A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why I love digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #851  
Old April 20th 05, 09:51 PM
Matt Silberstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:22:53 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:25:43 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:29:23 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:49:57 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:07:28 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:55:45 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Nope. SUVs are an easy to state example. I want all car prices to
include the societal costs of the cars, I am tired of subsidizing
items that put me at risk. If you want to refer to safety as a moral
issue, fine.

I refer to it that way becasue you do. It's pretty simple, really.

If you object to that moral view, that safety is important, then say
so. I would think, though, that you would object more to funding an
army than to raising taxes on some vehicles.

I didn't say so, so I'd really appreciate it if you were honest enough
to not try to make me say so.
if that's the way you need to defend you rposition, it certainly says
a lot about the strength of your position.


The problem is not my lack of honesty but your lack of consistency.
You keep saying I am trying to impose morality when I keep saying I
want people to pay for the national security risks they create. If you
object to their paying for that say why. If you object to their paying
for that, but think others should pay for security then say why. I
apologize for thinking that your position had that kind of
consistency.


Matt, you asked before where I got the "morality" thing, and I showed
you: it was from you. I'm consistant; you don't seem to remember what
you write.


The issue here is your, well, whining that I am pushing social
engineering. I am not doing that any more than those who want an army
are pushing social engineering. I am objecting to my increased risk
caused by excessive use of gasoline.

I don't like it when people blow up buildings down the
block, I don't like it when my country goes to war, and I want to
minimize those things. Taxing cars to include their fair share of
those costs seems far better than giving up some of my rights and
paying higher taxes to pay for the war. If you would rather have a war
than pay higher car and gas taxes then you have a screwed up morality.

Then, in that case, I strongly sugest that you start out with local
politics, be good at it, and work your way up to the point where you
can do something about it.
Or, alternatively, work hard to get whichever pol fits your morality,
and get him elected, and make yourself useful to him, so he will
listen to your input, and be an influence on his actions.

Thanks for your advice?

Do you do that, or just whine?

Have you stopped doing crack?

See? Your position is so weak that this is your response.


No, I just know a loaded question when I see it. If you were unable to
see the weakness in your question I will point it out: if you are
going to actually accuse me of whining then do so, don't hide in a
false dichotomy question. I figured, perhaps wrongly, that you would
see the variation on the "beating your wife" question and realized you
had presented the loaded question. Sorry again for overestimating your
abilities.


it's not a loaded question. You're not coming up with a workable plan,
but you complain.
That's whining.


Except that I offer a workable plan. Start with increasing gas taxes.
Then stop treating SUVs different from other passenger cars. Quite
workable.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
  #852  
Old April 20th 05, 09:52 PM
Matt Silberstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:24:13 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:27:59 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:30:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:50:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:07:49 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:22:03 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:09:51 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:35:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

No, just tax them and the fuel they burn until nobody buys them.

Ah, so you want to get all Hummers off the roads, including those that
are used in businesses?

The social and environmental costs are no different just
because a business uses the vehicle. Notice that businesses can always
afford things which the average consumer could nt justify on the basis
of occasional need. So if the business really needs one of the
guzzlers, let them pay in accordance with the social costs of their
choice.

And, of course, you are willing to visit the higher prices on commerce
this would require on everyone, not just yourself.
Sure, this is workable. In a police state, certainly not in the US.

Yeah, the U.S. certainly does not have taxes designed to affect social
policy.

It doesn't?


Sure it does, it was satirical.

Ever hear of "sin tax"? You don't really think taxes on, for example,
cigarettes are high just for the fun of it, do you?
BTW, did you remember to deduct mortgage interest?

Why? Did you?


Sigh. Try reading again for comprehension. You made the claim that
imposing moral views was a police state action. I made a satirical
response, then gave an example of accepted and admired social
engineering via taxes. If I have to connect all of the dots for you
these posts will get very long.


Then why don't you understand and answer rather than make satiracal
responses?


