Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 15:05 "Ghett Rheel" <grheel(a)someisp.net> wrote in message news:fgdue5tukjm4kcm21cjp3vfg905us0ihdh(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:26:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> >>> And DUDley still he side-steps the important photography-related >>> question >>> asked of him. >> >>How can I compose, with intent, anything of interest to the sighted while >>shooting out an airplane window? >> >>Actually, it isn't all that difficult. >> >>Keep visiting my site and I'll try to answer your question there. >> >>Of course, shooting those ponies is going to be a lot of fun, so you may >>need to check back a few times. But, it'll be worth your while, since >>composing pics of cars is a lot tougher than composing a skyline shot from >>a >>more or less constant arrangement of elements... And I think you'll be >>surprised at the much tougher car shots. >> >>Take Care, >>Dudley >> > > No thanks. I've already been offended far too many times seeing your > blurry, badly exposed, zero-composition, 6-year-old's snapshots. All which > could have been done far better if you strapped your camera to your dog > with a bark-activated shutter. There's no need to gawk again at some sad > accident just to raise your hit count. Any increasing numbers now being > caused by people that enjoy a freak's side-show act at a two-bit carnival. > Really, GR? You know you'll miss me... I'm probably the best friend you have on the net -- not that that is saying much... Take Care, Dudley
From: rwalker on 2 Nov 2009 15:25 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:51:06 -0600, Ghett Rheel <grheel(a)someisp.net> wrote: snip > >No thanks. I've already been offended far too many times seeing your >blurry, badly exposed, zero-composition, 6-year-old's snapshots. All which >could have been done far better if you strapped your camera to your dog >with a bark-activated shutter. There's no need to gawk again at some sad >accident just to raise your hit count. Any increasing numbers now being >caused by people that enjoy a freak's side-show act at a two-bit carnival. Be a good boy and drop dead.
From: No spam please on 2 Nov 2009 12:00 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:021120090951528371%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <hcmc8g$1foi$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please > <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > >> A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she went on >> a >> commercial flight she switched on her airband radio receiver to listen to >> ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's systems. > > how did she know? and if so, what proof is there that the radio was the > cause of the problem? > > the leakage from the radio is not only far from the avionics in the > cockpit, but more importantly, the plane encounters *far* stronger > sources of interference such as flying over a city with commercial > broadcast towers which pump out thousands of watts of radio and tv as > well as cellphone towers, public safety two-way radios, etc. > > if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned. I believe that the fuselage is a Faraday cage so it will alleviate interference from outside the aircraft but not from inside it. As I said earlier, a friend who operates an airfield radio found that her own radio receiver upset the aircraft's systems. Regards, Rog.
From: No spam please on 2 Nov 2009 12:05 "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C7144D6A.37B56%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... > > What about the crew usig their PCs while on autopilot, resulting in > overshooting their destination by 150 miles? > The NTSB said they wouldn't check the laptops as the crew already said they'd been using them. What would be the conclusion if the laptops were examined and found not to have been in use during the overshoot. Let's not guess what the flight crew had actually been doing. Regards, Rog.
From: No spam please on 2 Nov 2009 12:07
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:Q2CHm.50238$Db2.18755(a)edtnps83... > > ">> "Mister, at this time you are required to turn off your pacemaker. >> When we reach 10,000 feet, you may re-start it. Thank you." >> > > George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've > read... :) > > Take Care, > Dudley > > Hi guys. Nice analogy but the wrong way round. When you visit a radar site or broadcast site you should see signs warning those with pacemakers not to enter. Pacemaker is the victim, not the perpetrator. An acquaintance of mine works in the world of radio but can't accept site visits to broadcast sites because of his pacemaker. Best wishes, Rog. |