b_b13

Erdal,

 

Read the reviews of the people selling the camera at that price <a

href="http://www.resellerratings.com/store/WildDigital">

here</a>. And then find a more reputable vendor. If it sounds too good to be true....

Pick your favorites. The Indian ones sound good, but some drunken politicians are welcome. :-)

But of course you disuised opinion as fact. You made a statement, which is your opinion, and then built an argument on that statement, as if it were fact. I believe the actual fallacy at work here is called "The fallacy of complex questions;" however, this is a photography message board, not a rhetorical logic classroom.

 

While I'm at it, note that I originally said, "No red herrings about welfare," but of course, completely unable to support your assertion that taxes here are "excessive," you tried running away to a discussion on welfare. Nice try, but you didn't quite make it.

 

By the way, and just to play along, stating that "more people will grab for welfare" (despite rather extensive evidence showing this is false), implies that welfare expenditures are rising, bnut they aren't. Also, and unless you come up with something other than another weak attempt to save face, this will likely be my last comment on welfare, if welfare causes crime, why is it that the U.S., which spends far less on welfare than most other industrialized nations, has the highest crime rate of any industrialized nation? I could go on and deflate this line of reasoning, but it's unrelated to the original topic.

 

Finally, you got the name of your own book wrong. The correct name of the book is "Men & Marriage," not the "Men Women and Marriage" you said it was. Of course, reading one polemical book on a topic hardly makes one an expert on it anyway, even if one can correctly remember the title.

By the way, I'm not going to bother much with your other post on welfare, as it simply reveals you have a lot to learn about welfare. For example, the statement that "more people will grab for welfare," is nonsense, as the welfare rolls have been stable since 1980, while outlay as a percentage of governemnt spending has been declining, not growing as you claim.

You have to be kidding me? This is grade school stuff.<br>

 

<p>This is obviously your opinion, not a fact: <i>Any tax collected for the redistribution of income is excessive.</i><br>

 

<p>Here is another one: <i>Other functions of government, such as maintaining security and order and funding minimal social programs and the infrastructure, are justified....</i><br>

 

<p>And another one: <i> No one should be taxed for income redistribution; no one would object to taxation for legitimate purposes of government. </i> (As an aside, note here the interesting statement "legitimate purposes of government." There's an entire academic discipline called "political science" that's devoted to deciding what the "legitimate purposes of government" are; I have no doubt, however, that you, in your infinite wisdom, know the answer, thus obviating an entire field of academics. Bravo. Think of the tax dollars you will save at state universities when they can cut their Poli Sci departments because of your insight.)<br>

 

<p> And another one: <i>If a man gets drunk, crashes his car into a tree, and is paralyzed, he should be supported to the extent that he cannot do so for himself.</i><br>

 

There are others, but this is a waste of time. Are you seriously so wrapped up in your own opinions, so certain they are correct, that you are unable to distinguish them from facts?

I will live in fear, then, of the day when we are in "the place" for this kind of discussion. I have no doubt you would be a fearsome debater -- in the right place, of course.

A quick self correction: obviously, 1% of the federal budget is a tiny amount of the marginal tax rate, much less than 1%, probably about 1/3%, as a sloppy calculation. That would be .0033 of the marginal tax rate. Of course, excessive is excessive.

So many loaded words ("lazy and vicious"), so many opinions expressed as fact. But thanks for actually coming up with a definition, even if it is nothing more than your opinion.

 

Now, AFDC, which both yourself and Mr. Rosen spent so much time attacking, comprises about 1% of the federal budget, iirc. Since the budget is generally run at a deficit, we can safely say that eliminating AFDC would reduce your fed tax rate by something less than 1%, although this does not allow for ancillary effects of the cutoff of aid (increase in crime rates, perhaps? Get ready to spend more money on prisons and police, and there goes your 1%). 1%. 1%. That caused all this thunderous noise about "excessive" taxes? I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: you dislike taxes, period, and focus on AFDC as a scapegoat.

 

By the way, I grew up in part on AFDC, and neither I, my siblings, nor my mother (who raised 4 kids as a working single parent), were "lazy or vicious," or turned out that way. I also worked for a time as a social worker, and most of my caseload were people who were suffering through temporary tough times and were soon off the rolls (the average AFDC recipient is on the rolls for two years).