I do understand and I respond how I like to respond. I guess I am
sorry, but you don't get to decide how I am going to respond. I
responded with satire, you did not get it. Live with it.


And just how do you propose to tax the gas for Hummers (and, I will
suppose, other vehicles you don't like)?

Let's stop the whining, and get down to brass tacks: how do you want
to do this? Make a workable proposal, as I did in another post.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
  #853  
Old April 20th 05, 10:03 PM
Matt Silberstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:30:27 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:31:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:36:22 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:53:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:12 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:59:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Seriously, what are you really trying to say?

And if they were considered cars, not trucks, they would be higher
priced still and less popular.

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

Largely yes. What I want in this area in particular is for the
government to decide what is a truck or a car and do so consistently
if they are going to tax them differently.

So you want the government to make a case-by-case decision? So that a
new door handle or drivetrain configuration costs more to certify? You
really want to drive costs up by using more government?


Why does it have to be case by case? If they are going to make the
distinction in the taxes and regulations then there should be some
kind of distinction in the product. If not, then the tax distinction
should go away.


Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how it's done now.
The Government *does* make distinctions by class. The car companies
*don't* get to simply say what class their vehicles go into.


They do for import duties and safety standards. I looked up the CAFE
standards and they are based on intent. Something you claim to
dislike. I think they were changed from when I last looked at the
rules, but that is not a problem. We agree they should not be based on
intent. The rules say a vehicle "designed" for off-road is a different
category. That means the intent of the designer is at play. I say that
the intent of the buyer is more important. Nor does I see any reason
to treat off-road vehicles differently from on-road. An SUV is a
passenger car, that it has different suspension does not mean it
should not meet the same standards as other passenger cars.

They are
designed and built specifically to go into specific classes.
If tyou don't want a case-by-case ruling, then you want what we have
now, but yuou don't seem to understand that. At least you write as
though you don't understand it.


Let the manufacturers ask for an exemption for some vehicle if it is
not used as a passenger car. Again, I see no reason to give a blanket
exemption to some vehicles because they are "designed" to go off-road.
How they are used is more important, right? The original idea was that
work vehicles, tractors and such, should not meet the same standards
as passenger cars. But a car that is taken off-road solely for fun
does not deserve the same exemption as a tractor.


I don't want the government
to tax them differently, but allow the manufacturer to decide which is
which and allow them to change the designation along the supply path.

This is in direct opposition to what you wrote above. Or did you
mis-type?


No, you mis-read. I don't want the government to allow the
manufacturers to decide on their own which tax and safety category a
vehicle fits into.


That's the way it is now.


How come SUVs don't have to meet the same safety standards? I don't
know the current state of import duties, but in the 80's and 90's
trucks were taxed at a different rate than cars. Vehicles would be
brought in as cars (IIRC) for lower duty, then claimed as trucks (to
put them in a different category wrt CAFE and safety standards), then
marketed as passenger vehicles.

If you wish to give subsidies to business because you think that is a
good thing then make that argument.

The reason I'm not making that argument is because it's not my
argument.
What I'm trying to do is get you to think about your stance; what will
it do besides your primary goal?
Unintended consequences can be a real bitch when you start mucking
with commerce and governmental intrusion.


Yep, so lets get rid of the distinction. Tax the vehicles and demand
that they make them safe. Have higher taxes based on gas mileage. Or,
better yet, raise the gas tax significantly. Let the market then find
ways to conserve the oil and reduce our dependency and risk.


We can't *let* taxes rise; higher taxes must be enacted.


So? Setting a different rate means setting a different rate.

Demand they be made safer? How much safer do you want them?


I want SUVs to have to meet the same standards as passenger cars. I
want trucks sold as passenger vehicles to meet the same standards as
passenger vehicles.

You do
realize the vast majority of crashes now are driver error, don't you?


A rather irrelevant point. First, assigning responsibility is a term
of art at best and power politics as normal. Second, the
responsibility for the crash is a separate issue from preventing harm.

