HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:09:25 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:49:23 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:01:09 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:

Mass transit is paid for by the aera the system serves, usually
through taxes.
There's a very big difference between mass transit and the airline
companies.
This is a relatively new way of funding mass transit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

is more like what I'm talking about.
That may be, but you did say, "mass transit."
Wikipedia is often fine, but when I look up the definition of "mass
transit", I get a different thing than "public transit."
For example, a Google query on "define: mass transit" gets:
========
Definitions of mass transit on the Web:

* Travel by public transportation system such as bus or subway.
commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/glossary.asp

* A term used to describe public transportation facilities and
vehicles such as rapid rail and buses.
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/dpz/comp...glossary/m.htm

* Public transport comprises all transport systems in which the
passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. It is also called
public transit or mass transit. While it is generally taken to mean
rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled
airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that
transports members of the general public.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit
========

I know of no one myself who looks at airlines and railroads as mass
transit, though all would agree they are public transportation.
And, paying for mass transit by governments is hardly new; ever hear
of city trolleys?
I would consider ANY form of transport that conveys the general public
in groups larger than can fit in a personal vehicle as 'mass transit'.
How else would one define it?
As public transport.
Try looking for a definition of "mass transit".
Other places than Wikipedia, anyway.
So, if someone volunteers to take handicapped people to the grocery
store, one at a time, that's mass transit? I think not.
It is 'public transport', given that anyone is accepted, but since when
is 1 a 'mass' of people?

Evidently, you didn't look very hard.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...en-US:official
just a start.
Note that mass transit is usually considered to mean those systems
that are paid for by the public at large, not the passengers.
I call that 'public transportation'. It may, or may not, be
transporting many people. I believe the local 'handivan' system is tax
supported, but the number it transports wouldn't invite me to consider
it 'mass transportation'. However, a 747 certainly IS, even if it isn't
supported by tax money.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:50:00 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Humm. 400 people. 1 murder/week. 52 weeks/ year. Doesn't come out to
4 years to me, but rather closer to 8 years. Of course that doesn't
take into consideration that most people would get smart and MOVE in a
few months.

You forget that each murder takes out two people. The perpetrator and
the victim. I'm assuming detection would be 100% in such a small
community.

What is one guy is doing them all? Grin.

William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
William Graham wrote:

The old and blind are driving right now, even as we speak.....I thought
I
had made that clear. I have been driving all of my life, and I was
never
able to see very well in the dark. I have never been tested by the DMV
or
anyone else for night vision. As a matter of fact, I was turned down by
the
US Navy for pilot training because of, "weak ankles". Later on, I
realized
how lucky I was, because I would have caught the lip of a carrier
during
after dark air-ops and be dead right now, instead of talking to you
guys on
the internet. I am 71 years old, and just passed my DMV eye exam for
another
6 years a few months ago. I will be very lucky if I don't run off the
road
and kill myself and perhaps someone else during the next 6 years. But,
apparently, you guys aren't listening to me. I am not
alone....Thousands of
retired Californians are coming up here to Oregon to share these dark
streets with me every year.....Sooner or later, one of us is going to
run
off the road and kill you. If I was you, I'd do something about it
before
it's too late.
I, for one, appreciate the warning, and will take appropriate
precautionary measures.

Well, that's a more reasonable answer that that of Ken Lucke, who
apparently thinks I will go away because he puts me in his kill
file.....:^)
I suggest that you institute some program of testing the night vision
of drivers. They will either restrict the driving of those whose vision
is inadequate to daylight hours, or provide better lighting on the main
roads, or both. The tacit assumption that because one can see and drive
very well during daylight hours, they must also be safe night drivers is
very false, and I believe it is high time something was done about it.
How about a person of 71 years who KNOWS he doesn't see well enough to
drive at night being responsible, and rational, enough to NOT DRIVE AT
NIGHT? Naww, that would entail a person taking responsibility for his OWN
ACTIONS.

Even my older brother, who used to scare me to death by following too
close, has changed his habits since he realizes that at 78 his responses
aren't what they used to be, and now maintains a more sensible distance
from the driver in front of him. He used to adjust his distance so that
he couldn't see their license plate! CRAZY!

But he still drives, right? - And there's a good reason for that....He can't
get where he needs to go ANY OTHER WAY.
Do you think there's a message in there somewhere?
Look. We can make this personal, and about me. Or we can extend the
problem to where it really needs to be....To a general problem that's not
getting any better that affects the whole society. I partially solved my
problem this New Year's Eve by getting a motel room in Silverton, so I will
only have to drive 4 miles after dark, instead of 20. but not everyone can
afford, or is willing to go that far. And I will still have to drive over 4
miles after dark this Sunday evening. My motel room will cost me about
$80.....


Actually, he drives quite well now, and should he not feel able to get
there himself, he has a daughter who would be happy to drive him, and,
since he lives in Chicago suburbs, he has train, taxi, limo, and bus
service to call upon. He plans to stop driving when he turns 80 (his
current license expires then), or when he feels he isn't able to do so
safely.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:56:06 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

Don't be quite so condescending.
I never said anything to indicate I am scared. I pointed out that
there are problems with electric cars that most people don't think of,
and that they can be overcome.
And, why would we need to find a way that embraces expensive and
scarce energy? Shouldn't we be looking for a way to embrace
inexpensive and easily available energy?

I first visited America in the early 70s. One thing surprised me. My
hosts were incapable of rational discussion on the subject of
communism. (Which they confused with socialism.) Anyway, they were
frightened of it. I now detect the same regarding energy and
pollution. I'm sure I over-generalise. But I'm definitely detecting
it here.

