Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 8 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cool new photography website
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/08c02ba0d220a98d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:00 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> The Current economic mess is a prim example of what happens
>> when "Big Daddy" isn't doing his job.
>
> Or doing far too much of what he thinks is his job.
>
> The origins of this economic mess lie in Clinton's expanding the
> Community Reinvestment Act to force lending institutions to lend
> money to poor people and minorities, many of whom were poor
> credit risks. This of course was one of the reasons for the
> housing bubble -- lots more mortgages being written for people
> who couldn't afford the houses they were buying (or didn't fully
> understand the mortgages), buying more and more houses and
> driving prices up. As long as prices kept going up the banks had
> little to worry about, since even a default would probably not
> cost the lender anything.

Yes, and essentially nothing was done to regulate or control this
even under George W. Bush who disagreed with government's role even
though the basic premise SEEMS to be a good one. Alan Greenspan,
appointed by Clinton I think, testified in 2003 and 2005 AGAINST
Fannie and Freddie expanding their reach into the sub-prime arena
and warned against the risk involved should there be a credit
crunch OR a housing price decline, both of which we NOW know
actually did happen.

> Added to this were the activities of community "activist"
> groups, especially ACORN, which used various methods to coerce
> local banks into making loans to poor people. They would occupy
> bank lobbies and block teller drive-throughs, protest in front
> of bank officers' homes, threaten legal action against the
> banks, etc. And right in there helping ACORN was the "community
> organizer" Barack Obama.

Right again.

> Once the housing bubble burst, as eventually bubbles always do,
> and prices starting falling, the low-income poor-credit-risk
> "owners" who had bought homes at 5% down or even nothing down,
> soon realized that they had no real equity in their homes --
> often still owed more principal than the homes were worth. Then
> when payments went higher as variable-rate mortgages reset,
> etc., they realized they could just walk away from their houses
> and leave the banks holding the bag.

Most sub-prime loans were a new genre, interest only, where the
principal NEVER gets paid back and the "home owner" is essentially
renting same as before. But this time, once mortgages went
underwater as prices declined below the borrowed amount, it was
only human nature for people to STOP paying and let the bank
foreclose.

> Note that since 2003, McCain and several other senators (but not
> a single Democrat) warned about the enormous amounts of money in
> these very risky loans and tried to get stricter regulation of
> them. They were blocked by the Democrats at every turn. Barney
> Frank in particular kept insisting that the Republicans were
> "making mountains out of molehills" and there was nothing to
> worry about. That was his position right up to the beginning of
> the financial collapse.
>
McCain had actually co-sponsored two bills in these years, both
with Democrats also co-sponsoring but they never reached the floor
of the Senate for debate and vote that I'm aware of.

Altruistic reasons aside, where was Congress in it's oversight
role? From 1994 to 2006 the Republicans controlled Congress yet
essentially NO House or Senate public hearings were held even
though both the Clinton and Bush White Houses KNEW there was
trouble brewing. But, if you've ever listened to Barney Frank or
Chris Dodd bloviate during floor debates, you KNOW how LITTLE they
intended to use their oversight powers. In fact, BOTH these guys
along with others like Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer, to name
just two of MANY, in fact CONTINUED to encourage expanding the sub-
prime market by even MORE governmental pressure on Fannie and
Freddie and even the major independent commercial banks, mortgage
companies, and other financial institutions.

In my view, there is PLENTY of blame to go around on BOTH sides of
the aisle but unfortunately for Bush and his Republican hopeful
candidate John McCain, the American people associated the problem
which reared it's ugly head only last September as a George Bush-
caused meltdown and pretty much, the American people were strongly
AGAINST the TARP bailouts, which we've seen have NOT worked.

Now that the Democrats have swept into power with super majorities
in both houses of Congress, it apparently is OK for President Obama
to be arrogant in proclaiming "I inherited this mess, but I won,
they lost, so we're going to do it my way", in essence saying there
ain't nothin' you can do to stop me from putting a massive SPENDING
bill into play. Gee, did ANY of these people listen to their own
oath of office?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:07 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> The reason that President Obama is in such a RUSH to jam this
>> bill through Congress is that he KNOWS that the American people
>> will be outraged once they learn what's in it, just as the
>> people are outraged about last year's TARP waste. As we speak,
>> every day that goes by, the number of people who OPPOSE the
>> president and Nancy Pelosi's attempt at Socialism rises but I'm
>> sure we'll still go down in flames.
>
> The American people are already learning about it and they don't
> like it. According to the Rasmussen polls, public support for
> the so-called stimulus package has fallen steadily and is now at
> 37%. Even Democrats support for it has dropped from 74% to 64%
> just in the last week; it now has only 13% Republican support
> and 27% among unaffiliated. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
>
> Those who believe its passage is likely are still a majority but
> also much fewer in the past week, so there's at least a chance
> it can be stopped. I've e-mailed my congresscritters in both
> houses today complaining about it. If enough people do the same
> we might actually stop this enormous and astronomically
> expensive hog farm.
>
The main problem that those who oppose the so-called stimulus plan
supported by Obama and the Democrats is that the American people
have NO direct way to influence the thinking or votes of their
elected representatives except to barrage them with phone calls and
E-mails which appears to be happening but likely will have no
effect OR the Republicans attempting to stop the bill in the Senate
with a filibuster. The Red Team is reticent to do that right now
because the 53% who DID vote for the Blue Team would instantly
label them as obstructionists and the Obama Administration would
seize the opportunity to continue to hammer the Republicans as
devoid of new ideas. Yet, just the appointment of an Economic
Recovery Advisory Board is a sure sign that even the president
himself KNOWS this is a lost cause and is attempting to snow under
all objections. Look for some tough words in tonight's speech.