We can, of course, make cars safer, but at the cost of not just lower
economy, but higher costs. Which will have, of course, the result of
making the poor being forced to buy even older, more unsafe cars. Is
that what you want?
Let the market decide? Great. That's what's happening,and exactly what
you *don't* want, frokm what you're saying. You're saying that you wan
the government ot do this.

*I'm* inconsistant?


Yep. Again, the market is not deciding if SUVs are taxed at a
different rate. The market does not decide if the market price does
not include the external costs of the vehicle, increased security risk
in particular.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
  #854  
Old April 20th 05, 10:03 PM
Matt Silberstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:31:40 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:32:20 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:37:21 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:04:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Enlighten me. What change are you talking about? The evolving of light
trucks and SUVs into what the customer wants?

Having a consistent designation of what is a truck vs. a car rather
than allowing the companies to decide on a whim and change their mind.
If we are going to subsidize one over the other lets us have a
rational basis for doing so. Saying that trucks don't have to meet
safety or gas standards because they are used for business and then
allowing them to be marketed as cars to non-business users is
hypocritical at best. If we can't distinguish between the two, then
don't. Have one set of rules, a *simplification* of the current
system.

Sorry, the fact is that the government already does that; it's changes
in the vehicles that puts them into a differtent classification, not a
mere whim.


Nope. A given vehicle can be a car for import duties and a truck when
it comes time for sale.


This is deifferent that what you were talking about before. You were
spefcifically talking about for sale.
Keep changing the goalposts, I'll keep up.


No, I was talking about the costs of the car. Lowering taxes for one
particular group of vehicles means they cost less to the consumer,
thus distorting the market.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
  #855  
Old April 20th 05, 10:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:30:27 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:31:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:36:22 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:53:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:12 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:59:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Seriously, what are you really trying to say?

And if they were considered cars, not trucks, they would be higher
priced still and less popular.

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

Largely yes. What I want in this area in particular is for the
government to decide what is a truck or a car and do so consistently
if they are going to tax them differently.

So you want the government to make a case-by-case decision? So that a
new door handle or drivetrain configuration costs more to certify? You
really want to drive costs up by using more government?


Why does it have to be case by case? If they are going to make the
distinction in the taxes and regulations then there should be some
kind of distinction in the product. If not, then the tax distinction
should go away.


Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how it's done now.
The Government *does* make distinctions by class. The car companies
*don't* get to simply say what class their vehicles go into. They are
designed and built specifically to go into specific classes.
If tyou don't want a case-by-case ruling, then you want what we have
now, but yuou don't seem to understand that. At least you write as
though you don't understand it.

I don't want the government
to tax them differently, but allow the manufacturer to decide which is
which and allow them to change the designation along the supply path.

This is in direct opposition to what you wrote above. Or did you
mis-type?


No, you mis-read. I don't want the government to allow the
manufacturers to decide on their own which tax and safety category a
vehicle fits into.


That's the way it is now.

If you wish to give subsidies to business because you think that is a
good thing then make that argument.

The reason I'm not making that argument is because it's not my
argument.
What I'm trying to do is get you to think about your stance; what will
it do besides your primary goal?
Unintended consequences can be a real bitch when you start mucking
with commerce and governmental intrusion.


Yep, so lets get rid of the distinction. Tax the vehicles and demand
that they make them safe. Have higher taxes based on gas mileage. Or,
better yet, raise the gas tax significantly. Let the market then find
ways to conserve the oil and reduce our dependency and risk.


We can't *let* taxes rise; higher taxes must be enacted.



`The taxes should not just be enacted. If you "Just" enact tjem, where
does the extra money go? Into a general fund? What fun -- we simply
include gasoline with alcohol and tobacco as sin taxes?

