And who shoots fashion and street photography with a large format camera? Nobody that I know of. And why would anyone need tilt/shift lenses for those types of photography? I can't think of a reason.
Street photography is not architectural photography. You carefully set up an architectural photograph, but a street photograph is normally a candid snap. Yes, it's more than that, but at its essence that is what it is.
It seems everyone who replied to my post, including you, has a problem understanding conditional statements. I said, a DSLR is a poor substitute "if you are looking for....". If what I listed isn't what someone is looking for then a DSLR is fine. But, if having the maximum amount of adjustability, the ability to create a large print with much less post-processing, and the resulting quality of the original image and enlargements of the same size, is of importance to you, then the view camera can't be beat. If image quality isn't the most important factor to somebody, then the 35mm DSLR will work just fine.
There's a reason a lot of people shoot medium and large format rather than 35mm. If I had the money, I wouldn't shoot anything else because image quality is job 1 as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed. This sensor in a view camera, with lenses that would stop down far enough to really take advantage of the light sensitivity of the sensor, would be a mighty sweet camera. With the tilt/shift/swing of a good view camera and a very deep depth of field the creativity possibilities would be incredible.
The 35mm tilt/shift lenses provide nothing like the range of flexibility provided by a view camera.
I've looked at both and a DSLR + tilt/shift lens is a poor substitute for a view camera if you are looking range of adjustment, quality of image, and the size of print possible without pixelation or blurring. The DSLR sensor is just too small and the 35mm tilt/shift lenses 2 axes of adjustment cannot compare with the 3 axes of adjustment available in a view camera. Plus, the view camera has a much greater range of adjustment. There's really no comparison between the two.
You have this exactly backwards. The more you can stop down your lens, f2.8 wide open and f60 stopped down, means less light to your sensor, the greater your depth of field. This sensor means you could shoot at ISO 25, a shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/1000 of a second, and an fstop of 60 very easily in a lot less than full light conditions. That's a great depth of field, a shutter speed fast enough to reduce the effects of any vibration, and still get enough light to get a good exposure. I'm just guessing on what the fstop and shutter speeds would be with a sensor that light sensitive, but with a modern dslr you couldn't even get close to those settings in anything less than bright sunlight without very low shutter speeds that require the use of a tripod and higher ISO settings that tend to induce noise.
I can see this used by many professional photographers who would have much less post-processing to do as a sensor that size could produce an image of poster size with very little manipulation. Those pros who make a good living selling fine art photographs will be drooling over this as the size of the print possible with this sensor will be very large with very little pixelation.
Both you and smidget are idiots. Obama is trying to get a bill through Congress right now in which he wants to pay all mortgages.
The rest of his agenda? Health care. Let the government take care of it. Businesses make mistakes? Government takes them over for any reason they want and with no accountability as the SEC will not even honor FOIA requests. Don't believe it? It's in Obama's last bill that was supposed to make sure no stock market crashes will ever happen again.
Obama to Joe the Plumber: Hey, I'm just here to redistribute the wealth If you're good enough at business to make yourself pretty comfortable, we, the government, are going to take the fruits of your labor until you don't have anything more than the guy who doesn't want to work as hard as you do, or hasn't sacrificed years of his life to get an education and and isn't paying through the nose for that education. We're going to reward him for his choices and punish you for making good choices. We're going to take your money and give it him....
As far as the government giving money to businesses.... That's your buddy Obama making sure of his power base. He's the one giving trillions of dollars to business. He's also the one spending us into oblivion. He's spent more money in less than 2 years than all previous US presidents combined.
He's already put us into a financial hole that will take decades for us to pay off. Our kids and grandkids will be paying off the interest and principle on what he's spent already. I find it incredibly selfish of you guys that you care so little for those who will come after us. I also find it incredibly naive of you guys not to recognize that the US became the wealthiest and most powerful nation the earth, with the highest standard of living ever realized in the history of the world, without a nanny state and without entitlements. It's only as we have become a welfare state that we have begun declining in military and political power, political will and economic/financial resources. We're now well on the way to bankruptcy, and 50 years ago we, as a nation, were so well-off financially that it was impossible to think of us ever going broke. Well, we're at that point right now, and entitlements are the leading cause. Entitlements make up 56% of government spending.
Yeah, sure. It, along with Obama, is busy reinforcing the idea that the state is here to take care of all your wants and desires. You have a problem? Call the government it's supposed to take care of you in every way possible.
