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

HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1032  
Old January 7th 07, 03:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default 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.......


  #1033  
Old January 7th 07, 10:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default 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.
  #1034  
Old January 7th 07, 10:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default 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.
  #1035  
Old January 7th 07, 10:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default 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.
  #1036  
Old January 7th 07, 10:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default 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?
  #1038  
Old January 7th 07, 12:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Graham Fountain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 162
Default 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.


  #1039  
Old January 7th 07, 12:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Laurence Payne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 332
Default End of an Era

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:25:13 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

In addition, the armed citizen still acts as the best limit to the abuse
of citizens by the government.


Eh? So if taxes go up too much, you march on Washington waving
handguns? Or if your local sheriff gets above himself, you shoot
him? What on earth are you talking about?
  #1040  
Old January 7th 07, 12:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Laurence Payne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 332
Default End of an Era

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:30:17 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

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?


Too hot. The nearer to the equator, the less gets done.

And no huge advantage of starting from scratch only a few hundred
years ago with vigorous immigrant stock. Some of whom, remember,
immediately formed communities dedicated to severely restricting
everyone's individual freedoms on religious grounds.

But not, I'm afraid, the lack of a Constitution.
 




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
Pelican swallows pigeon Daniel Silevitch Digital Photography 31 October 31st 06 06:04 PM
Hoya HMC CP filter Eydz 35mm Photo Equipment 2 October 22nd 06 01:21 AM
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
Hoya Filters UV(0) OR UV(N) ianr Digital Photography 0 January 27th 05 11:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:38 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.