Lotusm50 wrote:
And by effectively managing and controlling the $700B program so that the final, actual cost of TARP only amounted to $50B.
So what you're saying is that devil-incarnate Bush did right on TARP? Whould've of thunk it...
"Compromise" by Obama? Like passing everything, every last bill by bulldozing through without so much as asking for a countering opinion or an accounting for costs, and only occasionally throttled back when your own party can't stomach the radicalism. And then blaming everyone else for the agenda's failings. "Mythical" union loving as paying off Union-held Chrysler debt after bankruptcy at a higher amount than other bond holders then handing over control of the auto industry to the very unions that destroyed it...
Best disarm, go home, send bad men back to their lairs, hide under the bed and repeat: Bush..Bush...Bush.. until time's end. The new mantra of radical Leftist, Corporatist Statism.
Alas, there's more to the world than are imagined in the Huffington Post's philosophies.
Best to follow Europe's collapsing example so we can enjoy that experience.
j.liam wrote:
"Mythical" union loving as paying off Union-held Chrysler debt after bankruptcy at a higher amount than other bond holders then handing over control of the auto industry to the very unions that destroyed it...
I suppose since I've taken the time to debunk most of your other crude Fox talking points, I should spend a moment to address this one too.
Entering the bailout, unions had already faced a decade of concessions to Chrysler management, accepting stagnant wages (decreasing when including inflation), shrinking benefits, and decreased bargaining power. The terms of the bailout heaped an even heavier toll on the workers --- better than seeing every employee laid off and the whole city left to rot, but including even bigger pay and benefits cuts for present and future workers. The bailout helped the investors and management first and foremost, with a final result of weaker than ever union representation for the workers than ever (hardly a big union victory, though better than annihilation). It wasn't the rank-and-file workers who drove the US auto industry into a ditch by betting on Americans' continued desire for big, shoddily-made gas guzzlers (while foreign competitors focused on smaller, safer, fuel efficient vehicles); lousy management decisions were fully due to decisions by lousy management (who are adversarial to workers' interests).
I'm not the kind of person morally opposed to the idea that an American worker should be able to earn enough money to raise a family, buy a house, educate their children, and be able to retire with dignity while they still have a few years left to enjoy life. Thus, I wish Obama actually had done more to support workers, and their voice in the economy through unions; the unfortunate fact is that, while the auto bailout was better than kicking all of Detroit out on the street, it was by no means the type of empowering victory for workers that would have been designed by an actual union lover.
Also, if you feel the need to descend to name-calling and blanket generalizations to support your points, you should aim a little higher for factual accuracy (not that you do so elsewhere). I haven't bothered to look at Huffington Post for several years; they descended into meaningless celebrity news drivel a long time ago. My leftist radical publications of choice include Z Magazine and Monthly Review. "Anarchist-Communist" would be more on target for my political preferences than "Corporatist-Statist" (an apt description of neoconservative orthodoxy). Yes, there is much more to the world of left-wing thought than Huffington Post; you seem to be the one having trouble seeing that.
You can call yourself whatever you like.
And I'm hardly name-calling, never did that to any poster. But as far as name calling, a curious obsession with Fox, a tiresome, repetitive reference to "Neoconservatism" (which has become a useful code word for something else entirely) and subsequent equation with "Corporatism" shows you need some historical understanding of both to realize that they are not related. Read the history of the rise in the 19th century of Progressivism, Socialism and Social Democratic movements, and subsequent schism that led some socialists to fascism and some to corporatism.
These politics aside, as they will bring us to no agreement or good at this point, I must admit you do know your lenses, though. I will give you that. And your keen insights thereof are always a pleasure to read.
j.liam wrote:
So what you're saying is that devil-incarnate Bush did right on TARP? Whould've of thunk it...
Are you really so clueless? Apparently, you're not an economist -- just a parrot, only capable of repeating the propaganda and lies of FOX News and the Koch Brothers. I'll say it again for you. This time slowly so you understand.
Bush gets $700B in TARP near the end of his term. Obama comes into office, and is handed Bush's TARP give-away bail out. Obama takes charge of it, fixes it, then distributes, manages and controls TARP funds wisely so that it is not only successful, but also reduces it's overall cost from Bush's $700B to a meager $50B. Obama saved the Treasury $650B.
j.liam wrote:
"Compromise" by Obama? Like passing everything, every last bill by bulldozing through without so much as asking for a countering opinion or an accounting for costs, and only occasionally throttled back when your own party can't stomach the radicalism. And then blaming everyone else for the agenda's failings. "Mythical" union loving as paying off Union-held Chrysler debt after bankruptcy at a higher amount than other bond holders then handing over control of the auto industry to the very unions that destroyed it...
You really are out of touch with fact. It is amazing to me how anyone can be so vehement and angry about things when they don't even both the find out what actually happened. I know FOX News tries to continuously re-write history and fact, but you really have to get out of their bubble and experience the real world.
By the way, are you still looking for a birth certificate?
j.liam wrote:
But as far as name calling, a curious obsession with Fox, a tiresome, repetitive reference to "Neoconservatism" (which has become a useful code word for something else entirely) and subsequent equation with "Corporatism" shows you need some historical understanding of both to realize that they are not related. Read the history of the rise in the 19th century of Progressivism, Socialism and Social Democratic movements, and subsequent schism that led some socialists to fascism and some to corporatism.
Naming conventions for political movements can be a very tricky and subtle thing. Because of the long, complex history of political thought, many terms can have quite different (perhaps diametrically opposed) meanings depending on context. I understand that in the language of 19th century leftist though, "Corporatism" can have a very different meaning from what I intend. In the context of a theory of a non-capitalist society, a Corporation might mean an egalitarian worker-controlled manufacturing complex for a particular type of goods, and "State Corporatism" might be a government by federation of such worker communes, who would each be the "expert" in their own branch of production.
To be clear, however, I mean Corporatism in a 20th/21st Century sense, where a Corporation is internally an autocratic oligarchy (not an egalitarian workers' commune) chartered to enrich a small class of wealthy elites. "State Corporatism" here means a government and economic system that concentrates control in the hands of a few "captains of industry" of monopolistic corporations, assuming that they are the best and wisest exemplars of humanity to guide society.
Some charlatans try to use the historical flexibility and ambiguity of political names to draw intellectually dishonest conclusions about modern schools of political thought based on deceptive out-of-context use of these terms. One example is using the presence of the word "Socialist" in Germany's "National Socialist" (Nazi) party to imply that modern self-identified socialists have some affinity for fascism. Analysis of the terminology and political ideas in proper historical context will indicate the opposite --- most modern socialists descend from an intellectual tradition that evolved in direct opposition to Nazi and Fascist ideologies, despite the similarity in names.
In summary, it's important to be clear about the context intended by political terms, which I have apparently failed to do. By my use of the word "neoconservative," I intend to describe a political philosophy that promotes US military aggression abroad; slashing social services and taxes on the wealthy at home regardless of inflating the national deficit; an extensive "security state" with extensive domestic extrajudicial powers; etc. This may not be "neoconservative" by whatever technical meaning of the word you use, but I think is a useful distinction to highlight the changing face of the US right from the time of, e.g., Eisenhower's "conservatism," when the military-industrial complex was warned against, massive public-works programs (the interstate highway system) bolstered the economy, and (much higher than present) taxes on the wealthy were considered an acceptable price for a functional society.
There's so much I've wanted to say here, but honestly, this is not the place for it as we can argue politics until we're blue in the face. Can we get back to the topic of the thread, thanks.
Zaitz wrote:
Out of all of the sections talking about the D800, even all the forums, this is by far the worst thread.
The thread digressed into a direction that is way OT ... but there is still a lot of good info & opinion for people to consider for themselves. Far from perfect, but at least it alerts people to the fact that there is more to the issue of AA vs. non-AA beyond the oversimplied perspective that some would suggest.
Not sure why you consider this to be the worst thread (barring the political turn) ...
carstenw wrote:
Could you guys start a new thread maybe? On another forum? And don't keep getting in the last reply
You do realize you innocently started this with your little blurb: "Why do you use Amazon for such purchases? There must be a million little deserving photo stores..."
I pre-ordered my D800E... For some reason, Canon's new releases appeal to me more than Nikon's, in philosophy, if not in control scheme, and of course the quality of the implementations will differ somewhat. I was hoping for a D800 which was a D3x with video, but got this hyper-MP camera instead.
I do want to take a step down from pro-body-size though. I like the size and the feel in my hands, but walking around and packing it in a bag is just painful, the shape is too cubic somehow. The 100% viewfinder and new control scheme of the D800 convinced me that I can live without the pro body.
If the DR or any other aspect of its IQ turns out to be a major disappointment, I will probably cancel my pre-order and get a D3x.
It's nearly 200 miles to the nearest "little deserving photo store". Unless you live in a city with 250,000+ it's a rare day to find a real photo store anymore. I have to drive nearly 200 miles roundtrip to get to my nearest "little deserving photo store" ... you can do the math on time & money (petrol/gas & tax) involved.
I'd gladly support one that was in proximity to do so ... but they just don't exist like they once did. I do however support plenty of "little quilt shops" via my better half.
FM B&S
KEH
B&H
Adorama
Amazon
Ebay
Depends on what I'm looking for and new vs. used, but e-commerce is vastly becoming the norm.
Heck, I live in Nashville and I don't care for our photo store. They charge prices on some items that are WAY out of line, don't have a lot of in house knowledge, and they don't carry much in the store that I am interested in. I wish we had a ShowCase like Atlanta does. If so, I would buy as much as I could locally.
Since, D800 is out. It is the time to bring this thread out.
Two things I like so far.
1. It turn out having an incredible sensor. Dynamic range. 14.4 ev and 25.3 color bit depth.
2. It seems having better MF performance:
a: brighter view finder with 100% coverage
b: Better AF confirmation performance. I was think about this the first time read its AF improvement. I thought MF confirmation will be more accurate and firmer. seems this is what people feel from Nikon forum about it when using MF lens. That is a plus+++ for me, hopefully, the 'confirmation range' will be less than before.
I will report back once I have my hand on D800E. Anybody can confirm it?
Ever controversial. I am very happy to see that the D800 plays in the same league as the D3x for DR. That takes one worry off my shoulders. I guess we won't really know what is going on with the colours until we start putting it through its paces though.
Ever controversial. I am very happy to see that the D800 plays in the same league as the D3x for DR. That takes one worry off my shoulders. I guess we won't really know what is going on with the colours until we start putting it through its paces though.
My D800 arrived today, and much to my amazement, after careful diopter tuning, I find myself able to focus my Zeiss ZF.2 50/1.4 with some care, and to nail it, at various apertures. This works in good light. With lower light, I expect that I will miss some, and I have not yet tested the focus confirmation lights to see if they are accurate enough, and if so, at what apertures. I need to test all my lenses, and maybe do some micro-tuning for some of them, which I haven't done before.
The grip is thinner than I prefer, and could also be deeper, but it works for my hands (5'10" = 1.80m, average hands). For larger people, or people with large hands or large fingers, it could be tight in there. The camera in general feels good, and so far I am very happy with it. The rear screen is awesome and the colour accuracy from reality to screen appears very good so far. I need to test this in tungsten light, but in daylight it is great, high resolution and with great colours. This is different than my D3, which had colours quite different from reality. I haven't loaded any shots onto my computer, so I cannot say anything about the colours there, but by tonight I should have one or two shots to share, maybe a comparison to the D3.
The operation of the live view is a nice improvement from my D3. I haven't yet put it on a tripod and tried to focus in darker conditions, but I will try this soon.
I just shot some test shots today with my new D800, and I am looking at the files in LR4.
Wow!
The detail and dynamic range are out of this world when things are done right! I kept looking for blown highlights or inky shadows, but I could find very little. There is just so much in these fat files, you can just keep pulling out and pulling out.
I am also very pleasantly surprised by the colours. They are definitely more accurate and more pleasing than my D3, not to speak of the 5DII. I would love to compare them to the A900, S5 Pro and Kodak SLR/n. The latter I can do, since I own one, and Bernhard has an S5.
And don't keep getting in the last reply 