Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 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: 25+ Reasons to Choose a High-Quality P&S Camera Over an Obnoxiously
LOUD and Overpriced dslr
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ed8d9e87086036ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 12:01 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-20 21:18:40 -0700, sammy briggs <sbriggs@what.com> said:

> On Wed, 20 May 2009 23:00:31 -0500, Frank Pittel
> <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
>> J?rgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> : Dave Cohen <user@example.net> wrote:
>> : >Paul Remier wrote:
>> : >>
>> : >> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>> : >> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
>>
>> : Nice quote. So, that apperture at 1248mm f/3.5 is about 36cm diameter.
>> : That's the size of a big dinner plate. And our friend Paul calls that a
>> : P&S.
>>
>> That's amazing when you think about it. The lens on my P&S isn't anywhere near
>> that big.
>
> Don't worry about these DSLR-Trolls, they don't even know how to do simple
> math, let alone how to use something more complex ... like an actual
> camera.

Hi, "Sammy?" you must have a massive sock laundry bill.
The stench of troll lingers yet.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1f8ad7c1c284bd60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 1:56 am
From: "PDM"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:5QvIiuL$DAFKFAtg@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <0es715hd0r2suoqnk7jedqkc9e705fplne@4ax.com>, Caesar Romano
> <Spam@uce.gov> writes
>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:22:51 +0100, "Kurt Sloane" <me@privacy.net>
>>wrote Re Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>
>>>Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/3055945632/
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2880091916/
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2065913541/
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/86142813/
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/290702374/
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/762244345/
>>>
>>>Although the media across the world have picked up on these photos, the
>>>crazy thing is that this is quite a "normal" sight in most major towns
>>>and
>>>cities in the UK on a Friday and Saturday night.
>>
>>Wow! No wonder the Muslims are kicking our ass.
>
Muslims are not kicking our ass. It's only a relatively few extremists. Most
Muslims are peace loving people who just want to get on with their lives
just like the rest of us. And I'm not a Muslim just in case you ask.
PDM

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 2:34 am
From: Chris H

In message <4a15173b_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, PDM <pdcm99@[dele
tethisbit].invalid> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:5QvIiuL$DAFKFAtg@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <0es715hd0r2suoqnk7jedqkc9e705fplne@4ax.com>, Caesar Romano
>> <Spam@uce.gov> writes
>>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:22:51 +0100, "Kurt Sloane" <me@privacy.net>
>>>wrote Re Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>
>>>>Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/3055945632/
>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2880091916/
>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2065913541/
>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/86142813/
>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/290702374/
>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/762244345/
>>>>
>>>>Although the media across the world have picked up on these photos, the
>>>>crazy thing is that this is quite a "normal" sight in most major towns
>>>>and
>>>>cities in the UK on a Friday and Saturday night.
>>>
>>>Wow! No wonder the Muslims are kicking our ass.
>>
>Muslims are not kicking our ass. It's only a relatively few extremists. Most
>Muslims are peace loving people who just want to get on with their lives
>just like the rest of us. And I'm not a Muslim just in case you ask.
>PDM

When I asked "whose ass" he said "the west" by which he appears to mean
one of the three countries in N. American and one country out of about
40 in Europe. Hardly "the west"

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 5:25 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"PDM" <pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a13ee1d_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>> Though you are more likely to be shot in US cities
>> than UK ones at the moment but it is getting touch and go these days.
>>
> But, not if you are under 18 and black I'm afraid.
> PDM

True but that could be a legacy thing afterall black people especially
youths
have almost be given to go ahead to do what they want, they know the police
will avoid them whenever possible due to the fear of being called racist.
Of course the police were and might still be racist to some extent .

>
>

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 5:35 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:jbB+AREHmIFKFAPa@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <k2f815ppe4rrp07fna3comopp1k20p8noe@4ax.com>, Caesar Romano
> <Spam@uce.gov> writes
>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 14:09:19 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote
>>Re Re: Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>
>>>In message <0es715hd0r2suoqnk7jedqkc9e705fplne@4ax.com>, Caesar Romano
>>><Spam@uce.gov> writes
>>>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:22:51 +0100, "Kurt Sloane" <me@privacy.net>
>>>>wrote Re Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/3055945632/
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2880091916/
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2065913541/
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/86142813/
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/290702374/
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/762244345/
>>>>>
>>>>>Although the media across the world have picked up on these photos, the
>>>>>crazy thing is that this is quite a "normal" sight in most major towns
>>>>>and
>>>>>cities in the UK on a Friday and Saturday night.
>>>>
>>>>Wow! No wonder the Muslims are kicking our ass.
>>>
>>>Who is "our"?
>>
>>The "West".
>
> Who specifically are you calling "the west"
>
> France is not having a problem.