This is the very predictable outcome of progressive policies that encourage people to trust the state for everything rather than look to themselves to take care of themselves.
There's two ways of looking at this One, is that people are using help forums much more. Two, is that there are a lot more Linux help forums than there were in 2004, and they are busy, which means no Googling done for noobs who are helped there. Three, is that experienced users, of which there is a growing number, need to Google for answers a lot less since they use documentation provided by the distros.
I'd say the relationship between Google searches and size of the user base is tenuous at best.
I'll bet there isn't. If you have a distro with a lot of experienced users in their user base, say Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, etc... they are going to Google their distro name far, far less than say an Ubuntu newbie. I know that's true for how my searches have changed over the years. During my newbie days Debian was a well-used keyword for me. Today? Not a commonly used keyword. Seven years of using Debian has changed my search habits, and where I look for information, a lot, as the issues I have to research have changed a lot. Today/usr/share/doc subdirectories are well-used as that is where Debian installs documentation packages. That's now the first place I look, and where most of the info I need is to be found.
This is one reason searches for Debian are so low. It has an experienced user base that doesn't search by "Debian Linux" or anything close to that, at least not in my case and I can't see that my searches would be that much different than any other reasonably experienced Debian user. I use "linux" as a search term for more than I use "debian". Why? Because most issues I would need to search Google for are issues having to do with kernel modules, wireless issues, or specific software packages such as Apache, Exim4, Gimp, Postgresql, MySql, etc.... I would search for answers to Debian-specific issues in README, README.Debian, changelog files in/usr/share/doc/blahblahblah or in documentation packages I've installed from the Debian repositories that correspond to the specific software I'm researching.
As most newbies are scared away from Debian by the mindless mantra that "Debian is too hard" I would expect to see very few searches for "Debian Linux". Why this misconception is so popular I don't know. Debian isn't too hard for newbies. Debian is how I learned to use Linux. I found it to be the most user-friendly distro available back in 2003 because when I ran into a problem I could be assured it was ignorance on my part, not random bugs in Debian stable or "rpm hell". I left all other distros behind because I would spend days trying to figure out an issue only to find the problem wasn't related to my ignorance at all. It was a bug in the system. When I found Debian I left that behind in 99 out of 100 cases, so it made Linux far easier for me to learn. All I had to do was learn how things were supposed to work, and I was good to go.
If I was a newbie I'd stay as far as I possibly could away from Ubuntu just because it's so buggy. I would find the most stable distro I could and stick with it as the learning curve is much easier when you don't have to fight buggy software.
Being tracked when you use your card, because that is required just because you used it, and being tracked just because you walked past a checkout counter are two separate and distinct things.
Using module-assistant makes the compilation and installation process point-and-click. It walks you right through the entire process as it downloads what it needs, then compiles and installs everything for you. I started using it soon after I first used Debian (I Linux for less than a year), and didn't find it difficult to learn. All I had to do was follow the directions.
To get the fglrx and nvidia proprietary drivers in Debian all you have to do is add "non-free" to the urls in your sources.list file. Those drivers have been available in non-free for far longer than you've been using Ubuntu.
You're knocking Debian for what amounts to your own ignorance.
The government already has that power. What we don't want is bureaucrats who are not accountable to voters making these rules and regulations. They can legislate through rule making and there is not a damn thing we the people can do about it. That's why ceding more power to the government's rule making organizations is a scary proposition. It's power held by those whom we the people have no influence with whatsover as we cannot vote them out.
You just admitted that you know nothing about the history of your own country.
The government would have done nothing about slavery if the people had not demanded it be ended. The pressure voters placed upon politicians through voting out politicians against ending slavery and voting in those politicians who wanted to end slavery was tremendous. Newspapers clamored constantly for the end of slavery. Without the pressure applied by the people the Civil War would never have happened as no politician would have dared to do what Lincoln did as there were too many well-funded power structures that were profiting from it.
It was moral outrage on the part of the individual American that ended slavery as nothing would have happened without it. Read "A Team of Rivals", a book about Lincoln's cabinet and the political history of each the men who made up his cabinet. It's a fascinating read as it delves into the political views and attitudes of the American people at the time as well as Lincoln, his motivations, and how he governed.
We, the people, didn't cede power to the government to change things. We demanded that the government use the power it had at that time to do what was right. If you don't understand that difference you will misunderstand most of US history.
