New Mandate: 46.8 Degrees; due Januray 17th, 2010
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: [SI] New Mandate: 46.8 Degrees; due Januray 17th, 2010
Next: Lens with Depth of Field indicator. (For full frame [36x24mm] digital camera.)
From: Bowser on 16 Dec 2009 17:11 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:07:07 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:56 -0500, "Bowser" <its(a)bowzah.ukme> wrote: > >>Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and >>entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who >>contribute nothing to society. > >We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is >excessive, it's pure supply and demand. Teachers are paid less >because there is more of a supply of people who are qualified to teach >and meet the requirements of the employer. Jocks are paid more >because there is a small supply of talented athletes (in the view of >the professional teams) and competition for their service drives the >price up. > >I can't blame the athlete. No one in their right mind would refuse a >job that pays millions if that's what's being offered. > >The salaries are funded by advertising dollars that companies are >willing to pay the networks as sponsors, and the networks pay the >teams who, in turn, pay the players. You eventually pay for it >because the advertising costs are embedded in the product price. > >As far as contributions to society, they contribute in the field of >entertainment. The public wants to be entertained. It would be a >dull life if we didn't have diversions like sports. Maybe sports >isn't everyone's thing, but other entertainers in other fields are >getting huge amounts of money based on this same supply/demand >principle. It's the demand part of that equation that baffles me. Always has. Understand that if I had the talent to play pro sports, I'd go for as much money as I could get; it's only natural. But "we" pay them too damned much because our values are whacked.
From: whisky-dave on 17 Dec 2009 08:52 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:61shi5l8nv95cvha8hgelptp4ciq4c4mk7(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:56 -0500, "Bowser" <its(a)bowzah.ukme> wrote: > >>Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and >>entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who >>contribute nothing to society. > > We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is > excessive, it's pure supply and demand. Yep, that's true but I really donl;t understand where all the money comes from. In the UK football[1] is the biog money earner for the players. I've never been to a football match and I know a lotr of peolpe that haven't too. I know merchandiosing is worth a lot of money, but I've never brought anything football orientated, but I know people do. It does amaze me howm much some players get and how much these things cost to put on, so I'm guessing someone somewhere is paying for these things. >Teachers are paid less > because there is more of a supply of people who are qualified to teach > and meet the requirements of the employer. Jocks are paid more > because there is a small supply of talented athletes (in the view of > the professional teams) and competition for their service drives the > price up. From my POV I find it amazing that some people care enough about a team to pay X amount to watch them play. > I can't blame the athlete. No one in their right mind would refuse a > job that pays millions if that's what's being offered. > > The salaries are funded by advertising dollars that companies are > willing to pay the networks as sponsors, and the networks pay the > teams who, in turn, pay the players. You eventually pay for it > because the advertising costs are embedded in the product price. Even so it still amazes me that advertisers make enough out of it too. > As far as contributions to society, they contribute in the field of > entertainment. it encourages me to switch the TV off too ;-) > The public wants to be entertained. It would be a > dull life if we didn't have diversions like sports. > Maybe sports > isn't everyone's thing, but other entertainers in other fields are > getting huge amounts of money based on this same supply/demand > principle. > Drugs dealers have the same idea you'll pay for it if you really want it ;-) [1] Football and game played mostly by kicking a ball, the Americans seem to call it soccer because their football is a game played mostly by carrying the ball with the hands than kicking it with the feet. :)
From: whisky-dave on 17 Dec 2009 09:01 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:200912162034408930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2009-12-16 15:51:06 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> said: > ...but more seriously, it seems to me that Tiger's problem is one which > runs much deeper from a psychological perspective. This is a 33 year old > who has never functioned as a child, be it adolescent or teenager. > As a 4 year old he was a presented as a "golf prodigy", at 8 he was the > wunderkind with cash register potential. When he hit 16 he turned pro with > all the endorsements packaged and signed. > Who set up those deals? Daddy! Well at least (as yet) ther's no indication he's fiddled with children which was the case of another high earner that was given a proper childhood. > I ask you, a 16 year old endorsing Buick?? > Ridiculous from day one, presenting a teenager with no life experience as > a mature endorsement machine. > A great exploited talent with major damage. well capitalasimjs a bit long in the tooth to make any real money real quick. I guess exploitation is the best option now for making money.
From: J. Clarke on 17 Dec 2009 10:20 whisky-dave wrote: > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:200912162034408930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2009-12-16 15:51:06 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> said: > > >> ...but more seriously, it seems to me that Tiger's problem is one >> which runs much deeper from a psychological perspective. This is a >> 33 year old who has never functioned as a child, be it adolescent or >> teenager. >> As a 4 year old he was a presented as a "golf prodigy", at 8 he was >> the wunderkind with cash register potential. When he hit 16 he >> turned pro with all the endorsements packaged and signed. >> Who set up those deals? Daddy! > > Well at least (as yet) ther's no indication he's fiddled with children > which was the case of another high earner that was given a proper > childhood. Who would that be? If you mean Micheal Jackson, he was performing professionally when he was 6 years old and signed with Motown when he was 11. And from the accounts I've read if you think that Micheal was nuts, you really don't want to know about his father.
From: Paul Furman on 17 Dec 2009 11:34
Calvin Sambrook wrote: > > The traditional model and explanation looks at it > from the point of view of a single point in the scene forming a circle > in the captured image which is termed it's circle of confusion. That's > a great explanation but for our purposes it's helpful to turn it on it's > head and consider a single point in the captured image, the light which > formed it will have come from a circle of the original scene. The > physics term "confusion" refers to the fact that the "information" is > "confused" and therefore cannot be recovered (at least without further > information like how it came to be confused). Just because I like things confusing (interesting), here's a wild tangent on that notion of de-confusing a circle... A lens' aperture de-confuses those circles when stopped down. Only one thin slice of the image is actually in true focus, the rest is out of focus but the stopped down aperture selects rays that the lens provides, making the circles smaller so they appear sharper. This can distort the perspective in some cases. Sometimes you'll notice the OOF circles in the corners are clipped or stretched into non-circular shapes... those distortions will come through the final re-sharpened image as distortion in the foreground & background versus the more true geometry of the little slice that's actually in focus. In the worst case, perspective can actually appear reversed so that instead of parallel lines converging in the distance, they diverge. Here's a great 15-page essay that covers this and more: http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pdf -note that the more obscure effects mostly only become relevant at very close macro distances. In fact this one is quite a bit more relevant to the topic: http://www.janrik.net/DOFpostings/PM1/DOFInvestigations1.htm This guy is super-interested in the technical theory but in the end he knows there are many things that can mess up calculations so real world tests are the final proof of any idea. In the real world, most of the DOF calculators work good enough, and so does simply chimping the result on your LCD without any understanding at all :-) -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |