rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* It's just wrong - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
* Tripod recommendations - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e59e681e1ff2393a?hl=en
* Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d37cad4ce10bb478?hl=en
* Sixteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot - 3 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cca1e1bb3b88f141?hl=en
* grim news for photographers tourism and rights - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
* Ford, The Survivor - 10 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:43 am
From: ray
On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:24:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>> You're right - it's just you.
>>
>> obviously not :O)
>
> 'Wrong' is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. I see nothing wrong
> in the picture. Perhaps it is your mindset, when you viewed the image.
OP did not ask if there was anything wrong with the picture - asked if
there was something wrong with the statue. The answer is no - art is
different things to different people - there is no 'right' or 'wrong' art.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:08 am
From: Paul Heslop
Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> > ray wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, Bowser wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
> >>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
> >> You're right - it's just you.
> >
> > obviously not :O)
>
> 'Wrong' is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. I see nothing wrong
> in the picture. Perhaps it is your mindset, when you viewed the image.
I find it funny, not 'wrong'
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:10 am
From: Bowser
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-18 06:45:07 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
>
>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of
>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>
>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation
>>> for you?
>>>
>>
>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
>> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I
>> offered some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely
>> to provoke and see what happened. And look what happened!
>
> Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)
>
> You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.
>
Geez, I wouldn't classify this as a troll. It's not like I said all
Nikon users are elitist snobs or anything, is it? Just having a little
fun with the locals, that's all.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:12 am
From: Paul Heslop
Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Bob Williams wrote:
> > Bowser wrote:
> >> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
> >> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
> >>
> >> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
> >
> > To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
> > pedophiles in the town.
> > Bob Williams
>
> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
> in this sculpture....
I wonder what he would make about the lack of a sense of humour in
some people in this group. Obviously there's nothing wrong with the
thing, but humour is to be found in the silliest of places and this is
a perfect example of the absurdity of it. Most of us would probably
not have thought anything of it at all but someone pointed it out and
now I can laugh at it. bit like making your own captions to pictures.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:14 am
From: Paul Heslop
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>
> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 5/18/09 6:25 AM, in article
> >BoqdnaGzt_s22IzXnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
> ><rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Williams wrote:
> >>> Bowser wrote:
> >>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
> >>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
> >>>
> >>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
> >>> pedophiles in the town.
> >>> Bob Williams
> >>
> >> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
> >> in this sculpture....
> >"Homosexuality"?!? I don't know what you see, but that is clearly a girl
> >holding a younger boy (little brother?) up to get a drink from the fountain.
>
> I don't think that is what it is. It appears to me to
> be a pair of young girls, who are definitely not
> sisters. Look at the design of that water fountain.
> It's old, from the 1930s.
>
> There's just an enormous bit of symbolism in that statue,
> and not a bit of it has to do with sexuality.
>
and it is still funny because that's how humour works.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:15 am
From: Paul Heslop
Bowser wrote:
>
> George Kerby wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
> > 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
> >> the library in Beaufort, SC.
> >>
> >> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
> >>
> > If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
> >
>
> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
> and see what happened. And look what happened!
you injected the humour into the scene. some decided to take that as
being the sign of a sick mind... ah well.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:12 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-18 08:10:42 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-18 06:45:07 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
>>
>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>>
>>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
>>> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
>>> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
>>> and see what happened. And look what happened!
>>
>> Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)
>>
>> You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.
>>
>
> Geez, I wouldn't classify this as a troll. It's not like I said all
> Nikon users are elitist snobs or anything, is it? Just having a little
> fun with the locals, that's all.
I know, it was just one of those humerous observations.
I always thought it was the Red, 'blad and View camera users who were
the elitist snobs.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:39 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-18 09:12:35 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:
> On 2009-05-18 08:10:42 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-18 06:45:07 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
>>>
>>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>>>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>>>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
>>>> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
>>>> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
>>>> and see what happened. And look what happened!
>>>
>>> Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)
>>>
>>> You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.
>>>
>>
>> Geez, I wouldn't classify this as a troll. It's not like I said all
>> Nikon users are elitist snobs or anything, is it? Just having a little
>> fun with the locals, that's all.
>
> I know, it was just one of those humerous observations.