I thought it was having problems with Algerians and 'Muslims'
in fact weren't they thinking of banning the 'Muslim outfits'

Not sure of the others below but the USA seems to have
problems with Mexicans otherwise they wouldn't need boarder controls.

> Germany is not having a problem
> Not Canada or Mexico
> Spain seems to be at peace with Islam.
>
>
>
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
>

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 5:46 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009052006202882397-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...

> There haven't been any headlines regarding the arrest and prosecution of
> photographers in that City.
> That makes it appear to be an island of common sense and photographic
> freedom in the UK, given all the other silly stories.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/12/01/the-world-s-worst-father-christmases-thirteen-truly-bad-santas-115875-20938472/

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 6:16 am
From: John McWilliams

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:jbB+AREHmIFKFAPa@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...

>> Who specifically are you calling "the west"
>>
>> France is not having a problem.
>
> I thought it was having problems with Algerians and 'Muslims'
> in fact weren't they thinking of banning the 'Muslim outfits'
>
> Not sure of the others below but the USA seems to have
> problems with Mexicans otherwise they wouldn't need boarder controls.

The problems with boarders in general is they tend to stay a lot more
than a few nights or months. Then they want gov't handouts.

Border controls are in place for every civilized nation I can think of,
and some that aren't so civil.

--
john mcwilliams

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 6:29 am
From: Chris H

In message <gv3hul$kas$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:jbB+AREHmIFKFAPa@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <k2f815ppe4rrp07fna3comopp1k20p8noe@4ax.com>, Caesar Romano
>> <Spam@uce.gov> writes
>>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 14:09:19 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote
>>>Re Re: Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>
>>>>In message <0es715hd0r2suoqnk7jedqkc9e705fplne@4ax.com>, Caesar Romano
>>>><Spam@uce.gov> writes
>>>>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:22:51 +0100, "Kurt Sloane" <me@privacy.net>
>>>>>wrote Re Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/3055945632/
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2880091916/
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2065913541/
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/86142813/
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/290702374/
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/762244345/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Although the media across the world have picked up on these photos, the
>>>>>>crazy thing is that this is quite a "normal" sight in most major towns
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>cities in the UK on a Friday and Saturday night.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow! No wonder the Muslims are kicking our ass.
>>>>
>>>>Who is "our"?
>>>
>>>The "West".
>>
>> Who specifically are you calling "the west"
>>
>> France is not having a problem.
>
>I thought it was having problems with Algerians and 'Muslims'
>in fact weren't they thinking of banning the 'Muslim outfits'

And Christian crosses France is secular with a vengeance.

France had had problems with North Africans ever since it invaded N
Africa centuries ago Let that be a lesson to countries that invade other
countries.

>Not sure of the others below but the USA seems to have
>problems with Mexicans otherwise they wouldn't need boarder controls.

Mexican are not Muslims but generally Roman Catholic Christians

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 6:53 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-21 05:46:11 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009052006202882397-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>
>
>> There haven't been any headlines regarding the arrest and prosecution of
>> photographers in that City.
>> That makes it appear to be an island of common sense and photographic
>> freedom in the UK, given all the other silly stories.
>
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/12/01/the-world-s-worst-father-christmases-thirteen-truly-bad-santas-115875-20938472/

Who
>
would have thought the Santa Union would have had the funding for an
office Xmas party???
The Mythbusters strike again!