If the people simply exercised the power they have the corporations would knuckle under. That power is to deny themselves whatever it is that corporation is selling. A corporation that cannot sell its services or products does not remain a corporation for very long, and the people who run it recognize that fact. So, when a corporation gets out of hand, boycott the jerks. No income gets their attention right away.
You say people won't cooperate as a whole to accomplish something? Then people get what they deserve, lousy products and unresponsive corporations. We already have the power, we just need to exercise it. We need to act in our own best interests.
Ahh.... So, because the government doesn't act in our favor in one instance we need to give it more power? I have to ask, since the government doesn't act in our favor with the power it already has, what makes you think it is going to act in our favor when we give it even more power? How is more power going to make the government more sensitive to the little guy? I see no correlation between increased government power and more freedom for the individual. In fact, the opposite is true. The more power government has the less freedom the individual has. That correlation is seen in all governments.
OK. I accept that. It's just that the way you worded your initial statement led me to believe that the only evidence against the accused would be software-generated. I find that very troubling, even with a human judge and jury.
So, if you're driving down the freeway, and a pedestrian is walking in your lane at any time other than a moonless night, you won't see him because you're too busy looking everywhere but what's ahead of you in your own lane of traffic? Sounds pretty strange to me.
If a pedestrian is walking on the shoulder of the road the only way you are going to hit him is if you leave the paved surface That makes it your fault. You failed to maintain control over your vehicle and you didn't see what was right in front of you. That makes you drunk, asleep, or simply not paying any attention to the road. No matter how you slice it you come up guilty.
It seems to me that you're a mighty poor driver as you are very inattentive according to your own arguments. That you believe you cannot/should_not pay attention to the edges of the roadway and that under most, if not all, circumstance you should be innocent when running over another human being makes you a dangerous driver as your attitude affects how you will drive. I wouldn't want to ride in a car that you're driving.
There's just no excuse for hitting a pedestrian 99% of the time.
As to your opening sentence, what kind of foolishness is that? There are situations where someone will be walking alongside the road. Their car breaks down and they have to walk to get help. Their car runs out of gas. How about someone who happens to be riding with a drunk, and makes them stop and let them out? Those are all legitmate reasons why someone might be walking down the side of the road.
People don't stop to help one another the way they used. Thirty years ago if you had car trouble, someone would stop and help almost immediately. Today? You might sit in your car for hours with no offers of help, so walking to get help might just be your best bet to get back on the road again in a reasonable time frame. As I said before, there's a lot of legitimate reasons for someone to have to walk down the side of road.
And how is that worse, even if it does happen, than what is going on now? There can be safeguards put in place to keep false positives down, but when it's obvious an SEC auditor is ignoring fraud, such as ignoring credible reports showing fraud, then those people have to be prosecuted. It's the only way to put an end to that kind of fraud on the part of the SEC itself.
Not holding the inspectors accountable means they can accept bribes to ignore fraud and not have to worry about ever being punished. That is pure idiocy to let that go on. It makes all rules meaningless.
Actually, if somebody is walking down the highway and I hit them, it probably is their fault,
That's not even close to being reasonable, responsible logic . If you hit a pedestrian it's your fault. Period. You should be alert enough, and driving far enough ahead of your vehicle, to see any pedestrian or brake lights coming on and slow down while looking for the cause of everyone hitting the brakes. You should be looking ahead at least a half-mile by default. That means you will see potential problems before they you get to them. If you don't, it's your fault as you weren't engaging in logical, practical, defensive driving practices. It's a form of reckless driving as looking ahead is taught by every knowledgeable driving instructor and taught in all pamphlets put out by the DMV in the state in which I live, and in the state in which I learned to drive.
The only way hitting a pedestrian is never your fault is if they are in the traffic lane, wearing dark clothing, and it's at night. Then you have no chance to see them. Other than that, it's your fault whether it's inattentiveness or speed high enough on your part that makes the pedestrian underestimate how much time they have a chance to cross your lane safely.
I disagree. The way forward is for mandatory jail sentences for SEC auditors who fail to prosecute fraud. Hold the SEC employees' accountable and have make the penalties severe enough that anyone in that position will think multiple times about ignoring fraud.
Yeah, that would be a good idea as the basis for an investigation by humans, but not as the sole evidence for convicting anyone. I want real people reading the evidence and following the clues as conviction by software program is a really scary thought.
Yeah, it amazes me how some things are moderated around here. This is the second time a serious post of mine, that was completely factual, was modded as +4 funny and had people like yourself pointing this out.
It seems to me that a lot of people have no clue as to what is happening in our government.