>
> I always thought it was the Red, 'blad and View camera users who were
> the elitist snobs.
Did I type "humerous?"
What was I thinking? Spell Check, Spell Check, Spell Check!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tripod recommendations
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e59e681e1ff2393a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:51 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:aqjr05lstt2j9ko90en3e4cv183vj12gg9@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>> This tripod will mostly be used with a meduim format film camera
>>>> probably for
>>>> long expossures in the region of seconds for some college project.
>
> Big difference between a Medium Format and a 10x8 that you mention
> later, ffs.
10X8 refers to the print outs rather than the film/negative format.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d37cad4ce10bb478?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:56 am
From: SMS
BobF@home.com wrote:
> I always thought the alpha 100 menus were the simplest in any camera I've seen,
> if you need it more simple, you have the wrong camera... get a better cell
> phone...
Yeah, and if you think people can't use a D-SLR, you think they can use
a more complex cell phone?
> That being said, check out the Nikon D60, with it's simple graphic menu aids. I
> tend to ignore the cartoons, but some people might find them useful. Sony is
> just following a trend.
>
> As for making things easier for simple people, there are a hell of a lot of
> simple people around!
And the D-SLR manufacturers no doubt remember the time when most of
those people had a film SLR and a couple of lenses. Now with most of
those same people complaining about the limitations of their digital
point and shoot cameras, the DSLR manufacturers are trying to figure out
what it will take to get those users to take a step up. Sony apparently
believes that there are a lot of users that think D-SLRs are too
complicated. Olympus thinks that there are a lot of users that think
D-SLRs are too big.
Have you seen any DSLR advertising that directly addresses the issues
that a DSLR solves, comparing and contrasting D-SLRs and P&Ss? No,
because it would be bad form to explain to the consumer that the product
they bought, often from the same manufacturer trying to sell them a
D-SLR, has some serious problems. They need to get over that, and start
explaining to people the reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a point
and shoot.
A D-SLR manufacturer should look at the list of advantages of D-SLRs
then do a multi-part print ad campaign that addresses one or two points
per ad.
Sixteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
1. You shoot in low light. Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low
noise images at ISO speeds up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point
and shoot cameras, with their small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at
ISO 200, with some poorer models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
2. You want to use flash attachments. While a few higher end point and
shoot digital models have hot shoes for an external flash, most do not.
Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes can use a wireless flash, but
it's not a great flash unit.
3. You need an extreme wide-angle lens. Digital SLRs have
super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an effective focal length of
as little as 16mm. There are no point and shoot digital cameras with
lenses that wide. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on
adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but even the best adapters
are of mediocre quality. Some ZLR cameras do give you a moderately wide,
28mm lens.
4. You need a long telephoto lens. Whether it's doing wildlife
photography in Alaska, or shooting at sporting events, only a digital
SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If you only need a specialty lens for
rare occasions, you can even rent one for a couple of days. With some
point and shoot cameras you can add on adapters to increase the
telephoto range but even the best adapters are of mediocre quality. Some
ZLR cameras do give you a long telephoto lens, but the quality is not great.
5. You need fast auto-focus. Most digital SLRs (with the exception of
Pentax) use lenses with internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and
shoot digital cameras cannot focus nearly as fast.
6. You need low shutter lag. Whether it's photographing your child on a
merry-go-round, or capturing the crack of the bat against the baseball,
you cannot obtain these shots with a digital point and shoot camera
because the time between when you press the shutter and the image is
captured is far too long. A digital SLR has a mechanical shutter that
opens instantaneously when the shutter release button is pressed. In a
point and shoot camera, the sensor is activated electronically after it
is used to focus the shot.
7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes. Only a
high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
8. You want an optical viewfinder. While a few point and shoot cameras
have retained an optical viewfinder, it's been cost-reduced out of most
models. Composing a picture on the LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is
very difficult.
9. You want full manual control. While some high-end point and shoot
models have retained some level of manual control, most have
cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models, there is third-party software
that can get some of the manual control back, but it's very flaky and
complicated.
10. Expandability and upgradability. Not only a wide variety of
specialty lenses, but flash attachments, filters, vertical grips, remote
shutter releases, etc. If you eventually want to upgrade to a better
D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and accessories can be used on the new
body if it's from the same manufacturer.