The seasonal bane of the Western World get their just deserts!!
Just imagine the reindeer dropping clean up in the parking lot/garage!!
:-)

--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 5:25 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

Alan Browne wrote:
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:X_OdnRxx8qQNiI7XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> A lot of this cash, BTW, will be returned to the government. Some
>>>>> banks are already throwing it back to get the gov't off
>>>>> their backs.
>>>> Some banks are TRYING to return the money, but the last I heard
>>>> the Obama administration is refusing to take it back. When the
>>>> banks have the gummint money, the gummit has its hooks in the
>>>> banks.
>>> They can't refuse to take the money back. Those that pass the
>>> 'stress test' (the vast majority did) and that can raise the cash
>>> (by equity is in fashion) can pay it back and it's over. The few
>>> that didn't need some $80B in fluff ups, a bagatelle in this
>>> environment. What you 'heard' sounds more like the anti-Obama propaganda
>>> machine.
>>
>> "There's a reason [Obama] refuses to accept repayment of TARP money."
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
>>
>> "Obama won't let banks give TARP cash back"
>> http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wont-let-banks-give-tarp-money-back
>>
>> "Why won't Geithner take TARP repayments?"
>> http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/why_wont_geithner_take_tarp_re.html
>>
>> "Why Treasury won't take our money back"
>> http://conservativewahoo.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-treasury-wont-take-our-money-back.html
>>
>> "Why Washington won't take its money back . . . just yet"
>> http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/20/why-washington-won%E2%80%99t-take-it%E2%80%99s-money-back%E2%80%A6just-yet/
>>
>> They're ALL wrong? The Wall St. Journal and all the others?
>
> Apparently you don't _read_ what you link (I just sampled the 1st, 3rd
> and last of your links).
>
> Your first (and third) link says: "" Some $340 million in TARP cash
> flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York,
> Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in
> trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise
> sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes
> back? ""
>
> Doesn't sound like it's being refused to me. Further, as the TARP
> outlay is about $550B at present, invoking "Trillions" is a bit of
> tacky reporting.

So "four small banks" were finally allowed to repay $340 million. That's
about ONE SIXTEENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the $550 billion. Essentially nothing.

That third link, which you say you read, doesn't seem to be working now. But
here's the full article, originally from Investor's Business Daily: Perhaps
you didn't read it as carefully as you thought you did:
___________________________

April 07, 2009

Why Won't Geithner Take TARP Repayments?

By Investor's Business Daily

Bailouts: Didn't Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner say that it was not the
administration's intent to control private companies? Then why is it
reportedly reluctant to accept TARP repayments from some banks?

If it has indeed declined to accept $340 million in payments from banks in
Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California, the administration is tacitly
admitting that it wants to control those banks as well as others that will
try to pay back the taxpayers' money they took in the Troubled Asset Relief
Program.

By refusing repayment, the government can keep the leverage it bought with
the bailouts. Banks that still "owe" would not be in position to reject the
administration as a "partner."

This reminds us of mobsters making a small "investment" in a family-owned
shop, which is not always wanted by the owners, and then using it to justify
taking over the business.

Joseph DePaolo, president and CEO of Signature Bank in New York, one of the
four banks making TARP repayments last week, said his company wanted to
return $120 million it received because, in part, it wasn't comfortable with
legislation passed that would limit compensation for salespeople. Those
limits, he explained, would make it hard to recruit top professionals.

And then there's the fact that the bank didn't actually need the money. But,
as we have learned, need is not relevant in the era of the bailout.

Andrew Napolitano reported last week on Fox News that he had spoken to the
head of a $250-billion bank the night before who said Washington forced him
to take TARP funds last September.

Napolitano said this bank "has no subprime loans, it has no bad debts,
wasn't involved in credit default swaps. It didn't need any money. It didn't
ask for the money and didn't want it. . . . officials from both the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury said if you don't take this
money, we will conduct a multi-year public audit of you."

The Fox News analyst said the bank's "board was forced to issue a class of
stock just for the federal government. The federal government owns 2% of
this huge bank."

That was done under the Bush administration. Enter the Obama White House.
Last month, Napolitano said, Treasury told the bank "we own 2%, we're going
to tell you how to run the place."

"As a result of that minority ownership, they now want to control salaries.
They want to see his books, and they want to tell him who he can do business
with," Napolitano reported.

Before his trip to Europe, President Obama, according to Politico, told a
group of financial institution CEOs who were unhappy with the federal war on
executive salaries and bonuses, "My administration is the only thing between
you and the pitchforks." At the time, that sounded like nothing more than
exaggeration.

An incident at the same meeting in which Geithner declined to take a fake
$25 billion TARP repayment check from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon also
seemed to be meaningful.