Let me repeat, going all the way back to FDR's New Deal, the first
real test of Keynesian Economics, there has NEVER been a successful
recovery from ANY economic downturn by trying to spend our way out,
especially when the country has seen it's national debt double in
just the last 8 years AND a major shift from Americans owning the
debt to foreign countries such as China, Japan, Iran, and others
owning most of our printed money. It is actually these people that
force Henry Paulson's hand last week as they threatened to dump our
T-bills on the open market which would have destroyed the dollar.

By way of comparison, the ENTIRE New Deal, in today's dollars
adjusted for inflation, is "only" $550B, barely over HALF just ONE
stimulus bill. If we could get MORE exposure of the details of the
questionable spending in this bill before the American people,
there would be a sufficient outcry to stop it, but ...

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:15 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>>Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes.
>>
>> The middle class pays the highest tax rates. The lowest tax
>> rates are reserved to the poorest, who have the least to pay
>> with, and the very richest, who have the money to buy
>> politicians and swat th gullible.
>
> That's nonsense. The very richest have the highest tax rates and
> pay far more than their share of the taxes. "The gullible" are
> those who year after year fall for the Democrats' well-worn but
> evidently still successful class envy propaganda.

You are entirely right, Neil. The top 1% of AGI taxpayers pay 40%
of the taxes, the bottom 38% - soon to rise to 52% - pay ZERO, thus
the middle class and upper middle class pay about half. Seems to me
that this is as fair as it gets, but one must consider one other
thing:

EVERY time government has raised marginal tax rates and/or cap gain
rates, the truly rich bail and seek tax shelters thus aggregate tax
revenues go DOWN, not up, which is patently counter-productive.

For those who drank the poison Kool-Aid of "I will provide tax cuts
for 95% of all Americans", it seems that NO ONE understands that
the president is including ALL Federal taxes paid by individuals,
including Social Security and Medicare in that, except that these
DO NOT COUNT! Thus refundable tax credits to the 38% who pay NO
true income taxes amounts to ordinary old-fashioned welfare
payments.

The best economists today say that a) the stimulus package will do
little or nothing within the next 2-3 years and all but b) WILL
cause interest rates AND inflation to rise dramatically starting in
about 2011 as all of our current debt and the NEW trillion dollar
debt needs to be re-financed. And, friends, all of this does NOT
include the NORMAL spending that a liberal administration is likely
to propose later. And, stopping the war in Iraq will NOT help as it
is off-budget spending AND is also financed by borrowing so that
ending the war even immediately saves NO money, it just slows down
the rise of the deficits.

> Look at our big corporations and all the jobs and wealth they
> create. That's where "the very richest" are. Would you really
> want to see those major corporations done away with and replaced
> by mom-and-pop stores or other middle-class businesses? Think
> what that would do to the wealth of the country.
>
I think we're seeing the first signs of the death knell of
capitalistic big corporations. Eventually, the idiotic notion of
limiting compensation to $500K/year will spread to more and more
corporations leading inevitibly to a brain drain.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:28 am
From: Cynicor

alvey wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 05:10:35 -0600, HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>
>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US nowadays.

Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of the RNC,
Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in the history of
mankind has the government ever created a job."

I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:35 am
From: Cynicor

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Neil Harrington <not@home.today> wrote:
>> "John Passaneau" <w3jxp@arrl.net> wrote in message
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>>>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US
>>>>> nowadays.
>>>> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still regard it as
>>>> the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said, "That government is
>>>> best which governs least."
>>>>
>>>> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their happiness and
>>>> well-being is best served by Big Daddy in Washington.
>>> The Current economic mess is a prim example of what happens when "Big
>>> Daddy" isn't doing his job.
>> Or doing far too much of what he thinks is his job.
>>
>> The origins of this economic mess lie in Clinton's expanding the Community
>> Reinvestment Act to force lending institutions to lend money to poor people
>> and minorities,
>
> Rightard propaganda and a sleazy lie. In reality those subprime loans
> were only a small part of all loans and have had little to do with the
> current crisis.
>
> The real cause of the current situation is Wall Street firms gambling
> billions of dollar on a bubble and losing.