11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you
can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it's true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
of a high end point and shoot camera.
13. Weight. There are now D-SLRs that are the same weight, or lighter
weight, than ZLRs, even with the lens weight included. So while most
users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital
camera when portablity is more important than quality, there's no reason
to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
14. Size. There are now D-SLRs that are the same volume, or smaller
volume, than ZLRs, even with the lens volume included. So while most
users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital
camera when portablity is more important than quality, there's no reason
to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
15. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
wide-range "SLR-like" P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range
from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even
though the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn't very good at the
ends. Now with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option
of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher quality wide
angle and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the
simplicity of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to not carry extra
lenses.
16. Complexity. While a D-SLR does give you the ability to have a great
deal of control, you also have the option of setting it to automatic
mode, making it no more complex than a simple point and shoot camera. If
you have the desire to expand your creative control in the future, that
capability is built in. Most point and shoot cameras lack the option for
manual control, though some Canon cameras can use a freeware program to
add some limited control.
The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a
pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important
than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are
more important than portability.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sixteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cca1e1bb3b88f141?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:59 am
From: SMS
Sixteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
1. You shoot in low light. Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low
noise images at ISO speeds up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point
and shoot cameras, with their small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at
ISO 200, with some poorer models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
2. You want to use flash attachments. While a few higher end point and
shoot digital models have hot shoes for an external flash, most do not.
Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes can use a wireless flash, but
it's not a great flash unit.
3. You need an extreme wide-angle lens. Digital SLRs have
super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an effective focal length of
as little as 16mm. There are no point and shoot digital cameras with
lenses that wide. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on
adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but even the best adapters
are of mediocre quality. Some ZLR cameras do give you a moderately wide,
28mm lens.
4. You need a long telephoto lens. Whether it's doing wildlife
photography in Alaska, or shooting at sporting events, only a digital
SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If you only need a specialty lens for
rare occasions, you can even rent one for a couple of days. With some
point and shoot cameras you can add on adapters to increase the
telephoto range but even the best adapters are of mediocre quality. Some
ZLR cameras do give you a long telephoto lens, but the quality is not great.
5. You need fast auto-focus. Most digital SLRs (with the exception of
Pentax) use lenses with internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and
shoot digital cameras cannot focus nearly as fast.
6. You need low shutter lag. Whether it's photographing your child on a
merry-go-round, or capturing the crack of the bat against the baseball,
you cannot obtain these shots with a digital point and shoot camera
because the time between when you press the shutter and the image is
captured is far too long. A digital SLR has a mechanical shutter that
opens instantaneously when the shutter release button is pressed. In a
point and shoot camera, the sensor is activated electronically after it
is used to focus the shot.
7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes. Only a
high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
8. You want an optical viewfinder. While a few point and shoot cameras
have retained an optical viewfinder, it's been cost-reduced out of most
models. Composing a picture on the LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is
very difficult.
9. You want full manual control. While some high-end point and shoot
models have retained some level of manual control, most have
cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models, there is third-party software
that can get some of the manual control back, but it's very flaky and
complicated.
10. Expandability and upgradability. Not only a wide variety of
specialty lenses, but flash attachments, filters, vertical grips, remote
shutter releases, etc. If you eventually want to upgrade to a better
D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and accessories can be used on the new
body if it's from the same manufacturer.
11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you
can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it's true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
of a high end point and shoot camera.
13. Weight. There are now D-SLRs that are the same weight, or lighter
weight, than ZLRs, even with the lens weight included. So while most
users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital
camera when portablity is more important than quality, there's no reason
to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
14. Size. There are now D-SLRs that are the same volume, or smaller
volume, than ZLRs, even with the lens volume included. So while most
users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital
camera when portablity is more important than quality, there's no reason
to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
15. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
wide-range "SLR-like" P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range
from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even
though the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn't very good at the
ends. Now with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option
of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher quality wide
angle and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the
simplicity of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to not carry extra
lenses.
16. Complexity. While a D-SLR does give you the ability to have a great
deal of control, you also have the option of setting it to automatic
mode, making it no more complex than a simple point and shoot camera. If
you have the desire to expand your creative control in the future, that
capability is built in. Most point and shoot cameras lack the option for
manual control, though some Canon cameras can use a freeware program to
add some limited control.