I don't recall too many of them I'd consider "lazy." Perhaps you should spend some time educating yourself about welfare before denounicng it with such ugly terminology, although granted, I'm sure that education would take some of the fun out of having one of your favorite whipping boys taken away.

Mr. Rosen,

 

<i>Yes BB it is my OPINION that when the government takes from me more than half of what I earn that is excessive. It is also morally repugnant. IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY. That is my opinion. It doesn't matter whether other governments tax more, that is equally repugnant. It doesn't make it right, never will. Socialists like you will no doubt argue that when other governments tax 95% of ones income, taking 90% is not excessive. That is BOGUS.</i><br>

 

<p>And Mr. Skopar,<br>

 

<p><i>Again, the tax rates of other countries are irrelevant.<br>

 

The rest of your response is just baiting.</i><br>

 

<p>are both skirting the issue they themselves raised. If one is going to assert that tax rates in this country are "excessive," as they both apparently believe, one must define what "excessive" is. One common method of definition is by comparison. Comparing tax rates here to tax rates elsewhere is certainly relevant, since it is an attempt to do what neither gentleman seems capable of doing: establishing some kind of norm for taxation. Without such a norm, the statement that tax rates are "excessive," or "too low," for that matter, are purely subjective and therefore meaningless. I notice that both gentlemen consistently refuse to explain what they mean by "excessive." Instead, Mr. Skopar attempts to hide behind a rather lackluster attempt at logical reasoning, while Mr. Rosen makes a long statement filled with ad hominems (yet wasn't he complaining about personal attacks earlier in the thread?) that amounts to "I don't like being taxed, so taxes are excessive," and then leaves the thread in a huff (probably after a call for the net nanny), hardly a convincing argument, and certainly bringing us no closer to a definition of "excessive taxation," which this little sub-discussion was supposed to be about.<br>

 

<p>It's pretty obvious at this point that neither one of you has any idea what "excessive taxation" is; you simply dislike taxes and have a vague, but only half-reasoned, notion that they are "too high." No one said universal suffrage was perfect, just preferable to the alternative, I suppose.

<i>That other countries tax at even higher rates is a false consolation. We can go our own way and do much better than they. We often do.</i>

 

 

<p>The issue is what constitutes "excessive" taxation. Mr. Rosen has stated, as though it is as plain as the color of the sky, that in the United States we have "excessive" taxation currently; however he has offered nothing to substantiate this oh-so-confidently stated claim with anything other than his opinion. Our tax rates are certainly not out of line with the rest of the world's, in fact they are quite a bit lower, so what makes them "excessive?" Since you seem to share Mr. Rosen's opinion ("other countries tax at <b>even higher rates</b>"), perhaps you would be so kind as to point out what makes U.S. taxes "excessive," without going into red herring rants about cradle to grave welfare systems and the like?

<i>BTW, I did NOT say I oppose taxation, I said I oppose excessive taxation. The purpose of government was never to provide cradle to grave social welfare programs for every individual. This is a modern perversion.</i><br>

 

<p>I note with approval you quickly backed away from your "get your facts straight" nonsense about taxation further above. I assume you actually took the trouble this time to actually do some research on tax rates? <i>Your</i> concept of "excessive" taxation is obviously quite a bit out of line with the rest of the world's, as well as the rest of this country's. Yet you have no problem making broad, sweeping statements about "confiscatory" tax rates and the like, apparently unaware (uncaring, more likely) that other people have different ideas about "excessive."<br>

 

<p>At any rate, in the passage quoted immediately above, you are again simply fronting your own opinion as facts. In a democratic system, the purpose of government is whatever the people say the purpose of government is. That's why we have elections and what not: to avoid having people, who obviously aren't very well versed in certain subjects, make arrogant pronouncements about the way things ought to be and have those pronouncements become law.

MLU?