It's particularly annoying to hear people say, "The Europeans
pay 4, 6 or 8 dollars a gallon. We should just follow their lead." But
what do they get for it? When you can guarantee all citizens
womb-to-tomb medical care, it might be worth it. But just to **** it
down the general fund rathole is insanity.
  #856  
Old April 20th 05, 10:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:30:27 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:31:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:36:22 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:53:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:12 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:59:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Seriously, what are you really trying to say?

And if they were considered cars, not trucks, they would be higher
priced still and less popular.

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

Largely yes. What I want in this area in particular is for the
government to decide what is a truck or a car and do so consistently
if they are going to tax them differently.

So you want the government to make a case-by-case decision? So that a
new door handle or drivetrain configuration costs more to certify? You
really want to drive costs up by using more government?


Why does it have to be case by case? If they are going to make the
distinction in the taxes and regulations then there should be some
kind of distinction in the product. If not, then the tax distinction
should go away.


Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how it's done now.
The Government *does* make distinctions by class. The car companies
*don't* get to simply say what class their vehicles go into. They are
designed and built specifically to go into specific classes.
If tyou don't want a case-by-case ruling, then you want what we have
now, but yuou don't seem to understand that. At least you write as
though you don't understand it.

I don't want the government
to tax them differently, but allow the manufacturer to decide which is
which and allow them to change the designation along the supply path.

This is in direct opposition to what you wrote above. Or did you
mis-type?


No, you mis-read. I don't want the government to allow the
manufacturers to decide on their own which tax and safety category a
vehicle fits into.


That's the way it is now.

If you wish to give subsidies to business because you think that is a
good thing then make that argument.

The reason I'm not making that argument is because it's not my
argument.
What I'm trying to do is get you to think about your stance; what will
it do besides your primary goal?
Unintended consequences can be a real bitch when you start mucking
with commerce and governmental intrusion.


Yep, so lets get rid of the distinction. Tax the vehicles and demand
that they make them safe. Have higher taxes based on gas mileage. Or,
better yet, raise the gas tax significantly. Let the market then find
ways to conserve the oil and reduce our dependency and risk.


We can't *let* taxes rise; higher taxes must be enacted.



`The taxes should not just be enacted. If you "Just" enact tjem, where
does the extra money go? Into a general fund? What fun -- we simply
include gasoline with alcohol and tobacco as sin taxes?

It's particularly annoying to hear people say, "The Europeans
pay 4, 6 or 8 dollars a gallon. We should just follow their lead." But
what do they get for it? When you can guarantee all citizens
womb-to-tomb medical care, it might be worth it. But just to **** it
down the general fund rathole is insanity.
  #858  
Old April 27th 05, 03:30 AM
james
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
mike regish wrote:


My head's always on a swivel. My camera's already out the window and
basically aimed when I go to snap the shot. My eyes aren't off the airspace
for more than 2 or 3 seconds at a time-far less than most pilots spend
gazing at their GPSs.


Don't sweat this Mike. People who know nothing about a skill, will
criticize it and not realize their folly.

I would worry about the pilot who did *not* feel comfortable with
performing this kind of task. But then, my insight comes from an
understanding of perceptual learning (specifically, the tool as an
extension of your body and mind), so I just see the camera operation as
another aspect of the tool, which is the gestalt of the aircraft (tool)
and the perceptual acto of operating it.
  #859  
Old April 27th 05, 01:08 PM
Mark Lauter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don't sweat this Mike. People who know nothing about a skill, will
criticize it and not realize their folly.


People like the FAA who make the rulez.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com


  #860  
Old April 27th 05, 01:08 PM
Mark Lauter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don't sweat this Mike. People who know nothing about a skill, will
criticize it and not realize their folly.


People like the FAA who make the rulez.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos Alan Browne Digital Photography 4 December 22nd 04 08:36 AM
I love my Digital Rebel Neal Matthis Digital Photography 2 November 24th 04 02:17 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? eProvided.com Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 September 5th 03 06:47 PM
LOVE TO SEE PICS TAKEN WITH FUZI 3800 DIGITAL CAMERA Matt Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 August 28th 03 03:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.