The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a
pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important
than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are
more important than portability.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:07 am
From: House of Frauds
On May 18, 4:59 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Sixteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
>
> 1. You shoot in low light. Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low
> noise images at ISO speeds up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point
> and shoot cameras, with their small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at
> ISO 200, with some poorer models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
>
> 2. You want to use flash attachments. While a few higher end point and
> shoot digital models have hot shoes for an external flash, most do not.
> Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes can use a wireless flash, but
> it's not a great flash unit.
>
> 3. You need an extreme wide-angle lens. Digital SLRs have
> super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an effective focal length of
> as little as 16mm. There are no point and shoot digital cameras with
> lenses that wide. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on
> adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but even the best adapters
> are of mediocre quality. Some ZLR cameras do give you a moderately wide,
> 28mm lens.
>
> 4. You need a long telephoto lens. Whether it's doing wildlife
> photography in Alaska, or shooting at sporting events, only a digital
> SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If you only need a specialty lens for
> rare occasions, you can even rent one for a couple of days. With some
> point and shoot cameras you can add on adapters to increase the
> telephoto range but even the best adapters are of mediocre quality. Some
> ZLR cameras do give you a long telephoto lens, but the quality is not great.
>
> 5. You need fast auto-focus. Most digital SLRs (with the exception of
> Pentax) use lenses with internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and
> shoot digital cameras cannot focus nearly as fast.
>
> 6. You need low shutter lag. Whether it's photographing your child on a
> merry-go-round, or capturing the crack of the bat against the baseball,
> you cannot obtain these shots with a digital point and shoot camera
> because the time between when you press the shutter and the image is
> captured is far too long. A digital SLR has a mechanical shutter that
> opens instantaneously when the shutter release button is pressed. In a
> point and shoot camera, the sensor is activated electronically after it
> is used to focus the shot.
>
> 7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes. Only a
> high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
>
> 8. You want an optical viewfinder. While a few point and shoot cameras
> have retained an optical viewfinder, it's been cost-reduced out of most
> models. Composing a picture on the LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is
> very difficult.
>
> 9. You want full manual control. While some high-end point and shoot
> models have retained some level of manual control, most have
> cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models, there is third-party software
> that can get some of the manual control back, but it's very flaky and
> complicated.
>
> 10. Expandability and upgradability. Not only a wide variety of
> specialty lenses, but flash attachments, filters, vertical grips, remote
> shutter releases, etc. If you eventually want to upgrade to a better
> D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and accessories can be used on the new
> body if it's from the same manufacturer.
>
> 11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you
> can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
>
> 12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it's true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
> prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
> of a high end point and shoot camera.
>
> 13. Weight. There are now D-SLRs that are the same weight, or lighter
> weight, than ZLRs, even with the lens weight included. So while most
> users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital
> camera when portablity is more important than quality, there's no reason
> to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
>
> 14. Size. There are now D-SLRs that are the same volume, or smaller
> volume, than ZLRs, even with the lens volume included. So while most
> users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital
> camera when portablity is more important than quality, there's no reason
> to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
>
> 15. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
> wide-range "SLR-like" P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range
> from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even
> though the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn't very good at the
> ends. Now with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option
> of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher quality wide
> angle and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the
> simplicity of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to not carry extra
> lenses.
>
> 16. Complexity. While a D-SLR does give you the ability to have a great
> deal of control, you also have the option of setting it to automatic
> mode, making it no more complex than a simple point and shoot camera. If
> you have the desire to expand your creative control in the future, that
> capability is built in. Most point and shoot cameras lack the option for
> manual control, though some Canon cameras can use a freeware program to
> add some limited control.
>
> The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a
> pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important
> than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are
> more important than portability.
12. Which cameras are you thinking about ?
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:48 am
From: SMS
House of Frauds wrote:
>> 12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it's true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
>> prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
>> of a high end point and shoot camera.
> 12. Which cameras are you thinking about ?
For the high end P&S, something like the Cano sx10IS, which is about the
same price as an Olympus E420 with lens. Yeah, you don't get that
ridiculously wide range, mediocre lens. Actually I'm wrong about the
price, since the sx10IS has come down to $377, while the E420 with lens
is $399, both on Amazon.
I'm no big fan of Olympus D-SLRs, when compared against other D-SLRs
they fall far short, but by the same token they're much better than most
P&S cameras, and because sales of 4:3 are in the tank, the prices are
very reasonable.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:17 am
From: Paul Heslop
bugbear wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> > nailer wrote:
> >> what was family's ethnic background?
> >
> > why?
>
> Because if you're trying to be sensitive to someone's
> cultural mores, you have to know WHICH culture they belong to.
>
> Bugbear
ah... but some of us don't worry about these things, we just try to
get along with everyone on an even surface. it would be nice to not
have to wonder who or what we are going to upset every time we do
something.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:20 am
From: "Neil Harrington"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43XnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> For example, the Obama administration "proposes that Chrysler's secured
>> creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but
>> that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11
>> billion in claims -- and 55% of the company. This, even though the
>> secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing
>> than the union." (George Will column, May 14.)
>
> I cannot see the creditors standing for this. The bankruptcy judge pretty
> much cold shouldered their higher priority claim on the assets.
I read somewhere that some of the creditors (but I'm not sure now whether
this was with Chrysler or GM) formed a group to fight the administration's
proposal -- but eventually decided they couldn't possibly stand up under the
weight the government could bring to bear on them in many ways, and caved
in.
>
> I am not sure to what degree bankruptcy follows common law practice.
> Chancery is an odd duck. But if the shareholders push precedent (and they
> will) then you can look for an injunction in the following week or 2 (or
> simply refusal to accept the terms to force an actual bankruptcy
> procedure).
I think you mean the bondholders. The shareholders (at least, holders of
common stock) are pretty much holding worthless paper anyway if it goes to
an ordinary bankruptcy. The stock is now not much over a dollar a share and
won't be worth that once GM is bankrupt -- unless there's an "arranged
bankruptcy" in which case, who knows. But since common stockholders are at
the end of the line and there isn't anywhere near enough money to pay off
the creditors, it's hard to see them getting anything.
>
> Then Obama will have his nuts in a vise which is too bad as most of his
> response to the crisis is better than just about any other alternative.
Obama owes the unions big time, and has said so himself. The whole thing has
to be looked at from that perspective: what can he do to keep the union
bosses happy? Not what will work for the good of the industry or the
country.
>
> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back to
> various creditors for cash at some point.
Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
> What lender in his right mind will lend money to a company (or industry)
> that subjugates the value of the loan to junk status at non-junk rates?
> So, borrowing rates will rise dramatically for industries "that can't be
> allowed to fail."
Yes, so it would seem.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:27 am
From: Alan Browne
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43XnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>> For example, the Obama administration "proposes that Chrysler's secured
>>> creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but
>>> that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11
>>> billion in claims -- and 55% of the company. This, even though the
>>> secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing
>>> than the union." (George Will column, May 14.)
>> I cannot see the creditors standing for this. The bankruptcy judge pretty
>> much cold shouldered their higher priority claim on the assets.
>
> I read somewhere that some of the creditors (but I'm not sure now whether
> this was with Chrysler or GM) formed a group to fight the administration's
> proposal -- but eventually decided they couldn't possibly stand up under the
> weight the government could bring to bear on them in many ways, and caved
> in.
>
>> I am not sure to what degree bankruptcy follows common law practice.
>> Chancery is an odd duck. But if the shareholders push precedent (and they
>> will) then you can look for an injunction in the following week or 2 (or
>> simply refusal to accept the terms to force an actual bankruptcy
>> procedure).
>
> I think you mean the bondholders.
Yes. Mistyped. Meant creditors (incl. the angry bondholders). The
shareholders are (appropriately) last in a bankruptcy.
The shareholders (at least, holders of
> common stock) are pretty much holding worthless paper anyway if it goes to
> an ordinary bankruptcy. The stock is now not much over a dollar a share and
> won't be worth that once GM is bankrupt -- unless there's an "arranged
> bankruptcy" in which case, who knows. But since common stockholders are at
> the end of the line and there isn't anywhere near enough money to pay off
> the creditors, it's hard to see them getting anything.