Maybe this graph will explain things better for those who want to
exclude the past eight years. Oh, and CRA-backed loans have had lower
rates of default than average.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/photos/470512519_UqJkL-X3.jpg

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 7:27 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>
>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>> US nowadays.
>
> Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of the
> RNC, Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in the
> history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
>
> I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.
>
Except that Steele is 100.000% RIGHT. FDR tried it and failed, as
did JFK and LBJ via the Great Society, even Clinton tried it, each
time getting bigger and bigger. BUSINESS creates jobs, get over it.
Government only creates make-work jobs which strangle the economy,
expand the deficit and trample on YOUR freedom.

But, since it is obvious that you are one of the Far Left Loons,
get out your 4-function calculator and try this one on, that is if
you don't suffer from acalculia:

The stimulus plan is about $800 BILLION and is reputed to create
(average) of 2,000,000 new jobs, if that. Which works out to about
$400 THOUSAND per every new job created. Do you in your wildest
imagination think that is OK?! Looking at the same $800B another
way, it is enough to give EVERY single taxpayer a $5,000 instant
rebate and every married couple filing jointly a $10,000 instant
rebate. Who do YOU think is better able to spend this amount, YOU
and your wife or the stupids in Washington?

I rest my case. Oh, and if you haven't already, I encourage you to
actually look for yourself as to what ludicrous things the $800B of
YOUR money will be squandered on. Easy example: some $200 MILLION
to fund abortions - in EUROPE! Spending ANY money to murder
innocent fetuses is so morally obscene as to defy imagintion, but
if the Europeans want to murder their future children, let them
fund it themselves!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Recent climate in your area?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aedb1e425101ef5d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:06 am
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:09:13 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

> Las Vegas experienced record snowfall in December. Even the airport was
> closed. St. George, Utah got snow. We had snow in Sedona, Arizona and
> we also saw snow in Tucson and Tombstone. All very unusual in the high
> mountain desert. Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
> cloud has been following me all winter long.

Do you have a relative named "Pig-Pen"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig-Pen

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:02 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

J. Clarke added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

> So are you lobbying for 200 new nuclear plant starts this year?
> Because that's what's going to be needed, this year and every
> year through 2050, to do what those scientists you trust so much
> say needs to be done.

Since a) it takes almost 20 years to get a nuke plant approved and
built and b) it'll be about 20 years OR MORE to get wind and/or
solar going in any meaningful way, I would advocate loosening up
the approval process for nuclear and GET STARTED. We can look to
countries such as France for a proven track record on the
technology.

> And what are you proposing to do about China?

My view: China needs to worry about China, the United States has
WAY more than enough problems of it's own. BUT, China, India, and
all of the developing countries ARE responsible for FAR more
greenhouse gases already and will dwarf that of the current
developed countries BEFORE ANY alternative energy plans can be
implemented and fully scaled up, including both transportation and
electrical power. Emergine economies don't much give a shit about
pollution, and China is especially egegious in that regard. It
majorly pains me that the US might have to suffer with draconian
and onerous regulations and restrictions and FAR higher prices for
anything that uses fossil fuels today while OTHER countries will
get a pass.

> You're big on bashing others views but you don't seem very big
> on actually lobbying for action on matters that you are telling
> us are of vast importance.
>
Again, MY view: I am more than willing to LISTEN, but up until now,
ALL I hear is the views of the Green Nazis, NONE of whom have a
clue as to WHERE the technology will come from, WHAT it will be or
WHO will pay for it. It would SEEM that environmentalists would
WANT to promote wind, solar and nuclear AND clean coal, shale oil,
ANYTHING which can be PROVEN to be both economically viable and
environmentally friendly - and they ALL are. Yet, the Green Nazis
seem bent on STOPPING virtually ALL forms of energy in some
perverted power grab for themselves, the ultimate nanny state -
Fascist if you prefer.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:05 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

mianileng added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

>> Hmm, wood logs? And you reduce the pollution how? As to
>> whatever the
>> OP's real agenda is, they could easily answer their own
>> question by
>> some adroid Internet research so I rather think they have
>> something else in mind than people giving them a weather
>> report.
>
> ???!!! Whatever gave you the idea that I have a hidden agenda?
> You're paranoid, man. What's wrong with a little OT chat now and
> then about something we all experience? Doing a search on the
> Internet is not a substitute for everything. It lacks that
> personal touch and the information gained can sometimes be
> misleading. For example, Yahoo Weather often gives temp readings
> for my town that disagree with mine by several degrees. Oh yes,
> I've checked my weather thermometer against standard lab units
> and it's fairly accurate.
>
I am fine with OT discussions, I engage in them myself. What I'm
railing against is the use of WOOD as a heat source since it is an
outrageous polluter that NO ONE with any brains would want to use
consistently unless they like to SEE the air they breathe. The Green
Nazis insist on smoke scrubbers on coal-fired power plants and want
some bullshit initiative called "cap and trade" to control CO2
emissions in future, so what would YOU do to control both the obvious
air pollution including particulates and the greenhouse gases that
result from all that wood? Ever hear of natual gas?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:44 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmkg27$6vd$1@news.motzarella.org...

