:
"jeremy" wrote:


third-party lenses are shunned by virtually all
except those for whom the price differential is important.


As Jerry Seinfeld would say:
"Not that there's anything wrong with that" :^)

A used third-party lens found on eBay for 35mm cameras may produce quite
usable results (for the money) on a DSLR because the crop factor hides

There are several 3rd party lenses that don't need qualification at all
as they are as good or better than the OEM equivalents:
Sigma 180 macro
Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro
others

corner defects and most sensors lack the resolving power of film, where
lack of sharpness would have been more evident

Add in digital post-processing, and you'll see even a relative old "dog"
of a lens can still perform new tricks.

That's not the lens, that the post processing.

The percentage of photographers in this newsgroup who absolutely NEED
(rather than lust for) mission-critical quality gear must be a very small
decimal.

Having tried third party lenses and some OEM lenses that don't measure
up, you eventually buy the lens that meets or exceeds needs. There is
nothing like the best glass available. It stands out over the cheaper
stuff as you shoot more and more. With good glass you know what you're
going to expect; with ordinary lenses you expect a good surprise from
time to time.


(*) Some years back I used a 35mm film scanner to digitize my B&W
negatives of half a century ago... shot with an uncoated Summitar F/2.0
on a Leica IIIc. The resolution (especially when using an early stobe
light) was very good by today's digital standards.

Ordinary prime lenses can make 3rd party zooms look bad.
No surprise there.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:25:50 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be
true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to
transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the
society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. -
It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal,
accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since
travel
between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or
passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional
document.

You're very big on convenience of the individual, aren't you? Wait
until a madman starts running round YOUR town. Road-blocks and
blanket searches will suddenly sound like a VERY good idea.

Well, I'm just quoting cases that I've heard about, or read about.....I
don't necessarily agree with all the decisions. Also, what makes you think
that there are no madmen "running around my town"? Believe me, we have our
share of madmen.......

Michael Benveniste wrote:
"William Graham" wrote:

But that wasn't the question. the question was why just talk about the
cost of a police effort, and not mention the cost of just letting the
criminals do whatever they please.

While I have an opinion on that question which hinges on such
things as responsibility, duty, and sovereignty, it's not the
question I was answering. I was challenging the assertion that
the framers of the U.S. Constitution succeeded to a great
extent in guarding against governments restricting freedoms.

They were imperfect men who created an imperfect document.
They did recognize this and built in an amendment process, but
also built in a clause which effectively negated all of those
rights in case of rebellion or invasion. They then proceeded
to ignore those freedoms immediately at the State level, and
with a decade at the Federal level.

I'd argue that the second best safeguard against government
abuse in the U.S. system isn't found in the Constitution. It
was invented by John Marshall in the dicta of a petty little
political patronage case, a case he should have recused himself
from hearing at all. Such are the accidents of history.


The framers of the constitution included more than on process for
change. Amendments have several ways to become part of the document.
In addition, the armed citizen still acts as the best limit to the abuse
of citizens by the government. Both the process for change, and the
process for 'the right of the people to alter, or abolish, it, by force
of arms, if necessary, are some of the basic pillars upon which the
whole document rests.

William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:
Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan
depended on
physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings.

To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the
hijackers
out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the
courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew.

We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for
security. Surprisingly
we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found
the
balance
between freedom and security.
We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we
have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it
looks
kind of a lopsided exchange.
One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit!
As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before
2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not
carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no
one
forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted
as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security
approached what you see on an airliner.
Ever heard of the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



A search's "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment generally
depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued
upon probable cause. [U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83)].

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy
interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such
intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.'
[Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2]'

'Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has
stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement
for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' [Chambers v.
Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70)].'

'[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our
society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as
mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in
human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid
any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be
obtained.' [Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70].'

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in
the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v.
Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket
patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was
probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that
the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police
discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the
unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of
baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.
Yes, but one might argue that entering an airplane could be contingent
upon the individual agreeing to give up his 4th amendment rights, and
allow a search to take place.....Sort of like if I gave a private party
in my house, and told everyone that they aren't invited unless they agree
to be searched.....Do the airlines have the right to force their
customers to give up their 4th amendment rights? And, if not, then why
not?
Forced? In what way. One can always just walk away from that search.

This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be
true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to
transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the
society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. -
It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal,
accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since travel
between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or
passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional
document. This has been successfully argued in the courts. incidentally.
By the same token, if ones only means of transport is by airplane, then
one should be allowed to fly without having ones 4th amendment rights
violated.......


LUDICROUS! One can STILL walk, ride a horse, ride a bicycle,
wheelchair, lawnmower, or crawl on his belly, to another state. None of
these will likely motivate a search.
Please cite a case where a DL was declared unconstitutional by a US court.

William Graham wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:25:50 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be
true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to
transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the
society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. -
It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal,
accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since
travel
between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or
passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional
document.
You're very big on convenience of the individual, aren't you? Wait
until a madman starts running round YOUR town. Road-blocks and
blanket searches will suddenly sound like a VERY good idea.

Well, I'm just quoting cases that I've heard about, or read about.....I
don't necessarily agree with all the decisions. Also, what makes you think
that there are no madmen "running around my town"? Believe me, we have our
share of madmen.......


yeah, there's this diabetic night-blind guy..... Grin.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:34:50 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

I certainly don't mind modifying the Constitution....The method for doing
this is outlined in the document itself....What I object to is redefining
the English language in order to make the document mean something that its
drafters never meant for it to mean, and thereby usurping the method
outlined in the document for modification.

Yeah. And it's only words, anyway. America isn't strong because of
the Constitution. It's strong because of abundant resources. Cheap
labour (often from people the Constitution didn't seem to apply to)
helped too.

Again, your eyes are closed. Check out countries like Brazil, or
Mexico. Vast, untapped, resources, people willing to work, yet are then
world leaders?

Pudentame wrote:
wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Not a Wankel, a diesel....
Oops. My bad. You were talking about diesels. Reading comprehension
not at its highest level this evening. Carry on....

Could you build a Wankel diesel?

No, but if you direct me to one, I could take a photograph of it!


Ok, let me rephrase that ... Could a Wankel diesel be built, i.e. could
a Wankel design develop sufficient compression for combustion to occur
in the absence of a spark plug?

Probably, as this is mostly a function of the shape of the chamber. But
a very high compression ratio would put extra strain on the seals.

jeremy wrote:

Photographers for whom their lenses are mission-critical are not known for
embracing third party lenses. What do they know that amateurs don't?
Well considering how many people suffer sheeple mentality, I'd say they
care more for the 5 letters emblazoned on the front cap than the glass
quality. I know people who would buy anything with C A N O N on it,
even if it just came out of a dog's butt. But I also know several
working professionals who happily use 3rd party lenses. I know several
who use Tamron 90mm macros and swear by them. One who does a lot of
wildlife work uses the Tamron 200-500, because the overall combination
of size, weight, zoom range and optic quality is better than anything
with the C word on it.
Many 3rd party lenses are just as good or better than the oem lenses.
Even in the budget category, the Sigma budget offerings that get used as
Pentax kit lenses here in Australia, blow the pants off the Canon, Sony
& Nikon equivalents. Move up the scale a bit to the mid end, and once
again the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina offerings hold their own against many
name-brand lenses that are much more expensive. Tokina's ATX-PRO series
lenses are excellent. Sigma's red-ring series and most Tamron lenses are
likewise of excellent quality.
Perhaps as an exercise you should check the specs of some oem-branded
and 3rd party lenses - for example the sony 18-200 and sigma 18-200 come
out as being practically identical except for the finish and price tag -
right down to the weight in grams. Coincidence? maybe. More likely
though that they are identical designs, and possibly even made in the
same factory. Certainly after giving them a bit of a run (admittedly not
a thorough test, but comparing shots taken one after the other of real
world subjects), I couldn't tell any difference in optic quality at all.

I would opt for an OEM's low-end line, or even OEM used equipment, before
messing with third-party gear.
Are you seriously saying you'd opt for Canon's kit 18-55 & 75-300 over a
Tokina ATX-Pro?
I do not see Tokina breaking any sales
records.