>
>> Then Obama will have his nuts in a vise which is too bad as most of his
>> response to the crisis is better than just about any other alternative.
>
> Obama owes the unions big time, and has said so himself. The whole thing has
> to be looked at from that perspective: what can he do to keep the union
> bosses happy? Not what will work for the good of the industry or the
> country.
>
>> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
>> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back to
>> various creditors for cash at some point.
>
> Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
> taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
Mid term elections are only 18 months away. Even the currently giddy
Dems are too smart for that trap.
>> What lender in his right mind will lend money to a company (or industry)
>> that subjugates the value of the loan to junk status at non-junk rates?
>> So, borrowing rates will rise dramatically for industries "that can't be
>> allowed to fail."
>
> Yes, so it would seem.
>
>
--
-- 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.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:39 am
From: "Neil Harrington"
"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/
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:50 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> From Yokohama to Tokyo I get 51.4 Mb/s down, 50.2 Mb/s up. Zippy.
>> From SF to Tokyo I get 7.7 down, 8.66 up. Not bad.
>> From Portland Maine to Tokyo I get 2.1 down, 2.3 up.
>>
>
> I can get 50 Mb/s here and 100 next year. Price isn't worth it though
> (for me anyway).
I'm in a valley here (so no line of sight to a transmitter) and the trees on
the hill behind my house absorb TV signals. We finally got fed up and got a
fiber line with all the TV, cable, and satellite channels available in Japan
as well as internet and phone service. (We still use out POTS phones,
though.)
IMHO, the speed is irrelevant. The only servers fast enough are the test
site servers.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 8:53 am
From: "Neil Harrington"
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:AbOdncWubJD6_IzXnZ2dnVY3goydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyway the point was the Model A Fords were available in colors other
>> than black.
>
> Sorry; I didn't intend to argue. I didn't realize that the A was available
> in colors and thought maybe some overenergetic "restorers" had gotten out
> of hand...
That does frequently happen. I've seen a lot of "restored" antique cars in
colors the factories never used.
They often look very good, and I suppose the argument can be made that
someone who puts that much time, money and effort into an old car should be
able to have it the way he wants it. But my own opinion is that "restored"
should mean "just as it left the factory."
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:10 am
From: "Neil Harrington"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:ydCdnf4pa5fP44zXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43XnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[ . . . ]
>>
>>> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
>>> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back
>>> to various creditors for cash at some point.
>>
>> Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
>> taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
>
> Mid term elections are only 18 months away.
But voters' memories are reliably short. They can always be given some kind
of nice-tasting candy before the elections, and the mainstream media (with
their "slobbering love affair" with Obama, as Bernard Goldberg put it) will
avoid reminding them of the bad stuff.
> Even the currently giddy Dems are too smart for that trap.
I hope so, but we'll see.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:19 am
From: Savageduck
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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:31 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-18 08:53:58 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> said:
>
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:AbOdncWubJD6_IzXnZ2dnVY3goydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Anyway the point was the Model A Fords were available in colors other
>>> than black.
>>
>> Sorry; I didn't intend to argue. I didn't realize that the A was available
>> in colors and thought maybe some overenergetic "restorers" had gotten out
>> of hand...
>
> That does frequently happen. I've seen a lot of "restored" antique cars in
> colors the factories never used.
>
> They often look very good, and I suppose the argument can be made that
> someone who puts that much time, money and effort into an old car should be
> able to have it the way he wants it. But my own opinion is that "restored"
> should mean "just as it left the factory."
There are different levels of restoration. A full Concours restoration
would restore the vehicle to factory spec including paint.
A running rebuild might leave original weathered paint as is, but
everything else is brought to original running spec.
The most criminal "restorations" to my mind are those where the
restorer uses changes to the color which are to his taste, but would
never have been thought of or available in the original era of the
vehicle.
Then there are the cars typified by this example which create the
illusion of a full estoration by using color options available when
new, but having far from original mechanicals. Sort of stealth hotrods.
They are everyday drivers and just a lot of fun.
Then there are the over the top hotrods where anything goes!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:39 am
From: "Neil Harrington"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:L5ednXn37sQhCI3XnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> JT's Keeper wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
>>> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>>
>>
>> Nice speed test site... THANKS! ;-)
>>
>>
>> - JT
>> 10 down, 2 up from Portland, ME
>
> When the cable guy came to install the new modem (phone and internet) I
> showed him that and I was afraid I'd be receiving Christmas cards
> afterwards, he was so ecstatic.