>
> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has been like
> over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some inputs?

Coldest spell in London UK for 20 years.

Brass monkey population plumets :)

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:54 am
From: "jaf"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns9BAB8F4A3ADF3ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> mianileng added these comments in the current discussion du jour

"PETA estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE greenhouse
gas annually than ALL the world's transportation systems and ALL
the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels."

So, have they proposed a solution?

Maybe we should stop killing & eating the animals.
Let them propagate. (make baby animals)
How does that reduce greenhouse gasses?
Wouldn't there be more animals emitting more gasses?

PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals

John

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 6:31 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:09:13 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
>cloud has been following me all winter long.

So you are the Joe Btfsplk of the weather set?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 7:08 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-02-09 06:31:52 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:

> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:09:13 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
>> cloud has been following me all winter long.
>
> So you are the Joe Btfsplk of the weather set?

Possibly. That specific accusation has come up before.

However, we had record snowfall in the Hood Canal area while we were
Arizona, so apparently at least part of my storm cloud stayed home.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 7:21 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

jaf added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> "PETA estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE
> greenhouse gas annually than ALL the world's transportation
> systems and ALL
> the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels."
>
> So, have they proposed a solution?

First, do you understand that PETA does NOT give a shit about
global warming?

But, YES, they do have a solution: 1) start by TAXING beef, pork,
and poultry production using a VAT scheme so that taxes are
assessed during the growing phase, again when they are slaughtered
for food, again when the food is sold, and yet again when land is
converted from fallow to grazing, and 2) eventually OUTLAW any and
ALL growing of animals, or fish for that matter, expressly for
food.

Look, these crazy people don't give a shit about the Methane that
cows fart, they ONLY want to stop people from eating animals or
using their hide for shoes and clothes.

> Maybe we should stop killing & eating the animals.
> Let them propagate. (make baby animals)
> How does that reduce greenhouse gasses?
> Wouldn't there be more animals emitting more gasses?
>
> PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
>
John, do you really propose going to a vegan environment, really?
I'm sorry for the poor animals, but that's how things are. Cows,
pigs, and chickens WERE bred and slaughtered for food almost from
when they were discovered as food sources millenia ago and the
world has hardly stopped turning since. But, it is only recently
with the Far Left Loons taking over every aspect of our lives and
hijacking our local, state, and federal governments do we see the
absurdity of disadvantaging PEOPLE in favor of animals!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 7:27 am
From: Matt Ion

C J Campbell wrote:

> Not to sound paranoid, but it is possible that a snow
> cloud has been following me all winter long.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you...!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon's can't hack bad weather
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c2b2a32a55231159?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:08 am
From: DanP

On Feb 9, 1:23 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure we all remember the reports of Canon failure (pro Canons, not
> the 5D II) during this fellow's last trip "down under." People having
> to use back up Leica's, old Nikon's just to get some shots.
> Second trip to the Antarctic for this guy where Canon's just couldn't
> stand up to even modest weather. I've exposed all kinds of cameras
> (Olympus, Pentax, Nikon) to rain, cold, etc, and have never had a
> failure. Canon apparently stinks for this.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30920741

obviously this is a stab at chdk.

this hack is intended to give functionality to lower end canon cameras
and is not ported for the canon slr models.

it seems the more expensive canon models dont perform in arctic
conditions.

that is fine with me a and a bunch of other people who dont want to
invest in expensive equipment or take a holiday in antarctica.

therefore the "hack" in your topic title makes no sense. move on,
finding joy in peoples misfortunes is a sad thing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: : New Mandate: Wide Open
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8337d76e2d880788?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:09 am
From: "Larry Thong"

tony cooper wrote:

>>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/gertie.jpg
>>
>> That's a dog? My cat, Max, is a lot bigger than that curtain
>> pisser. You need a 200/2 Nikkor to optimize that shot.
>
> Nonsense. That's just a big milk box that makes the dog seem small.

Right! That looks like a deformed Yorkie. Tony, I know you love it, but
next time get yourself a real dog, not one of those curtain pissers.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 6:28 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:09:17 -0500, "Larry Thong"
<larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>>>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/gertie.jpg
>>>
>>> That's a dog? My cat, Max, is a lot bigger than that curtain
>>> pisser. You need a 200/2 Nikkor to optimize that shot.
>>
>> Nonsense. That's just a big milk box that makes the dog seem small.
>
>Right! That looks like a deformed Yorkie. Tony, I know you love it, but
>next time get yourself a real dog, not one of those curtain pissers.

