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: Eric Stevens on 17 Dec 2009 15:50 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:24:06 +1000, Troy Piggins <usenet-0912(a)piggo.com> wrote: >* Dudley Hanks wrote : >> >> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:C74BE958.3A0F9%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 13 lines snipped |=---] >>>>> tell if it's set on 50mm or 48 or 52. >>>> >>>> Chicken. Set it somewhere around there and be done with it. :) >>> And duct tape it there! >>> >> I've got a 50mm prime (which yields about 80mm on my 1.6 cropped sensor), or >> I can fix one of my zooms at about 35mm to get the actual 46.8 degrees. >> Which is preferred? Or, can I submit from both? >> >> This could be a good challenge... > >You'd have to crop the 50mm lens shot down a little I guess. No No No NO! The 50mm is a relative telephoto and would shoot too narrow an angle. >It's up to you, but if it were me I'd find shooting with the 35mm >zoom setting easier - at least that way what you see in the >viewfinder is what you'll be submitting. Eric Stevens
From: Robert Coe on 17 Dec 2009 20:52 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:34:40 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: : To think Tiger could have benefitted from advice from Letterman as a : means of neutralizing some of the fallout and damage. : : ...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! : : 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. I don't altogether disagree with your argument, but I'm not sure it's factually correct. Tiger may have played in open tournaments at 16, but I don't think he turned pro until after he finished college. He was on the golf team at Stanford University, which I don't think the NCAA would have let him do if he had already turned pro. What about it, Bret? Do you know the facts of the case? Bob
From: tony cooper on 17 Dec 2009 22:30 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:52:29 -0000, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >"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. From us, in the basic sense. A team's income is from radio and television contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise sales...in that order. The radio and television networks recoup their costs by selling time to advertisers, and advertisers recoup those costs by selling products. You buy the products, the tickets, and the team merchandise. Whether or not you buy the brand of beer advertised, a ticket to see a match, or a coffee mug with the team logo on it is immaterial. There's tangible evidence that enough do that we know the system works. >From my POV I find it amazing that some people care enough about a team >to pay X amount to watch them play. That's so, but I'll guarantee that you spend money on something that I would never spend a dime on. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on 18 Dec 2009 01:13 On 2009-12-17 17:52:16 -0800, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> said: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:34:40 -0800, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > : To think Tiger could have benefitted from advice from Letterman as a > : means of neutralizing some of the fallout and damage. > : > : ...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! > : > : 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. > > I don't altogether disagree with your argument, but I'm not sure it's > factually correct. Tiger may have played in open tournaments at 16, but I > don't think he turned pro until after he finished college. He was on the golf > team at Stanford University, which I don't think the NCAA would have let him > do if he had already turned pro. > > What about it, Bret? Do you know the facts of the case? > > Bob It appears I was wrong with my "pro at 16 " remark, however he was only at Stanford 2 years before making that transition at 20. My remark regarding Buick endorsement still stands, what teenager or twenty something is going to endorse a Buick? Regarding recent news, I also question the validity of naming Woods as "Athlete of the Decade" when there are far more deserving true athletes such as Michael Phelps. Phelps' 8 Gold medal achievement at Beijing alone should have put him at the top of that list, and once you add on the rest of his Olympic gold in 2004, and his 37 World records (currently holder of 19 World records) should have made him the athlete of the decade. Hell! Lance Armstrong is more deserving of that label than Woods. I guess swimming doesn't command the respect of sports writers blinded by golf earning power. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: whisky-dave on 18 Dec 2009 08:20
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:c9tli5tsd5tcd7sqq7stnm0tmn4vl1t23d(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:52:29 -0000, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> >>"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. > > From us, in the basic sense. A team's income is from radio and > television contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise sales...in that > order. The radio and television networks recoup their costs by > selling time to advertisers, and advertisers recoup those costs by > selling products. You buy the products, the tickets, and the team > merchandise. That's what I try adding up and it doesn;t make sense. Thinking about how much they take on the 'door' then how much the wages/saleries then the upkeep of the ground then you get multimillion transfer deals. Remmebr we're talking about teams with perhaps 22 minium employered not one golf player and his caddie. > Whether or not you buy the brand of beer advertised, a ticket to see a > match, or a coffee mug with the team logo on it is immaterial. > There's tangible evidence that enough do that we know the system > works. well we assume it works because that's how it's done. Previously we assumed the banking business works by lending money and re-lending to those that can't afford it which makes more profit from those that have the money. If someone tried to explain to me that I could make a lot of money lending to people that couldn't afford what they were buying or teh repayments I would have been suspicious, now I realise it was a growth industry and I should have got in on it when I had the chance ;-) > >>From my POV I find it amazing that some people care enough about a team >>to pay X amount to watch them play. > > That's so, but I'll guarantee that you spend money on something that I > would never spend a dime on. Ah but she's well worth it, and what she can do with a bucket 'n' pogo-stick, well I'm sure you'd change your mind. :) Anyway I'm still confused about this 46.8 degrees mandate are we talking Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin. :) |