>
> I can't recall how I stumbled on that ... maybe I entered something
> foolish like "internet speed test" in Google or sumpin'.
Thanks from me too, Alan. That is really a great speed test site.
The one I've been using is http://performance.toast.net/ which is pretty
good, but Speedtest is much better.
There's quite a difference between the two in results. Using Speedtest.net I
got 12.95 Mb/s, while Toast.net just now gave me 4.253 Mb/s. Probably this
is partly because the Speedtest server in my case was in Clifton, NJ, only ~
100 miles away. I don't know where the Toast server is located.
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:46 am
From: "Neil Harrington"
"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009051722130260903-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
[ . . . ]
>
> My cable guy gave me the Speakeasy URL http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/
> several yars ago when they finally got the fiber optic cable out to us
> here at Lake Nacimiento.
>
> Damn! I don't miss dialup.
You can say that again. A couple months ago I helped a neighbor with doing
her tax return online, and she has a dial-up connection. Since there was
very little in the way of graphics I didn't think dial-up would be at much
of a disadvantage, but it was so slow as to be an absolute horror.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:01 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:77da7oF1gub90U2@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009051507484311272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>> On 2009-05-15 05:43:02 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>>
>>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>>>
>>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with
>>>> firing
>>>> a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>>
>>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>
>> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid about
>> firing
>> a
>> gun in to the air, he had NO target.
>
> The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
> sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew so
> little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to have
> them.
Yet this person was able to acquire a gun.
This is my very point about guns any idiot can get hold of them
and that is my primary worry, and why I wouldn't want the USA laws on guns
to be applied to the UK. I'm just worried that gun purchases might change
from
gun collectors and hobbyist to those that want them for 'self defence'
which is what my ex-flatmates brother wanted it for.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 9:05 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-18 07:06:59 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009051507484311272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>> On 2009-05-15 05:43:02 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>
>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>>
>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with firing
>>> a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>
>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>
> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid about firing
> a
> gun in to the air, he had NO target.
> Or is it that for a gun to be used properly you needn a target.
That bullet will come down, gravity you know, and the landing place
cannot be determined, In California alone there have been several
injuries and deaths caused by celebratory gunfire into the air on New
Year's Eve and the 4th of July.
It is stupid and dangerous, and from the legal point of view criminally
negligent.
>
>
>>> I guess every gun fired is being used properly then.
>>
>> No.
>
> That's what I thought.
>
>
>>>
>>> we British aren't found of friendly fire either ;-)
>>
>> When you are on the receiving end, you might "find" no fire friendly.
>
> yes and that goes for knives too.
An extremely unfriendly tool.
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about you tell me one case where a gun has jumped out of a locked
>>>>> draw
>>>>> to save a life or protect an innocent person(s ).
>>>>> or even one isnstance where a gun has done anythinjg by itself .
>>>>
>>>> Ditto knives, baseball bats, clubs, chemicals etc
>>>
>>> Chemicals can do all sorts of things al by themselves if left
>>> unattended.
>>>
>>>> It is not the object but the user.
>>>
>>> So long as the user and the object never come together then I have no
>>> problem
>>> there can be as many guns as they want.
>>> Tell you what I'll buy you any gun you like provided you let me post it
>>> to
>>> Hadley delta mountion on the moon, but you pay Post and packing. ;-)
>>
>> Now this is just a silly attempt at humor.
>
> Why.
> It was just that I was listening to a track with that name in the title,
> I could have suggested that any gun you buy would be totally safe
> provided no one ever held it.
>
>>>> What is different is the state of mind and perception of the user.
>>>
>>> And minds can get in quite a state, how many states are there in the USA
>>> ;-)
>>
>> More sillyness.
>
> So you know the state of mind of anyone that owns a gun now or in the
> future.
Did I even hint that I did?
I am not privy to the goings on inside the mind of most individuals,
gun owner or not.