She's a standard (full-bred but not pedigreed) cocker spaniel of
average size for the breed. A bit wide in the beam as aged females
get. I think she's about 40 pounds now. She's 16 years-old.

She needs a trim badly, but gets very snappish with the groomer
because her old bones ache so much she doesn't like to be handled.
We've never had her groomed with one of those fru-fru spaniel cuts.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:24 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>YES. The "misdeameanor" he was impeached on wasn't really what
>>he did, but that he perjured himself to both the American people
>>and to Congress. That said, I am NOT in favor of suddenly
>>changing over to removing presidents not by democratic elections
>>but by fiat via some likely trumped up impeachable offense. And,
>>believe me, if the Democrats thought they could even begin to
>>prove all the accusations leveled against Bush, they surely
>>would have.
>
> You do bring up a really good point. If all the charges of
> Bush's supposed lies and crimes had any merit at all, he would
> never have made it through his second term with a
> democratic-controlled congress run by the likes of Pelosi and
> Reid. They would have nailed him quicker than they could have
> said, "this one is for Bill Clinton."
>
Stephen, I doubt you have the time to watch live House and Senate
hearings on C-SPAN, but during the 2nd Bush term, some 1250+
separate committee and sub-committee hearings or re-hearings were
held with primarily Bush Administration people as either voluntary
or subpoenaed witnesses. Some witnesses, of course, never showed
up. During all of those thousands of hours of testimony, of which I
personally watched maybe 10% or so, essentially NO new information
was gleaned by first when the Republicans controlled the committee
chairs and later as the Democrats attempted to get the goods on
Bush.

Either we had incredibly STUPID people running our government OR we
had incredibly FORGETFUL people, but in just the grilling of
Alberto Gonzales, former AG, testifying on the firing of those
dozen US Attorneys a couple years back, he must have said "I have
no recollection of that conversation" at least several hundred
times! I am NOT saying that the Bush Administration hindered any
investigations, obstructed justice in any way or perjured
themselves, I'm simply saying that NO Representatives or Senators
were able to get any evidence of either criminal activity or
impeachable offenses starting with the allegations that the entire
War on Terror was illegal, the torture business, the US Attorney
firings, or anything else.

Likewise, for anyone who has watched any of the Senate confirmation
hearings of Cabinet and agency heads this time around, NO hardball
questions were asked by EITHER party. How exactly Congess intends
to exercise it's oversight responsibility or the Senate it's advise
and consent responsibility in a truly effective manner is beyond
me.

One other comment: I doubt that any further witch hunts will go on
against the Bush Administration if for no other reason then the
truism of politics - what goes around, comes around, the the Blue
Team KNOWS they will eventually lose power, maybe as early as 2010,
and they DON'T want their people getting caught doing anything
unsavory either. You know, like not paying taxes, getting
sweetheart deals on their own home mortgages, and the like.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 4:36 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Well, .... no, I don't agree. The plan LOOKS like it gives
>>states greater control much like the initial idea for the Senate
>>was to give the smaller states some say, but in reality, instead
>>of presidential candidates talking to the entire country - as
>>they should - they instead play Electoral math and create yet
>>another bullshit euphemism, that of "battleground states." Why
>>should ANY state be a battleground for anything?!
>
> I do see that point, but perhaps the better solution would be to
> reform campaigning methods rather than doing away with a system
> that the Founding Fathers obviously considered to be a part of
> the checks and balances built into the entire system.

I imagine we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

If one goes back to the formation of the Republic, I think it is
apparent that the Framers did NOT create the EC as a means to
balance out presidential politics OR to give more power to the
states. Rather, they were AFRAID of what they called "ignorant
farmers" stealing a presidential election from the "landed gentry
and wealthy intellectuals". I have NO problem with reforming
campaign methods, especially campaign finance, but I am VERY
skeptical of the body of politicians that have to WRITE the new
laws really wanting to rein in themselves.

> One thing that is somewhat related is in regard to primary
> elections. I personally think they should all be on the same day
> so that the results of each state primary doesn't have a ripple
> effect on the outcome of the others.
>
I think that is impractical and maybe not a good idea since
candidates would have NO time to campaign on all those states prior
to the primaries. The original idea of primaries was to allow
candidates time to explain their platforms and planks to voters, so
having all primaries on the same day is tantamount to holding a
PRE-general election.

>>So, my take on this election is that unlike Obama's current
>>rhetoric, he really did NOT get a mandate to throw out the
>>entire notion of the Bush White House, but especially NOT tax
>>policy or even spending. His margin across the country was
>>actually quite low considering that for him to go up 1% required
>>McCain to drop by 1% so another way to look at the election is
>>that it was really only two points apart and NOT a 2X landslide
>>margin as depicted in the EC.
>
> The upside to that is that there are plenty of voters who can
> turn the tables on him and all the other democrats the next
> time, should they screw things up.