Later, says Politico, "Dimon also insisted that he'd like to give the
government's TARP money back as soon as practical . . . But Obama didn't
like that idea — arguing that the system still needs government capital."

Looking back, these are small signs that reveal the administration's desire
to seize command of the nation's financial system. The bigger, unmistakable
sign is the reluctance — or is it outright refusal? — to take $340 million
from four banks trying to be responsible and operate on their own.

This shouldn't be happening in this country. The private sector and the
state are not to be mixed. The American financial system is best directed by
markets, not politics. Prosperity and liberty suffer when the latter
excludes the former.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/why_wont_geithner_take_tarp_re.html

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 5:39 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

Alan Browne wrote:
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
>> Yes, the bills that Obama will incur that will take generations to
>> pay off.
>
> Worse than that. First pay off the trillions + interest that BUSH
> incurred. Clinton left an annual surplus and $6T debt. Bush left
> monster annual deficits and a near $10T debt.

Which Obama's insane spending spree will increase to $17 trillion over the
next decade.

> That amounts to well
> over $700M DAILY in borrowing costs.

Then it rises to nearly $1.2 BILLION DAILY under Obama's plan.

In other words, Obama increased the national debt a lot more in his first
hundred days, than Bush did in eight years.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 6:04 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-20 07:58:09 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret@illumnati.net> said:
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009051809192339425-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>> On 2009-05-18 08:39:28 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
>>> <secret@illumnati.net> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2009051708481879149-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The wheels are original, but "Whitewall" Cross-Ply Firestones
>>>>> (which do
>>>>
>>>> The wheels are original SOMETHING, but they're certainly not Model
>>>> A wheels.
>>>> They're obviously too small when you look at their relationship to
>>>> the fenders, especially the rear wheels. Compare with the Model As
>>>> shown here:
>>>> http://www.mafca.com/
>>>
>>> They are original wheels.
>>> The problem is the changed rear suspension/rearend which alters the
>>> relationship to the wheel well and wheels.
>>> The radials on the back don't help either.
>>> That all comes together to make it seem "wrong" to the eye.
>>
>> That's not the reason. Look at the pix I linked to above, or any
>> contemporary photo of a Model A. The wheels were larger diameter and
>> the tires were skinnier.
>
> Without actually taking a tape to the wheels, measuring and comparing
> with spec for model and year, I could not made a definitive statement
> one way or another.
> I am not as skilled, or certain as you claim to be, that I could
> determine wheel size and/or level of originality by making a
> comparison of different photographs, with different perspectives of
> different cars of different model (you show a 1929 Tudor Sedan & I
> posted a 1930 Business Coupe), manufactured with subple changes over
> the 5 year model life.
> Bear in mind there were Model A coupes, sedans vans, trucks all with
> different dimensions and load specs.
>
> To my untrained eye, the wheels on the 1930 Model A I posted, appeared
> original.
> You might note that even on the site you posted, there are two quite
> different Model As shown.

Different Model As, but both apparently with authentic Model A wheels.

Here are some others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_model_A_at_brooklands.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1928-ford-archives.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1931_Ford_Model_A_Deluxe_Coupe.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1928_Ford_Model_A_76A_Open_Cab.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1931_Ford_Model_A_Deluxe_Tudor.jpg

All of those appear to be original Model A wheels. I don't think Model A
wheel and tire sizes changed much from 1928 to 1931, if they changed at all.

The car in the pix you posted looks like it has circa 1935 Ford wheels,
assuming they really are Ford wheels.

http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Ford/1935/1935FordBrochure/1935%20Ford-04_JPG.html

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 8:17 am
From: Alan Browne

Neil Harrington wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the bills that Obama will incur that will take generations to
>>> pay off.
>> Worse than that. First pay off the trillions + interest that BUSH
>> incurred. Clinton left an annual surplus and $6T debt. Bush left
>> monster annual deficits and a near $10T debt.
>
> Which Obama's insane spending spree will increase to $17 trillion over the
> next decade.

As opposed to the Republican insane spending spree had they gated into
the WH?

>
>
>> That amounts to well
>> over $700M DAILY in borrowing costs.
>
> Then it rises to nearly $1.2 BILLION DAILY under Obama's plan.
>
> In other words, Obama increased the national debt a lot more in his first
> hundred days, than Bush did in eight years.

So what? Do you really think it would have been different with McCain
as president? Or a horse? A sponge? A purple rock?

As Paulson (under Bush) said: "We'll drop money from the sky to keep
banks and the economy afloat."

It appears I'm wrong about Chinese appetite for treasuries, however.
(although the "flavour" that they buy is different, and they are dumping
Freddie/Fannie).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/business/global/21reserves.html?ref=business

This is contrary to what was reported in The Economist and on Frontline
in recent months.

--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 8:26 am
From: Alan Browne

Neil Harrington wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:X_OdnRxx8qQNiI7XnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>> A lot of this cash, BTW, will be returned to the government. Some
>>>>>> banks are already throwing it back to get the gov't off
>>>>>> their backs.
>>>>> Some banks are TRYING to return the money, but the last I heard
>>>>> the Obama administration is refusing to take it back. When the
>>>>> banks have the gummint money, the gummit has its hooks in the
>>>>> banks.
>>>> They can't refuse to take the money back. Those that pass the
>>>> 'stress test' (the vast majority did) and that can raise the cash
>>>> (by equity is in fashion) can pay it back and it's over. The few
>>>> that didn't need some $80B in fluff ups, a bagatelle in this
>>>> environment. What you 'heard' sounds more like the anti-Obama propaganda
>>>> machine.
>>> "There's a reason [Obama] refuses to accept repayment of TARP money."
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
>>>
>>> "Obama won't let banks give TARP cash back"
>>> http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wont-let-banks-give-tarp-money-back
>>>
>>> "Why won't Geithner take TARP repayments?"
>>> http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/why_wont_geithner_take_tarp_re.html
>>>
>>> "Why Treasury won't take our money back"
>>> http://conservativewahoo.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-treasury-wont-take-our-money-back.html
>>>
>>> "Why Washington won't take its money back . . . just yet"
>>> http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/20/why-washington-won%E2%80%99t-take-it%E2%80%99s-money-back%E2%80%A6just-yet/
>>>
>>> They're ALL wrong? The Wall St. Journal and all the others?
>> Apparently you don't _read_ what you link (I just sampled the 1st, 3rd
>> and last of your links).
>>
>> Your first (and third) link says: "" Some $340 million in TARP cash
>> flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York,
>> Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in
>> trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise
>> sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes
>> back? ""
>>
>> Doesn't sound like it's being refused to me. Further, as the TARP
>> outlay is about $550B at present, invoking "Trillions" is a bit of
>> tacky reporting.
>
> So "four small banks" were finally allowed to repay $340 million. That's
> about ONE SIXTEENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the $550 billion. Essentially nothing.

>
> That third link, which you say you read, doesn't seem to be working now. But
> here's the full article, originally from Investor's Business Daily: Perhaps
> you didn't read it as carefully as you thought you did:

That's NOT the same article as the first para was identical to the first
para in the first link.

> ___________________________
>
> April 07, 2009
>
> Why Won't Geithner Take TARP Repayments?
>

How often do you need an explanation about required liquidity, the
stress test and maintenance of liquidity PLUS enough money to pay back
the funds?

In the 5th link there is a table of banks that are _CONSIDERING_ paying
back funds. NOT TRYING TO.

Really, read your own articles first and stop cherry picking speculation
and vagueness. They MUST meet liquidity FIRST. And then money ABOVE
that can be used to pay back TARP.

This was easiest for the smaller banks (gee, the weak smaller banks are
a lower risk than the "too big to fail" banks. Ironic, huh?).

You're getting all attached to FORM and not getting the fundamentals:
LACK of LIQUIDITY is what got the big banks into trouble. In fact,
banks almost never get into trouble EXCEPT when they have a liquidity
problem. The bigger banks played the hedge fund game which had no legal
requirement for LIQUIDITY reserves. And as ALWAYS, this has bitten hard
and triggered an worldwide economic crisis. That is the FUNDAMENTAL
reason for the 'stress test' and conditions (that the banks agreed to)
for receiving the TARP funds.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another source condemns 3:2 format
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/058d826c39e92f11?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 5:35 am
From: "DRS"

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:9tednSz1fuLzyYnXnZ2dnUVZ_hwAAAAA@giganews.com
> Woger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Rich
>> <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
>>
>>
>> Uttter crap they are 16:10
>
> Not that that difference is very much, however most are indeed 16:9.
>
> 1920:1080 = 16:9 (1920/120:1080/120).
>
> And, by the way, were it really 16:10 it would be published as 8:5.