Communism and socialism are quite similar, differing only in who decides
how goods and services are be distributed, and by whom.

William Graham wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:36:37 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

Well, I claim
that the cars of the future will run on electricity.....Some combination
of
storage batteries and/or on board generators that don't burn gasoline will
power them. Or, they may pick up power from the roads they run on. But
however they do it, they will be an individual transportation system that
is
capable of taking one or more individuals to their specific destination,
and
not be a mass transit system. Furthermore, it will happen as soon as it is
economically necessary, and not a minute before.
You're focusing on the means of power delivery. Now apply your mighty
intellect to where the power is going to ultimately come from.

That was solved over 50 years ago.....Nuclear power......Right now, 60% pf
the power we use here in the US comes from burning coal. For some crazy
reason, we are way behind on the utilization of nuclear power....That will
have to change......


It won't, because uneducated people have been so scared by those who
have financial interest in other fuels that they go bonkers at the mere
mention of nuclear power.
I gas-powered plant can blow up and it gets 3 inches on page 20, but let
a valve malfunction in a nuclear plant, and it is front page news.

wrote:
William Graham wrote:
That was solved over 50 years ago.....Nuclear power......Right now, 60% pf
the power we use here in the US comes from burning coal. For some crazy
reason, we are way behind on the utilization of nuclear power....

Nothing crazy about it. It's simply mass hysteria, ignorance, fear,
and a totally effective mass media misinformation campaign.

Nope. Nothing crazy about that.

Hey, William, if I'm ever riding my Harley out Oregon way (I was in
northern California in the summer of '05, so pretty close) I'd like to
stop by and visit with you. (Preferably during the day, of course;
I'm sure you understand!)

Tim

P.S. Did you see where 75% of Americans polled said that they would
"never" buy or eat meat from cloned animals if the FDA permits it to be
marketed? As long as we're talking about things that aren't crazy....

You think that's not crazy? sigh.

Allen wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
If anyone wanted a home of their own, they moved to Philadelphia about
six years ago. Our prices in 2000 were about a third of what they are
now. And I still don't have to own a car and can get to New York by
several different means of public transportation.
You should know we have galleries, and fine local theaters, and great
restaurants here too. As for home prices, they are rather high in most
large cities. And people do interesting things around here too. At a
Japanese restaurant, recently, I met a guy who flies Jerry Jones private
jet around much of the world.

Did he have a Superbowl ring?

Allen.


No. Not a player, he just 'drives the bus' (Gulfstream V).

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:37:20 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

This is about YOU taking responsibility for YOURSELF not US taking
responsibility for you.
Bill, you know you have a problem driving after dark yet you continue to do
so.
IF I were in your position I would do what ever I needed to avoid driving at
night.
We are ALL responsible for our own action, no if ans or buts.

Yeah. Strange mixture of pioneer spirit and gimmee-gimmee client of
socialism. I HOPE he's just trolling :-)

On 2006-12-28 13:19:46 -0600, "Little Juice Coupe" said:

Though most people don't buy from companies that are struggling to find
their way in the market. Pentax is little thought of by most consumers.
They are very much facing the same problems that for an intense and
purposes killed WordPerfect. WordPerfect could get a good Windows
version out after 6 tries. Pentax still haven't gotten a dSLR out that
doesn't have major problems. The K10D promised much, 22-bit AD
converter, etc. etc. but failed to provide it. Soft almost blurry JPGs,
in camera sharpening settings that don't do anything,

Have to disagree on that point. Testing shows that the K10d is capable
of producing sharp and detailed JPEG images, very comparable to the
competing products. Did you try the "bright" setting? It applies a
lot more sharpening than the default "natural" setting.


noise banding at high ISO and/or long exposures

That problem can be fixed in firmware. The K10d is very new, give them
time. It's also a problem that only appears under some fairly unusual
circumstances.


, back and front focusing issues. Very poor auto white balance, shake
reduction that isn't even close to being as good as they promised.

Many cameras appear to have problems with AWB, but it's easy to set
manually. Many K100d and K10d owners have found SR works well,
although it works better in some circumstances than in others. (It
doesn't appear to work as well at short distances, for example.) The
ability to get SR with any lens, even 25 year old lenses, is of
significant value.


And, yes I own the K10D. It is an ok camera but a let down on so many levels.
So many promises from Pentax broken or shattered.

I got a K100d and I'm well pleased with it.

--
Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas

wrote in message
ps.com...

William Graham wrote:
That was solved over 50 years ago.....Nuclear power......Right now, 60%
pf
the power we use here in the US comes from burning coal. For some crazy
reason, we are way behind on the utilization of nuclear power....

Nothing crazy about it. It's simply mass hysteria, ignorance, fear,
and a totally effective mass media misinformation campaign.

Nope. Nothing crazy about that.

Hey, William, if I'm ever riding my Harley out Oregon way (I was in
northern California in the summer of '05, so pretty close) I'd like to
stop by and visit with you. (Preferably during the day, of course;
I'm sure you understand!)

Tim

P.S. Did you see where 75% of Americans polled said that they would
"never" buy or eat meat from cloned animals if the FDA permits it to be
marketed? As long as we're talking about things that aren't crazy....

I'd be glad to meet with you. Actually, My good friend of over 50 years
rides a Harley, and is in the local Harley Riders club.....He has several of
them.He and his wife have an escourt service and do funerals and the like on
them. I moved up here to Salem because of him.