True enough.
>
> As much as I want Obama to succeed, he hasn't impressed me yet
> as someone who actually has a handle on what is going on and who
> wants to work with both parties to do the right thing.
>
I'm trying to withold judgment since he's been in office barely 3
weeks, but it SEEMS that he is having a tough time with actually
government when it takes more than his golden voice to be
effective.
>
>>Sorry, I have to disagree again, mainly because that removes the
>>people in the states from directly electing those who sit in the
>>more powerful of the two houses of Congress by virtue of the
>>Senate's "advise and consent" powers.
>
> I think the original intent of the Founding Fathers was for the
> states to have more influence in the more powerful house of
> Congress. To me, that makes sense. But indeed the people do
> have a say in that, because it is the people of each state who
> elect their own state representatives, who had the power to
> appoint U.S. Senators.

Agreed, BUT, over time, it became apparent that as the country was
growing and more states were added, the original system worked
AGAINST the people in getting closer to a democracy than a doubly-
distant republic method of choosing Senators. I believe that one of
the beauties of our Constitution is that it is rigid enough to
avoid swaying in the political winds yet flexible enough at the
same time to allow THE PEOPLE to learn for themselves what isn't
working and proposing a new solution.

Please keep in mind that to amend the Constitution is a VERY
arduous process, intentionally. WRT the EC, first BOTH houses
needed to pass language that would become an Amendment changing how
Senators are chosen, and then not a simple majority, not even 2/3
but 3/4 of ALL states at the time MUST vote in the state
legislatures to ratify the change. I think this provided the
necessary input from the people to move away from choosing Senators
very indirectly. Looking at this another way, since the powers of
the Senate are SO much larger than the House, I think it is a GOOD
thing for it NOT to appear like the British House of Lords, that
is, a body of elitists who have NO direct accountability to the
people.

My final argument in favor of direct election of Senators IS
accountability. Should Senators get out-of-line, instead of THE
PEOPLE being able to vote the bums out of office, instead, PARTISAN
politics at the state level would tend to preserve the status quo
along party lines, a VERY BAD thing for America IMO.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:23 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>This is MY take on the entire WMD issue, everyone, please take
>>it or leave it.
>
> Whatever the details turn out to be regardless of
> who-knew-what-and-when, four things are very clear:
>
> 1. Iraq most definitely had WMDs and used them against its own
> people.

Yes.

> 2. Iraq did not fully cooperate with inspectors to determine
> once and for all if they had truly destroyed their WMDs and
> truly given up any efforts to develop them.
>
Yes, in fact, they twarted UN inspections and engaged in massive
mis- and dis-information. The ONLY reason that Saddam moved his WMD
is that it became obvious to him that the United States was going
to take some sort of military action and he wanted to preserve his
regime. Too bad it didn't work, huh? <grin>

> 3. Virtually every intelligence service believed there was
> evidence that Sadaam still had them. Nobody stepped up and
> said "wait a minute, we have proof that he actually destroyed
> all those weapons and development facilities."

The operative word here is "believed", but there IS evidence that
the Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd was pushing for a military solution to
Saddam NOT for WMD for for altruistic reasons, namely to spread
democracy to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately for George Tenet,
then Dir. of CIA, he didn't realize the politics involved and
actually TRIED to create "actionable intelligence" but failed
miserably leading to the list of some 100 "provable examples" of
WMD including nuclear bomb manufacturing. Tenet was later forced to
fall on his sword over this as was Colin Powell.

> 4. Regardless of what Iraq was doing, the U.S. invasion of Iraq
> inspired Khadaffi to willingly fess up to Libya's own WMD
> programs and dismantle them. That, IMO, is perhaps one of the
> most postitive outcomes of that war that a lot of people don't
> talk about.

Under both the UN Charter and US law, the ONLY justification that
the United States EVER has for going to war is to defend itself
either before or after an attack, and NOT to look for presumed WMD
unless it can be positively shown that not only do they exist, but
that there is a PLAN to use them against our forces in the region
or the continental US. Neither lawful justification was really
there, but I believe that President Bush DID act responsibly in
taking the BEST INconclusive evidence and using it to take out a
KNOWN bad guy. Libya should have had NO thing to do with it, any
more than any other country in the Middle East with WMD capability.

Nukes in places like Iran and North Korea are a different thing,
however. In those two cases, there is ample emphirical evidence
that should they attain nuclear capability, unlike countries like
Pakistan and India who have been able to behave responsibly, it is
widely believed that Iran and North Korea would mount regional
attacks against our allies and kill as many Americans as possible
in the process.