My Dell FWP2408 (1920*1200) is listed as 16:10 in the specs. I presume the
thinking is that since people have become accustomed to 16:9, using 16:10 is
less likely to frighten the innumerate.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 8:13 am
From: Alan Browne

DRS wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:9tednSz1fuLzyYnXnZ2dnUVZ_hwAAAAA@giganews.com
>> Woger wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Rich
>>> <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
>>>
>>> Uttter crap they are 16:10
>> Not that that difference is very much, however most are indeed 16:9.
>>
>> 1920:1080 = 16:9 (1920/120:1080/120).
>>
>> And, by the way, were it really 16:10 it would be published as 8:5.
>
> My Dell FWP2408 (1920*1200) is listed as 16:10 in the specs. I presume the
> thinking is that since people have become accustomed to 16:9, using 16:10 is
> less likely to frighten the innumerate.

My Mac too (1920 x 1200). I was really referring to widescreen
television displays, not computer which is probably what Woger was on
about.

But there is absolutely no enduring dimension in computer displays so I
would never refer to it as a standard.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 8:36 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> On May 20, 3:20 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> I agree on that. My camera also shoots 16:9 by cropping the top/bottom
>>>> of the frame. However, the raw captured this way is still full sized
>>>> 3:2. Only the Sony image s/w on the computer will show the in camera
>>>> gen'd raw as 16:9. So I don't bother with this mode.
>>> I like to have as many pixels as possible, regardless of the format.
>>> That way, I can crop to the ratio that suits the individual image.
>>>
>>> --
>>> W
>>> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
>>> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
>>> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Then you are clueless because 4:3 contains MORE pixels as part of a
>> set-size image circle than 3:2.

> Come on Rich. You know as well as I do that provided the image hight is
> the same, 3:2 will have more pixels than 4:3. Not even Irish maths could
> get your answer. Image circles have nothing to do with this argument.

Come on DMac, you know as well as I do that if image height isn't kept
the same (because keeping it the same is wasteful of sensor and camera
capabilities), you get more pixels in 4:3 than 3:2 precisely because
of the way the different rectangles fit in the image circle.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 10:28 am
From: ASAAR

On Wed, 20 May 2009 04:25:12 +0100, Kurt Sloane wrote:

> Not for me, I prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio over 4:3. Now, 16:9 is too wide.
>
> To keep everyone happy, why not just make the sensor square, so 36x36, (Full
> Frame) or 24x24 (APS-C) and make it possible to select the aspect ratio on
> the fly? Maybe this will come when mechanical mirrors are done away with.

The taller sensor would require a larger mirror, and the larger
mirror box would create a greater back focus or registration
distance, presenting a mounting problem for many lenses. Yes, if
the mirrors are no longer used, those taller (square) sensors could
be used, but most people don't care for square formats (ie, they've
been voted out by the market), so the flexibility of the selectable
format would require a larger, more expensive, more power hungry
sensor that would create larger files and produce a slower
continuous frame rate. Unless the camera gives up format
flexibility by requiring the cropped format to be produced by the
camera, as you say, on the fly at exposure time. FF (24x36) sensors
are much more expensive than APS-C sensors, from what I've read,
almost 10x higher in cost, in the $1,200 to $1,300 range. A 36x36
sensor would probably go for $2,000 each eventually if produced in
large numbers, much more expensive initially. That's nearly the
size of some of the smaller MF sensors, and look at what they cost!