Slashdot Mirror
And who shoots fashion and street photography with a large format camera? Nobody that I know of. And why would anyone need tilt/shift lenses for those types of photography? I can't think of a reason.
Street photography is not architectural photography. You carefully set up an architectural photograph, but a street photograph is normally a candid snap. Yes, it's more than that, but at its essence that is what it is.
It seems everyone who replied to my post, including you, has a problem understanding conditional statements. I said, a DSLR is a poor substitute "if you are looking for....". If what I listed isn't what someone is looking for then a DSLR is fine. But, if having the maximum amount of adjustability, the ability to create a large print with much less post-processing, and the resulting quality of the original image and enlargements of the same size, is of importance to you, then the view camera can't be beat. If image quality isn't the most important factor to somebody, then the 35mm DSLR will work just fine.
There's a reason a lot of people shoot medium and large format rather than 35mm. If I had the money, I wouldn't shoot anything else because image quality is job 1 as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed. This sensor in a view camera, with lenses that would stop down far enough to really take advantage of the light sensitivity of the sensor, would be a mighty sweet camera. With the tilt/shift/swing of a good view camera and a very deep depth of field the creativity possibilities would be incredible.
The 35mm tilt/shift lenses provide nothing like the range of flexibility provided by a view camera.
I've looked at both and a DSLR + tilt/shift lens is a poor substitute for a view camera if you are looking range of adjustment, quality of image, and the size of print possible without pixelation or blurring. The DSLR sensor is just too small and the 35mm tilt/shift lenses 2 axes of adjustment cannot compare with the 3 axes of adjustment available in a view camera. Plus, the view camera has a much greater range of adjustment. There's really no comparison between the two.
You have this exactly backwards. The more you can stop down your lens, f2.8 wide open and f60 stopped down, means less light to your sensor, the greater your depth of field. This sensor means you could shoot at ISO 25, a shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/1000 of a second, and an fstop of 60 very easily in a lot less than full light conditions. That's a great depth of field, a shutter speed fast enough to reduce the effects of any vibration, and still get enough light to get a good exposure. I'm just guessing on what the fstop and shutter speeds would be with a sensor that light sensitive, but with a modern dslr you couldn't even get close to those settings in anything less than bright sunlight without very low shutter speeds that require the use of a tripod and higher ISO settings that tend to induce noise.
I can see this used by many professional photographers who would have much less post-processing to do as a sensor that size could produce an image of poster size with very little manipulation. Those pros who make a good living selling fine art photographs will be drooling over this as the size of the print possible with this sensor will be very large with very little pixelation.
Both you and smidget are idiots. Obama is trying to get a bill through Congress right now in which he wants to pay all mortgages.
The rest of his agenda? Health care. Let the government take care of it. Businesses make mistakes? Government takes them over for any reason they want and with no accountability as the SEC will not even honor FOIA requests. Don't believe it? It's in Obama's last bill that was supposed to make sure no stock market crashes will ever happen again.
Obama to Joe the Plumber: Hey, I'm just here to redistribute the wealth If you're good enough at business to make yourself pretty comfortable, we, the government, are going to take the fruits of your labor until you don't have anything more than the guy who doesn't want to work as hard as you do, or hasn't sacrificed years of his life to get an education and and isn't paying through the nose for that education. We're going to reward him for his choices and punish you for making good choices. We're going to take your money and give it him....
As far as the government giving money to businesses.... That's your buddy Obama making sure of his power base. He's the one giving trillions of dollars to business. He's also the one spending us into oblivion. He's spent more money in less than 2 years than all previous US presidents combined.
He's already put us into a financial hole that will take decades for us to pay off. Our kids and grandkids will be paying off the interest and principle on what he's spent already. I find it incredibly selfish of you guys that you care so little for those who will come after us. I also find it incredibly naive of you guys not to recognize that the US became the wealthiest and most powerful nation the earth, with the highest standard of living ever realized in the history of the world, without a nanny state and without entitlements. It's only as we have become a welfare state that we have begun declining in military and political power, political will and economic/financial resources. We're now well on the way to bankruptcy, and 50 years ago we, as a nation, were so well-off financially that it was impossible to think of us ever going broke. Well, we're at that point right now, and entitlements are the leading cause. Entitlements make up 56% of government spending.
Yeah, sure. It, along with Obama, is busy reinforcing the idea that the state is here to take care of all your wants and desires. You have a problem? Call the government it's supposed to take care of you in every way possible.
This is the very predictable outcome of progressive policies that encourage people to trust the state for everything rather than look to themselves to take care of themselves.
There's two ways of looking at this One, is that people are using help forums much more. Two, is that there are a lot more Linux help forums than there were in 2004, and they are busy, which means no Googling done for noobs who are helped there. Three, is that experienced users, of which there is a growing number, need to Google for answers a lot less since they use documentation provided by the distros.
I'd say the relationship between Google searches and size of the user base is tenuous at best.
I'll bet there isn't. If you have a distro with a lot of experienced users in their user base, say Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, etc... they are going to Google their distro name far, far less than say an Ubuntu newbie. I know that's true for how my searches have changed over the years. During my newbie days Debian was a well-used keyword for me. Today? Not a commonly used keyword. Seven years of using Debian has changed my search habits, and where I look for information, a lot, as the issues I have to research have changed a lot. Today /usr/share/doc subdirectories are well-used as that is where Debian installs documentation packages. That's now the first place I look, and where most of the info I need is to be found.
This is one reason searches for Debian are so low. It has an experienced user base that doesn't search by "Debian Linux" or anything close to that, at least not in my case and I can't see that my searches would be that much different than any other reasonably experienced Debian user. I use "linux" as a search term for more than I use "debian". Why? Because most issues I would need to search Google for are issues having to do with kernel modules, wireless issues, or specific software packages such as Apache, Exim4, Gimp, Postgresql, MySql, etc.... I would search for answers to Debian-specific issues in README, README.Debian, changelog files in /usr/share/doc/blahblahblah or in documentation packages I've installed from the Debian repositories that correspond to the specific software I'm researching.
As most newbies are scared away from Debian by the mindless mantra that "Debian is too hard" I would expect to see very few searches for "Debian Linux". Why this misconception is so popular I don't know. Debian isn't too hard for newbies. Debian is how I learned to use Linux. I found it to be the most user-friendly distro available back in 2003 because when I ran into a problem I could be assured it was ignorance on my part, not random bugs in Debian stable or "rpm hell". I left all other distros behind because I would spend days trying to figure out an issue only to find the problem wasn't related to my ignorance at all. It was a bug in the system. When I found Debian I left that behind in 99 out of 100 cases, so it made Linux far easier for me to learn. All I had to do was learn how things were supposed to work, and I was good to go.
If I was a newbie I'd stay as far as I possibly could away from Ubuntu just because it's so buggy. I would find the most stable distro I could and stick with it as the learning curve is much easier when you don't have to fight buggy software.
Being tracked when you use your card, because that is required just because you used it, and being tracked just because you walked past a checkout counter are two separate and distinct things.
Using module-assistant makes the compilation and installation process point-and-click. It walks you right through the entire process as it downloads what it needs, then compiles and installs everything for you. I started using it soon after I first used Debian (I Linux for less than a year), and didn't find it difficult to learn. All I had to do was follow the directions.
To get the fglrx and nvidia proprietary drivers in Debian all you have to do is add "non-free" to the urls in your sources.list file. Those drivers have been available in non-free for far longer than you've been using Ubuntu.
You're knocking Debian for what amounts to your own ignorance.
The government already has that power. What we don't want is bureaucrats who are not accountable to voters making these rules and regulations. They can legislate through rule making and there is not a damn thing we the people can do about it. That's why ceding more power to the government's rule making organizations is a scary proposition. It's power held by those whom we the people have no influence with whatsover as we cannot vote them out.
You just admitted that you know nothing about the history of your own country.
The government would have done nothing about slavery if the people had not demanded it be ended. The pressure voters placed upon politicians through voting out politicians against ending slavery and voting in those politicians who wanted to end slavery was tremendous. Newspapers clamored constantly for the end of slavery. Without the pressure applied by the people the Civil War would never have happened as no politician would have dared to do what Lincoln did as there were too many well-funded power structures that were profiting from it.
It was moral outrage on the part of the individual American that ended slavery as nothing would have happened without it. Read "A Team of Rivals", a book about Lincoln's cabinet and the political history of each the men who made up his cabinet. It's a fascinating read as it delves into the political views and attitudes of the American people at the time as well as Lincoln, his motivations, and how he governed.
We, the people, didn't cede power to the government to change things. We demanded that the government use the power it had at that time to do what was right. If you don't understand that difference you will misunderstand most of US history.