But, back to the original thesis, there there are least WERE WMD in
Iraq, we KNOW that for certain as you say. Where did they go, why
were NONE found at all, and how could Saddam have so thoroughly
cleansed his country of ANY evidence? And, where was the NSA and
CIA here, not to mention military intelligence in the field? To
this day, there has been NO evidence that I'm aware of that
adequately explains what really happened prior to the invasion in
March, 2003.

Stephen, please understand that I LESS disagreeing with you than I
am asserting what I believe is what happened. The very nature of
intelligence gathering and the extreme secretiveness of the Bush
Administration to the point where it was 100% opaque makes it
pretty much impossible to reconstruct what did or did not happen
within the Administration after 9/11 but prior to going to war.

But again, everyone please also remember that Condi Rice had been
briefed by the outgoing Clinton NSA and she KNEW that al Qaeda was
planning an airliner hijacking attack on an American city, yet she
appears to have done nothing to warn the president before early
August, 2001. And, newly declassified information shows that as
early as 1998-99 and again in early 2000, the NSA (National
Security Agency) had intercepted CLEAR communication between al
Qaeda and their terrorist agents living in the US and getting
training as pilots. For totally inexplicable reasons, the NSA
failed to provide their intercepts to either the FBI for
investigation domestically or the CIA for foreign intelligence
gathering.

The Dir. of NSA at the time was USAF Gen. Hayden, who later became
the new CIA director. Surely he should have at least been fired, if
not court-martialed for failure to carry out his responsibilities.

With those side insights, I'm curious as to why people think that
the Bush Administration HAD true actionable intelligence on Iraqi
WMD when our 3 major intelligence organizations at the time weren't
even talking to each other. I make NO accusations beyond what I
said just now, but I am VERY suspicious of their capability. If
nothing else, I simply don't understand where such LARGE stocks of
both chemical and biological WMD in Iraq could have been so
completely moved without ANYONE noticing it.

Again, I would be most interested in ANY further info/clarification
on this as information I have attempted to gather on my own is
sketchy at best given the nature of both classified intelligence
and the necessity for silence on leaks of knowledge about our
enemies abroad or in our own country.

And with that, enjoy your Monday!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:32 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>>Whatever the details turn out to be regardless of
>>who-knew-what-and-when, four things are very clear:
>>
>>1. Iraq most definitely had WMDs and used them against its own
>>people.
>
> Yes I know I was there

So, where did they go and when were they removed? If YOU saw them,
then why didn't YOU do something about it? As with most of your
other rants, YOUR country pretty much sat on it's hands and did
nothing. For example, if YOU saw these WMD, why did not Tony Blair
call President Bush and agree to take them out right then and
there?
>
>>2. Iraq did not fully cooperate with inspectors
>
> True but they co-operated far more than the US has ever done
> with investigations in to the US

Nonsense.
>
>>to determine once and
>>for all if they had truly destroyed their WMDs and truly given
>>up any efforts to develop them.
>
> The UN had the evidence. They needed one more trip to tie it
> down and Iraq had agreed to this. The US and the US alone would
> not give them time,

More nonsense. YOUR country had not been attacked on 9/11, ours
was. We know NOW there were no WMD and I've stated that the legal
justification for the US to go to war was flimsy at best, but had
al Qaeda taken out Big Ben or Parliament, what would YOUR PM have
done, besides plea for help from the US, remembering that the UK
has NO effective strategic military any more and couldn't mount a
massive invasion of a foreign country if it wanted to.
>
>>3. Virtually every intelligence service believed there was
>>evidence that Sadaam still had them.
>
> NOT TRUE

Tend to agree, I think there was basically a cluster Fuck in the
world's intelligence community.
>
>> Nobody stepped up and said "wait a
>>minute, we have proof that he actually destroyed all those
>>weapons and development facilities."
>
> THE CIA, SIS and DGSE ALL leaked information to say there were
> no WMD.... it is some what difficult for a spy service to stand
> up and call their own government liars. Several members of the
> US administration etc on retiring have confirmed it was known
> BEFORE the invasion there were no WMD's

No, I really doubt it. Our CIA and NSA could hardly leak what there
is NO proof they ever knew about it in the first place. But, yes,
AFTER the fact, people such as Colin Powell DID admit that it was
known that the intelligence on WMD was at least faulty if not
nonexistant.
>
>>4. Regardless of what Iraq was doing, the U.S. invasion of Iraq
>>inspired Khadaffi to willingly fess up to Libya's own WMD
>>programs and dismantle them. That, IMO, is perhaps one of the
>>most postitive outcomes of that war that a lot of people don't
>>talk about
>
> It was a minor side effect and actually had nothing to do with
> Iraq. The deal was brokered by the Brits and I do have
> information on it.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:40 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>You're a lying dumbshit. The Senate ACQUITTED Clinton of all
>>charges.
>
> You're a text-clipping fool. Ok, the technical term is that
> the senate acuitted him. My mistake. But you clipped away
> what else I said. The senate allowed him to stay in office
> because they ignored evidence and to avoid a dangerous
> precedent. But his impeachment still stands as a stain of
> shame over his administration.
>
> The senate in no way agreed that he was innocent of the charges.
> They just determined that the charges didn't warrant shaking up
> the office of the presidency in such a controversial way.
>
I don't personally think that what Clinton did really rose to an
impeachable offense. It was dispicable and an outrageous violation
of the public trust even to the point of obvious perjury, but that
doesn't necessarily rise to a Constitutional definition of an
impeachable offense.