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 10:35 am
From: Allen

David J Taylor wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>
> Rich,
>
> The format needs to fit the image, so it will (in theory) be different
> for every photo taken, so you will always be cropping and loosing
> pixels. With displays now moving to 16:9 for TV, I would have said that
> 3:2 was too narrow, not too wide!
>
> A format I've never used is the 2 1/4 inch square format (or any square
> format). Resolves the age-old problem as to whether landscape or
> portrait fits best, and arguable makes the best use of the lens.
>
> David
>
> [cross-posting trimmed]
This statement (RichA's post, _NOT_ David') is about as senseless as a
statement can be. The format either fits the subject or composition, or
else cropped to fit. This argument is as old as Aristotle's "golden
ratio", which is just as silly as his statement that women have fewer
teeth than men--without bothering to count. I started out in photography
at age 11 (69 years ago)with a 616 box camera, with a format of 2.5" by
4.25", which was superb for landscapes and for groups of three of less
standing figures; on the other hand, for some other things it was really
poor. These people should get a life.
Allen

==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 6:04 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0n3815phs4onsmngociupmb73r1k1ogmht@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 06:31:20 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-05-20 06:27:37 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
>>said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:40:19 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and policeman did what
>>>>> he had to do when a complaint was lodged. It was the boys at the
>>>>> station house that behaved badly.
>>>>
>>>> So some policemen are ok and others not?
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>>Thank you Tony.
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would think differently. You have
> competent and effective people in any group, and you have some bad
> apples in any group.
>
> I would have expected a competent police officer on the scene to try
> to defuse this particular situation rather than making an arrest.

No there's a problem
A competent police officer .

>I would have expected him to take both parties aside and let them talk
> it out until both parties were calmed down. Situations like this,
> where there is no overt harm, are often resolved by an officer
> enforcing a cooling off time or bringing the two parties together to
> work out their differences.

yes, save all sorts of problems.

> The officer may have tried. Newspaper reports don't tell us all of
> what went on; just the results. The newspaper reports don't tell us
> who didn't back down or who didn't cooperate.

Pity no one was filmong the event, but then you're not suppose to
photograph the police are you.

>
> I'm not willing to assume that the unreasonable person in this
> particular situation was the father, the photographer, or the
> policeman. All we have to go on is a newspaper reporter's summary.
> Newspaper reporters don't always bother to get the whole story or
> report only what they think is newsworthy.

yes they want to sell the story, that's all.

>
> Besides, the major complaints of the photographer were not about being
> arrested, but about how he was treated later. What he alleges he
> endured later had nothing to do with photography. (Except that his
> camera was confiscated) It had to do with how an arrestee on a minor
> charge was treated in custody. That should be looked into.

I agree, we all hope these thing are delt with fairly, but sometimes
personalities and individaulity get in the way.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 6:17 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a137b45$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:49:44 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>> wrote:
>>> tony cooper wrote:
> [...]
>>>> How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
>>>> show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
>>>> catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>>>>
>>>> The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
>>>> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
>>>> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
>>>> slobbered over on the net.
>
> This argument is a load of crap. The idea that someone would go to the
> trouble to take a photo of your kid & Photoshop it onto a nude image so
> people can wank to it is sheerest paranoia.

Not really, it's unlikely but people humans can and do have strange
fetishes.
I've heard some even want Sarah Paline or Marget thatcher.

> Any perv who's that desperate for such photos could simply download as
> many pictures as they want from any of a million G-rated websites. And
> before anyone asks, yes, I am a parent myself.
Some have 1000s and it's never enough.
It could be that someone wanted a picture of that particular girl for their
fantasies.
It's not exactly unusual to like to have pictures of people you find
attractive
wherher they are in your wallet bedroom walk of girlie calander.
It's even been know that women have such fantasies.

>>
>> You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
>> some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
>> expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
>
> Too true. If a cop wants to have a go at you, they have hundreds of
> stupid, overly-broad laws they can use to harass you, even if you're
> innocent of any actual crime.

I and a friend have been in that situation, a group of girls were laughing
as me and a friend being searched in the street so the policeman
told my friend to go tell those silly bitches to shut the fuck up.
Of course if he' done they, we'd have been arrested for it.

>
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 7:29 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:77fdh6F1gfchrU1@mid.individual.net...

> Have any of you pornography experts checked out any of the major
> public art galleries? They've got filthy pictures and statues in there
> which make this one look like two kids at a drinking fountain!
>

Then it is classed as Art and not porn. :)

Now lets get back to glamour.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 8:54 am
From: Chris Malcolm

J?rgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bill <carver-rem-33@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the statue. What's wrong is
>>that our current society is teaching everyone to see the evil in every
>>damn thing that they see or hear.
>>
>>To me, it represents better days when a sister or friend would not
>>hesitate to help another in this manner. It truly sucks that today,
>>the first thing that people scream is PERVERT when someone touches
>>another person.

> Amen to that!

> 30 years ago when a kid at school pulled out his new Swiss Army knife
> that he got for his birthday, the teacher would pull out his and they
> would compare features.
> Today they scream for police, SWAT, psychiatrist, and immediately
> expelling the kid.

When I was at school we were encouraged to bring our knives to school
so we could learn the various ways of putting various kinds of point
on pencils, learn how to sharpen them properly, and learn how to use
them without cutting our fingers. I think roughly 30% of the boys
would carry knives to school for pencil sharpening, craft work, apple
peeling, etc.. Which reminds me, we also learned how to peel an apple
so that the peel was one long continuous string.

Fights were common, but any kid who took a weapon to a fight, whether
a knife or a stick or stone, was severely told off and probably beaten
up by bigger boys to teach him a lesson. And a big boy who used a
weapon would be seriously warned and possibly beaten up by men. It was
well understood that letting weapons be used in anger by teenagers and
young men was socially very dangerous lunacy which had to be stamped
out very fast.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: There's only one reason to buy a camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2a1e02595cda7025?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 7:40 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a13a8ad@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> That's for sure. I'd have loved to get the top end DSLR but couldn't
>> afford one, so I bought an entry level instead. And, I probably shoot as
>> many (if not more) pics with one of several P&S cams (in order to save
>> wear and tear on the DSLR). I do my practice shots with the cheaper
>> ones. Then, when I have something close to what I'm looking for with the
>> compact, I do the final pics with the XSi.
>
> You don't need to worry about wear & tear on your DSLR. Just thrash the
> shit out of it, because it'll be obsolete by the time you wear it out
> anyway. ;^)
>

Yes that's a good point too, the same can be said of computers.
Not forgetting that generally better cameras/computers get cheaper all the
time.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PICS: Pentax K-7: Conservative yet Open
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/94414f0a2e51430e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 21 2009 7:47 am
From: ray

On Wed, 20 May 2009 12:52:13 -0500, JLA wrote:

> Pentax has announced its new K-7 DSLR, and we're going to try something
> new. Here, at the top of the post, are the main points.
>
> * Sensor: 14 MP CMOS, 28.1 mm diagonal * Video: 1280×720
> * ISO range: 100-3200 (6400 emergency setting) * Max shooting speed:
> 5.2 fps (40 jpegs, 15 RAW, 14 DNG) * LCD: 33 921,000 dots
> * Viewfinder 100%
> * AF: 11 point (9 cross type sensors) * Storage: SD
> * Weight: 737g (26.5 oz)
> * Price (US): $1200 body only
>
> The K-7 comes in at the top of the Pentax line, at $1200, and it feels
> like a pro body (in terms of specs — you'll have to wait for our own
> Jackson Lynch's upcoming review to find out how it actually feels).
> There are some concessions to the new but most of the features are
> decidedly high-end conservative.
>
> First, the K-7 shoots video. It will put down movies in 720p (1280×720)
> and also let you shoot in a 3:2 ratio so you can send the video to
> grandma to watch on her old-style TV. Both come in at 30 fps, and there
> is a socket for hooking up an external mic. You also get a
> sensor-shakin' dust cleaner and a sensor-based image stabilizer. Other
> than that, there's not much in the way of fancy frills, although the
> small body is hewn from finest magnesium for weight and strength.
>
> Where Pentax scores, though, is in the openness of its details. It uses
> a modified K-mount for the lens, the latest version of the open K-mount
> used in pretty much every off-brand camera ever. It also lets you shoot
> directly into dng files, Adobe's semi-open RAW format, which means you
> shouldn't have to wait for image software to be updated to read the
> K-7's files. Interestingly for a high-end camera, the K-7 dumps its
load
> onto SD cards instead of the more common Compact Flash. I like this, as
> I am paranoid about bending a pin in my DSLR every time I insert a CF
> card. For flashers, there is a proper PC socket for cabling off-camera
> strobes.
>

Seems like a good idea to support DNG - particularly if there is 'on-
camera' capability to convert from proprietary RAW format to DNG. That
could be useful when not on your 'home turf'.

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

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