>
>>> If someone looks at them in the wrong way they know they can argue with
>>> them
>>> and cause a fit. But they know they have a knife they can use to defend
>>> themselves
>>> from looks, words, even whole sentences if there attacker manages to get
>>> a
>>> whole sentence out that is.
>>
>> If you check statistics, you will find knife attacks and beating with
>> blunt objects, all of which result in mutilation and/or death, are
>> actually more prevalent in the USA are than firearm related death and/or
>> injury.
>
> So the more knives and blunt objects there are the more the attacks will
> happen is that it ?
>
>
>
>> As a Law Enforcement Officer I am fully aware of the danger of having
>> knife wielding individual approach closer than 15-20 feet.
>
> And what's the distance for a gun wielding individual ?
Different responses for different weapons. That is what training is all about.
For the most part the threat is confirmed with any detected movement of
a fire arm from a passively held position to a ready position
regardless of proximity
A knife wielder can cross a 15-20 gap very quickly to initiate an
attack before the victim realizes the attacker is armed with a knife.
To use a firearm there are very noticeable body language signatures,
which warn of the threat.
>
>> attacks come without warning and are quick and deadly.
> Snipers their choice of weapon is .......
Again a different type of weapon usage, Obviously blader weapons are
not used at a distance and not all blade weapon attack are prefaced
with stereotypical yells or posturing.
> I'm guessing a knife isn;t top of the list unless they are army[1] trained
> and need a silent kill.
Military training is not a prerequisite to be a successful killer with a knife.
An unbelieveable number of knife attacks and killings are by kids of
both sexes aged 14-16, and a great number of those cases end up in
juvenile Court.
Sometimes all it takes is an acting background, check on OJ's level of
success in that area.
>
>> In pat down searches knives are considered deadly weapons and individuals
>> can, in California at least be charged with possession of a deadly weapon.
>
> Well that makes sense, but are knives really more deadly a weapon than
> guns that's my point.
Just as deadly.
>
>> In the case of a knife being used as a defensive weapon in a purely
>> physical altercation, the knife wielder would be guilty of assault/battery
>> with a deadly weapon.
>
> But are guns considered a deadly weapon.
Yes.
>
>> In one case I investigated, one individual stabbed and mutilated three
>> victims in a matter of seconds. The injuries ranged from a puntured lung,
>> a through & through stabbing of a hand, clipping a piece off a tongue, and
>> traumatic amputation of a nose.
>
> I'm not exactly in favour of giving knives to anyone and everyone either.
> but are you saying if the attacker would have had a gun then the resultant
> carnage
> would have been less severe.
No.
>
> But how come someone didn't shoot him in 'self defence' ?
There were no guns or defensive weapons available to the victims. The
attack with the knife was so sudden and without warning, it was all
they could do to defend themselves without weapons, and still suffered
serious injuries.
> It just seems that the intelligent and armed that choose weapons only for
> defence
> are rarely about when such an incident happens.
That brings up another case in Long Beach California, where this dumb
criminal (who was umarmed) tried to rob a sushi restaurant. He had
accosted the owner near the cash register and had started hitting the
owner with his fists, when the chef came to his employer's aid and
veritably gutted the robber with a sushi knife. The would be robber
recovered and also ended up in prison, be it with an impressive scar.
...and therein lies the argument for Law abiding citizens to be allowed
the right to bear arms for self defense.
An attacker is not going to wait for you to call the police for help.
Response time by police, even under ideal circumstances is not going to
help any victim. In cases such as this the police are reactive
responders and are not able to take proactive preventative action.
>
>
> >That attacker was a
>> youngster out having fun, and is currently in State prison serving a 12
>> year sentence.
>
> Not sure what the sentence would be here(UK) but I guess nothing like 12
> years.
> up to a year then most likely released on parole and a deferred sentence on
> condition of psychiatric help.
He was charged with 3 counts of attempted murder, 3 counts of assault
with a deadly weapon, 3 counts of criminal battery, one count of mayhem.
>
>> All those victims did to provoke this attack was to try to have an
>> offensive individual leave their pizza parlor.
>
> Well at least he won't return for sometime unlike here in the UK,
> victims get little protection.
>
>
> [1] I'm not aware the police have been trained in the art of knife combat.
I am sure that Police in the UK have training in defense against bladed
weapons, not necessarily the "art of knife combat."
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment