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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#871
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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! |
#873
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax not viable??
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. |
#874
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"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....... |
#875
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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. |
#876
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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. |
#877
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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. |
#878
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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? |
#879
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
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. |
#880
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax not viable??
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX ! | RiceHigh | Digital Photography | 1087 | January 8th 07 10:49 PM |
HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX ! | RiceHigh | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1073 | January 8th 07 10:49 PM |
hoya and pentax merging | map | Digital Photography | 0 | December 21st 06 05:14 PM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 16 | April 10th 05 11:10 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:03 AM |