Eliot Rosen said,<br>

 

<p><i>That is OK up to a point, but we are already taxed at confiscatory rates in this country.</i><br>

 

<p>Why bother rebutting what you say, when so much of it is false? In actual fact, the U.S. has one of the lowest marginal tax rates of any industrialized country in the world <a href="http://www.worldtaxpayers.org/statmarg.htm">(look it up).</a> So while it certainly sounds impressive to rant about "confiscatory" tax rates, it would be even more impressive if your rant was based on fact, rather than invention.

If there were money to be made on these films, wouldn't Kodak sell or license the films to someone else? Seems logical to me.

I have the wireless for my Elan 7 and like it. You don't need to be standing in front of the camera to operate it, just fairly near. It is a little small and I do worry about losing it, however. I have the wired remote for my 10D and like it a little bit better, simply because the cord makes it easy to keep track of. But both work fine.

I have a friend who has made 16x20 prints from a 3 megapixel digicam, and he feels they're fine. He used to be a professional photographer, so his standards are pretty high. Not all the shots he takes are fit to be blown up that large, but enough of them are so that I'm beginning to wonder about what I could do with my 6 megapixels.

Bad lens or bad camera. If the lens has worked before...

<img src="http://billybunter.net/Cowboy.jpg">

<i>To the best of our knowledge, Kodachrome slide film will continue to be manufactured by Kodak overseas, but will no longer be available to purchase from Australia.</i><br>

 

"To the best of our knowledge?" Shouldn't Kodak know if its film is being manufactured or not? No wonder so many people are so confused about the status of Kodak films. I like their products and their brand name is part of Americana, but they really need to work on putting out a consistent message. This sounds like their PR folks have little confidence in the message they get from corporate, and that's a recipe for ruining a brand.

The font is one Ilford uses. With an ISO of 125, it looks like FP4 to me.

Hi Daniel,

 

I'm sorry I didn't properly flesh out my answer. What I should have said was, order the lenses and have them delivered to whatever hotel you are staying at in Florida. It might be a little difficult to arrange, but it would be worth it in terms of the money you save.

You can pick up a Konica Auto S2 for around $20 on ebay if you're patient (mine just arrived). It has a super-fast (1.8) lens, and an excellent reputation. A similar camera is the Yashica Electro GSN, which you can pick up for $25-$30, again with a little patience. These cameras have fixed lenses, which is the only downside I can find to them, unless you want autofocus, which they don't have. I am simply stunned by the quality of camera you can get for a tiny amount of money.

I suspect film is a little different than vinyl records, however. The recording industry ultimately killed vinyl, even though there were still pockets of demand for it, because it was cheaper to produce CDs. <i>The key is that the recording industry was a middleman, and wasn't selling vinyl itself, but rather, music, and chose to distribute its product via another medium.</i> We, as consumers, were buying the music; the fact that it was being distributed via CDs and not vinyl was almost secondary, although CDs are obviously a superior medium for most purposes. With film, on the other hand, we are the direct consumers of the film, and as such, I would imagine there will be profit in selling film for longer than there was for vinyl records after the CD hit, because there's no one to make the decision to switch media for us. At least, as someone who started with digital but now likes film at least as well, that's my hope.<br>

 

<p>A quick addendum: I am aware that I grossly over-simplified the switch to CD from vinyl...

I've had the same problem with Hoya HMCs and Tiffens to a lesser extent, although I've always ended up getting them cleaned without scratches so far. Use lens paper + a few drops of cheap vodka (as solvent) to get most of the grit off, then use the microfiber to clean off any spots and remnants of grit. The trick with the lens paper is to blot the specks with it, don't rub them! Lots of the specks will stick to the wet lens paper right offf the bat, and some of the rest will once the solvent has worked on them. Make sure the microfiber cloth is clean -- either straight out of the package, or straight from the washer and dryer.

I was in Miami in April, and couldn't find a 50 1.8 to save my life. I went to about 5 different shops in and around Miami, and no one had it, and I called a few others with no joy. If I were you, I'd call ahead and have them order it to make sure it's in stock, because, as one store manager told me, "No one buys primes anymore, all they want is zooms, so that's what I have."

 

Also, the prices for what they did have generally sucked. What I'd really suggest is that you buy through one of the online stores this site links to. YOu'll save a small bundle.