If the people simply exercised the power they have the corporations would knuckle under. That power is to deny themselves whatever it is that corporation is selling. A corporation that cannot sell its services or products does not remain a corporation for very long, and the people who run it recognize that fact. So, when a corporation gets out of hand, boycott the jerks. No income gets their attention right away.
You say people won't cooperate as a whole to accomplish something? Then people get what they deserve, lousy products and unresponsive corporations. We already have the power, we just need to exercise it. We need to act in our own best interests.
Ahh.... So, because the government doesn't act in our favor in one instance we need to give it more power? I have to ask, since the government doesn't act in our favor with the power it already has, what makes you think it is going to act in our favor when we give it even more power? How is more power going to make the government more sensitive to the little guy? I see no correlation between increased government power and more freedom for the individual. In fact, the opposite is true. The more power government has the less freedom the individual has. That correlation is seen in all governments.
OK. I accept that. It's just that the way you worded your initial statement led me to believe that the only evidence against the accused would be software-generated. I find that very troubling, even with a human judge and jury.
So, if you're driving down the freeway, and a pedestrian is walking in your lane at any time other than a moonless night, you won't see him because you're too busy looking everywhere but what's ahead of you in your own lane of traffic? Sounds pretty strange to me.
If a pedestrian is walking on the shoulder of the road the only way you are going to hit him is if you leave the paved surface That makes it your fault. You failed to maintain control over your vehicle and you didn't see what was right in front of you. That makes you drunk, asleep, or simply not paying any attention to the road. No matter how you slice it you come up guilty.
It seems to me that you're a mighty poor driver as you are very inattentive according to your own arguments. That you believe you cannot/should_not pay attention to the edges of the roadway and that under most, if not all, circumstance you should be innocent when running over another human being makes you a dangerous driver as your attitude affects how you will drive. I wouldn't want to ride in a car that you're driving.
There's just no excuse for hitting a pedestrian 99% of the time.
As to your opening sentence, what kind of foolishness is that? There are situations where someone will be walking alongside the road. Their car breaks down and they have to walk to get help. Their car runs out of gas. How about someone who happens to be riding with a drunk, and makes them stop and let them out? Those are all legitmate reasons why someone might be walking down the side of the road.
People don't stop to help one another the way they used. Thirty years ago if you had car trouble, someone would stop and help almost immediately. Today? You might sit in your car for hours with no offers of help, so walking to get help might just be your best bet to get back on the road again in a reasonable time frame. As I said before, there's a lot of legitimate reasons for someone to have to walk down the side of road.
And how is that worse, even if it does happen, than what is going on now? There can be safeguards put in place to keep false positives down, but when it's obvious an SEC auditor is ignoring fraud, such as ignoring credible reports showing fraud, then those people have to be prosecuted. It's the only way to put an end to that kind of fraud on the part of the SEC itself.
Not holding the inspectors accountable means they can accept bribes to ignore fraud and not have to worry about ever being punished. That is pure idiocy to let that go on. It makes all rules meaningless.
Actually, if somebody is walking down the highway and I hit them, it probably is their fault,
That's not even close to being reasonable, responsible logic . If you hit a pedestrian it's your fault. Period. You should be alert enough, and driving far enough ahead of your vehicle, to see any pedestrian or brake lights coming on and slow down while looking for the cause of everyone hitting the brakes. You should be looking ahead at least a half-mile by default. That means you will see potential problems before they you get to them. If you don't, it's your fault as you weren't engaging in logical, practical, defensive driving practices. It's a form of reckless driving as looking ahead is taught by every knowledgeable driving instructor and taught in all pamphlets put out by the DMV in the state in which I live, and in the state in which I learned to drive.
The only way hitting a pedestrian is never your fault is if they are in the traffic lane, wearing dark clothing, and it's at night. Then you have no chance to see them. Other than that, it's your fault whether it's inattentiveness or speed high enough on your part that makes the pedestrian underestimate how much time they have a chance to cross your lane safely.
I disagree. The way forward is for mandatory jail sentences for SEC auditors who fail to prosecute fraud. Hold the SEC employees' accountable and have make the penalties severe enough that anyone in that position will think multiple times about ignoring fraud.
Yeah, that would be a good idea as the basis for an investigation by humans, but not as the sole evidence for convicting anyone. I want real people reading the evidence and following the clues as conviction by software program is a really scary thought.
Yeah, it amazes me how some things are moderated around here. This is the second time a serious post of mine, that was completely factual, was modded as +4 funny and had people like yourself pointing this out.
It seems to me that a lot of people have no clue as to what is happening in our government.