I think what actually saved Bill Clinton was similar to what saved
Andrew Johnson, POLITICS. In the latter case, Republicans realized
that after they'd made their point, it would be suicidal for them
to actually convict a very popular president. The political
backlash would have been extreme. So, the same narrow 1 vote margin
for acquittal resulted.

I'm not a lawyer but I have a layman's view that being acquitted is
NOT the same as being innocent. The former only means that the
prosecution failed to prove either by a preponderance of evidence
or beyond a reasonable doubt that the president was guilty, hence
the default verdict must be a vote to acquit.

For better or for worse, history has made an initial judgement as
have the American people who interestingly still revere Bill
Clinton and hold his presidency in high regard. Most people have
long ago forgotten what Monica-gate et al was even about or what
political motivations drove both sides in the struggle. And,
clearly, the bad name that Clinton MIGHT have earned did NOT rub
off on Hillary except to the extent that she wasn't the
presidential candidate, which had nothing to do with the
impeachment process.

As a sort of aside, one of only 3 "crimes" that may result in a
Congressman or president being impeached is bribery, but even
though CLEAR examples of influence peddling have been rampant
throughout our history, in recent decades, campaign finance
"reform" has removed or obscured the definition to the point that
even with the hundreds of thousands of dollars of soft money
campaign contributions our elected officials garner from people
they're supposed to oversee seem NOT to constitute legal bribery.
That leaves treason and "high crimes and misdemeanors", which has
NEVER been adequately defined.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 10th anniversary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ea2c8e54f27d05c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:39 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Mark Thomas" <mark.thomas.7@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmmc96$p52$1@reader.motzarella.org...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:52:39 -0800, Gary Edstrom
>> <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote:

>> * Do we download or upload photos from a SD card?
>
> I would apply Einstein's theories - it's all relative. (O:

I'd apply that to incest too ;-)

>
> From the camera's point of view, you are uploading. From the PC's point
> of view, you are downloading.

I 've always thought of it as depending on the origin.
From Camera to PC downloading , from PC to camera uploading.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3589f9dbd5f68fe9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 5:45 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Spending $100,000,000 on cathedrals really helps the poor and
>>needy, doesn't it asshole?
>
> Your hatred of the Church is pathetic, rayhole.
>
> BTW, are you still molesting young boys? That's just as valid
> a question as the one you asked.
>
I'm not going to enter THIS cat fight, but, in MY minimal
investigation of what's in the various versions of the stimulus
package, there ARE not millions but tens or even hundreds of BILLIONS
in highly questionable support for churches, ACORN, Planned
Parenthood, yada, yada, yada. This bill is perhaps not only the
largest "Christmas tree" bill ever conceived but certainly the
LARGEST liberal agenda funding scheme even devised.

Never mind the partisan crap, people, just LOOK at what is IN the
bill and decide for yourself, will it or will it NOT improve our
economy by creating jobs? I say NOT, just as TARP has been a total
failure in freeing up the credit markets. And, speaking of TARP, SO
FAR, over $78B has already been found to have been literally
squandered on toxic assets purchased by our government with OUR money
than their true value. Since only $350B has been authorized so far,
that represents what, close to 22%?! So, if the approx $800B stimulus
package is enacted and signed into law, as seems likely, we'd maybe
waste $180B or so of THAT? Egad!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why So Many "RAW" Formats?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c643b94093fa7617?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 7:16 am
From: John McWilliams

Bob Williams wrote:
> Seems like every Camera manufacturer has one or more of his own versions
> of a RAW image format. And many (most?) versions are proprietary.
> Nikon even encrypts some of its RAW files to discourage 3rd parties
> from developing "converters" to change the raw file to a more
> conventional and useful format like tiff, jpeg, etc.
> Considering that Adobe and many other 3rd parties can successfully
> convert the RAW files, why all the secrecy and annoyance of having so
> many different incompatible RAW formats.
> The difference in final results can't be all that significant....Can it?
> What's the chances of a single, industry-standard RAW-Type format?
> Suppose every manufacturer used a non-standard type of jpeg format.....
> Where would we be? ......Your Thoughts.

Chances that if either Nikon or Canon adopts the current DNG format, a
published and open standard, the other big company would, and the rest
would bump their shins getting in line.

Will this happen? Bets down at Window 5. My guess is 3:1 against; it
just makes too much sense.

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, February 9, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, February 9, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic