That was interesting. There's being an asshole because you're good; people will tolerate that. Then there's being an asshole just because you can get away with it; in my experience, people don't stand for that very long.
I accept that my experience may be invalid. But if I see a non-handicapped vehicle (no hang tag, no plates, no equipment inside or out, no adaptive controls, etc.) parked in a handicapped space, I don't care if it was parked there by God himself, I'm on the phone to the police. I take care of two disabled family members who live with me and I appreciate how important those spaces are. There are lots of people like me.
Am I supposed to believe that there's no one either working at or who has ever visited Apple who has sufficient personal integrity and testicular fortitude to report a crime in progress when they see it? Hell, even if you work there and reporting it gets you fired, you can probably parlay "I was the guy who stood up to Steve Jobs" into 15 minutes of blogosphere fame; these days, that's almost enough to build a career on.
And the article lets this thing go as if it were just a personality quirk?!?! I don't get it.
Your heart is in the right place. I really believe that. My experience leads me to believe differently but I still respect your viewpoint as forward-thinking, a goal for the future. Still, I think you overstate your case when you say
...i see in those running to and embracing and worshipping guns in their lives the same genesis of fascist thinking and criminal thinking: "i must make my point via force of arms, rather than via my force of thought." people with such a fetish therefore undermine civil society, not protect it
Some years ago a man who wanted nothing more than my death unloaded a shotgun in my direction. I was not in danger. He was a drunken fool, unable to aim and too far away to be effective. I had the option to conceal myself and chose it.
At no time, however, did I think to myself "I should go over there and use the force of my thought to dissuade him from shooting at me." Oddly, perhaps, that thought never crossed my mind. "I wish I had an option other than running and hiding" did occur to me, along with "If the.44 revolver in the trunk of my car was, instead, in my hand, I'd be in a better position."
Some years before that my mother was gang-raped in the washateria of her apartment complex. Of all the thoughts and feelings she had at the time and since and has been willing to discuss with me, the notion that she should have used the force of her thoughts to stop them has never been mentioned. She has, however, from time to time expressed regret that she neglected to take her.45 with her that day when she did the wash.
to depend upon deadly force, rather than the force of your mind and your word, is the sign of an evil man, a dumb man, and an insecure man
I reject the notion that either of us is evil, dumb, or insecure because we place value on the concept of possessing the means to meet violence with superior violence. I submit that we are quite secure that our view of the world is reasonable when it leads us to the conclusion the owning a gun is a good thing for good people.
I grant that you are correct that owning a gun is a bad thing for bad people. Find a way to make them give up theirs first and maybe we can make some real progress.
a real noble man goes to deadly force with great reserve and sober and grim last resort. they don't put a smile on their face and show it around as their public face to the world. this betrays a lack of character
Agreed. But that provides no justification for denying the noble man the use of arms. Quite the opposite.
Personally, I love the more acute grip angle of Lugers, Ruger MKs, and Glocks. 1911s feel like bricks to me, forcing my wrist to an odd angle.
I've observed the same thing with the Remington XP100. The old Zytel middle-grip stocks were almost universally loathed. I loved 'em. Recently, they've gone up in price but for years I could pick them up for $10-$25 all day long and play with modifying and painting them. Nowadays they cost more but they're still cheaper than the $200+ unfinished replacement stocks you can buy from third parties.
And triggers? Holy cow, I think I could write a book. I hated my rear-grip Wichita with the Canjar Lite-Pull. That was a safe 2-ounce trigger. By itself, that was a huge achievement. But the trigger felt like garbage. It was creepy with an unpredictable letoff. I now have a 2-ounce Jewell BR-style trigger in that pistol and it makes all the difference in the world.
Yep, it comes down to interface. It's possible to find plenty of different designs that are reliable and accurate but the final choice is made by how the pistol feels. IMO, that's as it should be.
You're using the fact that students, who are there to LEARN to use firearms, chose Glocks as an indication of their acceptance as superior design?! And this is modded as insightful!?
Actually, I specified "serious" classes. Go to the temple of the 1911, Gunsite, and check out what mid-level civilian training class attendees bring. Those people already shoot better than 99%+ of the folks on the planet. Their judgement is something that can, in the aggregate, be relied on. And in those classes you'll see an about-even split between 1911s and Glocks.
I've been a handgun enthusiast for 30+ years and I worked in law enforcement for a while and I'm here to tell you that Glocks are junk. There was a period when they were certainly the sexy gun to have and citizens and cops bought them in vast numbers, but most everyone I knew in law enforcement soon switched to a Sig Sauer.
You're quite right that cops were early adopters. Later, Sig aggressively went after that market with improved pricing. It's easy to see lots of either in duty holsters. None of that supports your contention that Glocks are junk. I have 2, of various vintages. They've seen, between them, over 50K rounds. Nothing has ever broken (although I have buggered up that plastic front sight on my early M17). I know that my Glocks aren't junk. I can't imagine why you'd say they are. No, they're not elegant, graceful, or pretty. They are not "fine" equipment like a Rolex is a fine watch. It is even fair to say that the great Cooper was correct when he denigrated them as "a machine for throwing balls." But sometimes a machine for throwing balls, every time, without fail, is exactly what you want.
If I want a pistol that says "not junk" by saying "built like a fine timepiece," I'll pull out my Wichita pistol. When I just want to perforate paper up close or be comforted by a reliable bedside table companion, I'll take my Glock.
Firearms are an area where this dynamic is often seen. There are lots of gee-whiz techno toys in that arena - caseless ammo, (that fucking stupid overhyped) MetalStorm (shit), etc. But when you really need reliability, like when you're relying on a piece of hardware to save your life, you tend to want the tried and true.
The best example I can think of? The Colt model of 1911 is still considered by lots of people to be the finest fighting sidearm ever. It certainly was in its day. That day lasted until the mid-1980s when the Glock came along. It's taken 20 years, but if you attend a *serious* personal defense class (not one of those "get your carry license in a day" things) where the students select and bring their own sidearm, you'll generally find something close to an even split between 1911s and Glocks. It's taken more than 20 years for a superior design to achieve acceptance by the cognescenti.
Old and obsolete often means tried and true. When I'm betting my life, I like the idea of tried and true. That attitude is often displayed by thoughtful folks in all areas of their life; we like what works and will change only when something demonstrably better is available and the inconvenience of using the old tech becomes sufficiently painful.
In other news, I'm considering switching to a digital camera any day now.:-)
Are there any HTTP to email servers left out there? You sent an email to an address with the URL as the subject; the server on the other end fetched the web page and mailed you a copy.
I occasionally have use for such a thing but the last server I used for this (maintained at a Japanese university, iirc) shut down years ago.
The Absolute Sound, back in the day, was a literate, thoughtful magazine devoted to high quality sound reproduction in the home. It was heavy on the "listen to it and describe what you hear" and tended to discount the "hook it up and measure it" methods of testing. Nevertheless, it was wonderful. The publisher, a guy named Harry Pearson, had some belief in astrology. He described it as just an indicator and didn't seem a slavish adherent but just the fact that a guy so dedicated to rigorous thought expressed precisely could assign any weight at all to such nonsense floored me.
Now, here's why I get twisted around. I let my subscription go. There were some problems getting it to me; their servicing bureau screwed up. The focus of the magazine had started to diverge from mine. And that whole astrology thing really bugged me; it put me over the top.
But...should it have? Pearson's writing was as good as ever. Pretty much all of the contributors were excellent. The magazine was worth the money just for the entertainment value. Yet I let it go because the head guy believed at least a little in astrology, even if it was just as a shorthand for understanding personality types. In the years since, I've come to believe that I acted wrongly and let prejudice against a perceived willful ignorance lead me to a decision not in my self-interest. I should be willing to ignore harmless affectations.
Yet I couldn't. *This* one really bugged me. Why, I wonder? And is the same true of others? Yes, I'm willing to denounce astrology as stupid but I shouldn't toss away its adherents, should I? After all, they can otherwise be wonderful people.
Why is astrology such a deal-breaker for so many of us who consider ourselves fairly intelligent and logical?
The summary (and, I assume, the article) talks about far-reaching effects. They're not kidding.
I have diabetes. Despite my best efforts, my blood glucose control was poor until recently. I knew I needed to eat right; I was doing that pretty well. I knew I needed to exercise; I was doing poorly. I seemed to hit a brick wall every time I tried to fit regular exercise into my routine.
I sort-of knew that I needed to get a good night's sleep. I never did.
A while back, I was so exhausted I actually set aside time to sleep for two nights in a row. I got 11 hours sleep each night. By that third day, something weird was going on. My blood sugar kept dropping low. I had to eat some carbs to bring it up, but my BG readings didn't jump high and stay there like I usually expect when I consume those carbs.
Since then I've found a direct correlation - If I get 10 hours of good sleep (I've always needed more sleep than most people), my BG stays in control. I'm ramping up my exercise and losing weight and if this keeps up, at my next consult with my endo, I'm going to explore going off my meds as an experiment.
And to think - a few months ago, we were discussing how soon the inevitable was going to come to pass and I'd have to start injecting insulin. It's tough to leave the computer untouched and not watch TV every evening when I come home from work. Basically, during the 5-day work week, I just work, commute, and sleep. But I can live with that. In fact, I'm living a lot better with that. I use my Tivo to catch up during the weekends and my computer does pre-scheduled runs at usenet all day during the off-peak, unmetered access times specified by my usenet provider. I just process all that stuff on Saturdays. And I post to Slashdot from work.:-)
Moral? Life is better when you sleep. It may even turn out to be a hell of a lot longer, too.
Thanks. That is a meaningful expansion of what I was saying. I should not have glossed over the notion that the 50-150 per year figure I was quoting was for abductions by complete strangers. There's probably an identifiable set of crimes committed by people barely known to the family/child, such as a neighbor. And there are family members who don't actually live in the house. Those situations are tough to call since people tend to say "I know that guy; he wouldn't do that" even when they don't *really* know the guy since there has only been casual contact.
My point was that the threat we work so hard to avoid, the complete stranger in the trench coat hanging out at the playground, is essentially nonexistent in the sense that he's so rare that changing the way you live your life to avoid him is an irrational reaction. My point is that we'd increase real security without making ourselves and our offspring paranoid if we'd abandon the useless security theater and just open our eyes to the notion that Uncle Charlie might be a nice guy but if you gave him lots of opportunity, he'd be willing to get his jollies with a little kid. The number of people (yes, mostly guys) who fit that profile (I'm not sure but I think it's called "situational pedophilia," a label for folks who would never seek out and don't prefer kids but will grab one if the child is conveniently and persistently available with little perceived risk) is far larger than most people realize.
It is actually an ethics violation for a lawyer to claim a defendant is innocent that he knows his guilty.
Actually, I didn't address the issue of guilt or innocence. Neither would a defense attorney. They would phrase it as "You should vote not guilty." That can be a lie by misdirection but it's not claiming that a guilty defendant is innocent.
On other issues, lawyers lie all the time. Jury nullification, for example, was brought up at my last voire dire. (You know a prosecutor is desperate when *she's* the one who brings it up.) The case was a prime candidate - aggravated sexual assault of a child where the victim was 13 and the perp didn't look 18 yet (though he probably was or else we wouldn't have all been there). No matter on which side of the question you fall, that nullification is a sacred duty or the act of lawless idiots, any intellectually honest discussion of the practice will have to include the notions that reasonable people can disagree, William Penn did get acquitted, and the juries that helped runaway slaves were ultimately proven right and just. Did the prosecutor do that? No, she passionately denounced the practice as "cowardly, despicable, and wrong." I only realized later that she never actually used the word "illegal." That was yet another slick lie by misdirection.
So lawyers lie. It seems to be an accepted practice. I was just wondering why NYCL felt justified in saying that lying lawyers should be disbarred.
Not to be snarky, but maybe this is why you keep getting passed over for jury duty?
No offense taken. I doubt my attitudes are obvious, anyway.
I know why I don't get chosen, though. I work for the IRS.
I realize that sounds simplistic but it's true. It's been made obvious to me by the attorneys during questioning. I've spent time as an Officer and in IT, so I'm viewed as either too prejudiced in favor of the law-enforcement types or too logical. Either way, I get struck every time.
The truth about how much the "Save Our Children" folks will lie to garner sympathy, donations, fame, etc., hit me hard almost three decades ago.
The Phil Donahue show interviewed a guy from the major child protection outfit of the day. (I believe, though I'm not sure, that it was the NCMEC, back before they obtained quasi-governmental, beyond-reproach status.) This was back when the first scares about "your children are being targeted by slavers/devil worshippers/perverts" were first gearing up. The rep plainly and unambiguously said that 50,000 children a year go missing.
50,000.
The entire audience was nodding their heads and agreeing about how this was a terrible problem. Something, however, bothered me about that number. Then I remembered - I had done a report in school about casualties during the Vietnam war. We had about 50,000 casualties during the time period I looked at for the report.
Everyone I knew had some family member who was killed or injured in Vietnam. NOBODY known to me had a family member who was a "missing child." Something was wrong here. If 50,000 children a year went missing, there wouldn't have been anyone in that audience; they would have all been out looking for their children.
I actually did some investigating. The stats they were quoting resulted from adding up every possible definition of "missing child." They included children who were being cared for by the (legally) non-custodial parent. They included every runaway reported, even if the runaway child returned 10 minutes after the police were called. They included throwaways. They included every damn thing they could possibly count, including certain "projections" for any numbers they thought unreported. In other words, they weren't even terribly circumspect about the fact they were exaggerating like crazy.
Then I did some research on what we think of when we think of "missing child" - a little kid, snatched by a stranger for nefarious purposes. There wasn't a lot of data. The only organization that had done much research was the Illinois state police. They concluded that by-stranger abductions of pre-high school kids happened at a rate of, roughly, 50 to 150 times a year in the U.S. Those numbers had been stable for some time and, afaik, remain so today.
Yes, some kids to get snatched, raped, and murdered. But there are so few that it's impossible to protect against it since the circumstances are so statistically anomalous that they can't be predicted.
We would actually raise healthier, happier, more social and caring children if we'd teach them to strike up conversations with and be trusting of strangers at every opportunity. Strangers are so statistically unlikely to be a threat that they can be entirely discounted as such. Those 100 or so kids are going to cross paths with a truly evil person and die every year, anyway; there's no need to instill fear in all the rest to protect against something that can't really be stopped.
You wanna really protect little kids against real sexual abuse instead of wasting resources protecting them against some kid on the playground who steals a kiss or a boogeyman so rare as to be practically nonexistent? There are lots of guys who are a little dodgy but not a real threat; they would never dream of snatching a kid off the street. Put them in the house with a constantly available little girl or boy, however, and temptation starts to rise. If you really want to protect kids, here's what you do: Don't let Mom's new boyfriend move in. Even more generally - don't trust family members just because they're family members; they're the ones who will betray that trust.
That, however, isn't neat and easy like scaring parents because their kids are using the internet. That would actually require morality, hard work, a principled approach to the way people live their lives. That's way too much work. It'll never happen. Better to just go back to scaremongering.
I'm not trying to be funny, really, but I thought that lying was just what lawyers do.
I've spent many hours at the courthouse being passed over for jury duty and listened to a number of lawyers. I look at the defendant sitting there. I look at the lawyers. I know that they all know what actually happened and whether or not this guy should be found guilty.
Yet I also know that at the end of the trial, the prosecutor is going to tell the jury "You should find this guy guilty." The defense attorney is going to say "You should find this guy not guilty." It's my opinion that it's extremely rare for the circumstances of a case to be sufficiently fuzzy that these contradictory statements arise from a genuine, intellectually honest disagreement. Rather, one of them is lying and everyone in the courtroom knows it.
My local District Attorney office (Harris County, Texas) has been caught in so much misconduct going back so far that I can't trust a thing they say. Defense attorneys openly admit that most of their clients are guilty. Generally, I wouldn't want to have dinner with either side.
Is there anything left to believe in? Do you seriously believe that lawyers should be disbarred for lying? Or are you just parroting an ossified, nay, *dead* principle as a way of playing to this virtual audience?
No, I don't mean to be rude. I'm sorry if I come off that way. But something just struck a nerve, thus this little rant.
...he was just making too many assumptions and being too brief in his reply. I understood him completely. Since you didn't, I suggest you read this reply which says the same thing in lots more words (though hardly perfectly, IMO) and is a more appropriate response for people like you who haven't made their living as a photographer and, therefore, don't automatically know the difference between commercial contracts (almost always done as work for hire, unless the photographer is a major "name") and common consumer contracts (where the photographer retains more rights for reasons that are becoming less sensible as time and digital technology advancements march on).
Or you could even read this reply, which is about the best among all the people who've taken the time to respond to your question.
Your original question was reasonable and insightful, demonstrating perfectly forgivable and completely curable ignorance about an industry with which you have insufficient experience to understand. Don't screw it up by playing the smartass.
I made my living at wedding photography back in the dark ages. (I'm still a better photographer than 90% of the shooters I see exhibiting at bridal conventions. Still, that's not saying much, is it?) About 25 years ago, I changed career paths. Now I'm a few years from retirement and considering going back into wedding photography on a part-time basis. I don't need the money but I'd love to do it occasionally. The business model you describe is almost exactly the way I'd like to work.
If I knew who your wife was, I'd consider hiring her to consult for me. (Actually, just a few hours talking about the business would be all I need to know if I want to push forward with the idea.) In the absence of that information, do you know any person or organization that publishes applicable business process reference material? Back in the day, wedding seminars for photographers were a big business and I imagine they still are. Do you know of any that approach the business in a manner similar to what your wife does?
I note that the summary feels the need to mention the IRS, even though the IRS had only a brief paragraph in the article saying they had taken action against some snoopers. Some things you should know about the situation at the IRS:
The IRS was misused by Richard Nixon. Congress responded with certain privacy protections aimed right at the agency. As a reslut, for the last 30 years or so the IRS has been better than most places when it comes to snooping. Not perfect, but generally ahead of the curve.
25-30 years ago, when online data was just becoming ubiquitous within the agency but auditing protocols were laughable, snooping was more common. Nowadays, things have swung the other direction. Some, particularly the Union, would say too far. Currently, if you work at a Taxpayer Assistance Center helping the public, it's entirely possible that an investigation will be triggered when you assist someone (a complete stranger to you) who, it turns out, happens to live in your apartment block or your subdivision (along with a few thousand other people). The data mining that goes on, matching people's database accesses with any possible connection with their lives, is thorough to the point of ridiculousness. I have no doubt that the majority of people at the IRS who snoop get caught. I would not be surprised if the 219 disciplinary actions referred to in the article were 99%-plus of the perpetrators in the reported time period.
And the penalties are *harsh*. Disciplinary actions are taken for inadverdent accesses. Deliberate accesses get you fired. Flagrant deliberate accesses result in jail time. Yes, jail time. I've seen employees hauled out in handcuffs for this stuff. (I've also seen a flagrantly deliberate access case that resulted in jail time that was a total miscarriage of justice. The perp was previously a rising star as an Officer. She was a wonderful young woman. Then, she had a major stroke and lay on the floor of her apartment for three days over a weekend before she was found. Afterwards, her mental capacity was severely reduced and she could no longer do the Officer job, so she was moved to a support position. The organization really tried to keep her employed so she could keep her health insurance. People really went out on a limb for her, even though if you knew her before and after, you could have easily concluded that she should have left the Agency on a disability retirement. Given her reduced mental abilities, it just didn't click in her mind that it was a serious violation of the law to look up the tax records of every one of her coworkers so she could compile a list of their birthdays so she could plan parties. She was that far gone. When she was prosecuted, her lawyer was strictly forbidden by her family from using any sort of diminished capacity defense. They were too embarrassed that their superstar child had become...well...what she had become. They preferred she go to prison rather being forced to publicly admit they had a less-than-perfect daughter. So she went to prison for a while, lost any shot at a disability pension, and God only knows whatever became of her. It was rumored that her parents took her back to Korea but I never found out for sure.)
Finally, why the big increase in incidents? Simple. Up until about 7 years ago, the IRS was a very convenient political punching bag. Politicos loved to cut funding to the IRS because that always played well with the constituency. As a result, the agency hired damn near nobody for about 15 years, from the mid-1980s to about 2000. Recently, though, we've started hiring in droves. The newbies, who don't yet appreciate the culture and public service mission of the agency, are doing things they figure no one will care about. They're getting caught. That's a good thing.
219 disciplinary actions out of about 100,000 employees is, in the real world, pretty damn good.
Yes, I work for the IRS. No, this is not official communication; it represents my personal feelings only.
The only real question is when drive encryption becomes standard on drives.
For some of us, drive encryption has been standard for a long time.
At my job, we implement in software using
Winmagic.
At home, I've used
Flagstone drives for years. They're expensive (and for that reason I may soon switch to Seagate) but my peace of mind is worth a lot more.
Gotcha. In the U.S., at least in my jurisdiction, there would also be a court inquiry but it would be a mere formality. If someone's waving an axe, they're a deadly threat. I can't imagine anyone questioning that you'd be justified in shooting them. Same in the UK? Or not?
Indeed, I had a guy come at me with an axe a while back. I dialled 999 whilst backing off (fairly rapidly).
With credit to Massad Ayoob for his insightfulness -
You made a mistake by not helping this guy. You needed to communicate with him. You needed to ask him a deep, existential question that would cause him to question and reassess his actions, attitudes, and core beliefs in light of the impact he is having on the world and of the impact the world can have on him. You needed to ask him a question that would help him onto the path of nonviolent enlightenment.
Sometimes you can even ask such a question without using any words at all.
A question like -
"You don't really want me to shoot you in the face with this.38, do you?"
No. I've rented them on several occasions, just like I rented an F5 a few times before I bought one. After 2 or 3 rentals I knew that the F5 seemed right to me in all sorts of hard-to-describe ways that have to do mainly with handling. That was enough to convince me to buy. At the time, too, I was making quite a bit of money doing photojournalism-type work so the camera paid for itself rather quickly. That was an easy decision.
The DSLRs have been more of a problem for me. I've rented them occasionally, going back to some of those multi-kilo Nikon/Kodak hybrids. I always managed to run into problems that were deal-killers. I could get used to the Canon bodies but then I'd have to replace my Nikon lenses. I could use my lenses on the Nikon bodies, but the crop factor meant my standard lens, a 20-35mm f2.8, was no longer wide enough for the type of work I was doing. If I bought a wider lens, write speeds in RAW were a problem. Given that I was often working in nightclubs, image noise was a major turn-off. The big thing was handling - too many buttons with insufficient tactile feedback for when things were happening fast. By the time the cameras got good, my paid photo work had dropped off to nearly nothing so it became a problem to justify the expense.
Nowadays, my attitude is changing. My home computer is fast enough to work well with digital imaging applications. Nikon has a full-frame camera that won't make me buy shorter lenses. Realistically, I know I can adapt to any control setup; I've done it before with a Speed Graphic, a baby Rollei, and a Rapid Omega, among others. And I have more money now than I did "back in the day." The time has come to rent a D3 two or three times and go ahead and take the plunge.
My previously expressed desire for a digital ZLR is just a function of my reality - I can't make a cold, hard, logical case for buying a DSLR system camera, even though full system cameras are all I've used since 1972 when I got my first Nikon F. Thus, a good all-in-one camera has some attraction for me. But the kind of camera I want doesn't exist, so I can go down-market to a point-and-shoot or up to a D3. It's a strange set of personal attributes and situations that render cameras in between those two extremes rather un-compelling for me; I'd rather continue to use my F5 than try on a D80. But the D3? That makes sense to me.
I wonder if my old rental-shop counter guy is still around? I may just have to call him up today.
Good camera gear is so damn expensive and such a hassle though. I hate cleaning the camera sensor - it's such a hit and miss affair with the equipment I use and it takes hours (only to be ruined by a lens change even in a clean environ.
As much as people like to put down the concept of high-dollar, fixed lens cameras, I think you just hit the nail on the head as to why they are loved by some of us. The Sony 828 and R1, for example, take great pictures with their great lenses. The full-size sensor of the R1 is wonderful, even if the camera has quirks and is crippled by that damn EVF. (All EVFs are damnable gizmos; I can't use 'em worth crap.) I've used both but never taken the plunge to buy. Still, I know that I want something like this.
My main camera is a Nikon F5. What I want is a fixed-lens SLR (what used to be called, back when film was king, a ZLR or zoom-lens relfex; Olympus made a couple of nice ones) with a quality-not-quantity, full-35mm size sensor and a 24 to 75 (or longer) f2.8 (at worst; faster would be better, especially on the short end) lens. I need RAW output. I need easy external flash, preferably a capable and powerful dedicated system but I'll accept just a strong hot shoe. Beyond that, everything else is negotiable. I don't even care if it has an LCD on the back as long as I can look through the lens. I'll probably do 98% of my shooting in digital the day after that camera becomes available.
If the same camera came without a zoom but with a premium all-around lens, like a 35/f1.4, I'd probably buy that, too. In fact, I'd buy three identical cameras if they came with three different lenses that adequately covered my needs, say a 24/f1.4, a 45/f2, and a 90/f2.
OK, now I'm just dreaming the sort of fevered hallucinations that can only come from a guy who loved his 43-86 fixed-lens Nikkorex.
Rant over while I go ponder how old that just made me sound.
...you are only allowed to carry guns you qualified on and registered as your CC side arm. My understanding is that this is pretty much in every state's CC laws...
I have a real problem with having to specify the handgun you're going to carry. I've carried several different guns, depending on what I'm wearing and the occasion. I'd hate to have to specify all my carry guns on my license in advance. What happens when I buy a new one?
In Texas, if you qualify with a revolver, you can only carry a revolver. If you qualify with an autopistol, you can carry any handgun. At no time do we have to choose in advance and notify the state of our chosen carry gun for the day. Having to do so seems incredibly weird to me.
Of course, the existence of places where a non-trivial percentage of people are not always armed seems pretty weird to me, too. But I've heard that such places exist.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm nearly 50 years old. You have no idea how embarrassed I am that I actually understood that statement.
That was interesting. There's being an asshole because you're good; people will tolerate that. Then there's being an asshole just because you can get away with it; in my experience, people don't stand for that very long.
I accept that my experience may be invalid. But if I see a non-handicapped vehicle (no hang tag, no plates, no equipment inside or out, no adaptive controls, etc.) parked in a handicapped space, I don't care if it was parked there by God himself, I'm on the phone to the police. I take care of two disabled family members who live with me and I appreciate how important those spaces are. There are lots of people like me.
Am I supposed to believe that there's no one either working at or who has ever visited Apple who has sufficient personal integrity and testicular fortitude to report a crime in progress when they see it? Hell, even if you work there and reporting it gets you fired, you can probably parlay "I was the guy who stood up to Steve Jobs" into 15 minutes of blogosphere fame; these days, that's almost enough to build a career on.
And the article lets this thing go as if it were just a personality quirk?!?! I don't get it.
Your heart is in the right place. I really believe that. My experience leads me to believe differently but I still respect your viewpoint as forward-thinking, a goal for the future. Still, I think you overstate your case when you say
Some years ago a man who wanted nothing more than my death unloaded a shotgun in my direction. I was not in danger. He was a drunken fool, unable to aim and too far away to be effective. I had the option to conceal myself and chose it.
At no time, however, did I think to myself "I should go over there and use the force of my thought to dissuade him from shooting at me." Oddly, perhaps, that thought never crossed my mind. "I wish I had an option other than running and hiding" did occur to me, along with "If the .44 revolver in the trunk of my car was, instead, in my hand, I'd be in a better position."
Some years before that my mother was gang-raped in the washateria of her apartment complex. Of all the thoughts and feelings she had at the time and since and has been willing to discuss with me, the notion that she should have used the force of her thoughts to stop them has never been mentioned. She has, however, from time to time expressed regret that she neglected to take her .45 with her that day when she did the wash.
I reject the notion that either of us is evil, dumb, or insecure because we place value on the concept of possessing the means to meet violence with superior violence. I submit that we are quite secure that our view of the world is reasonable when it leads us to the conclusion the owning a gun is a good thing for good people.
I grant that you are correct that owning a gun is a bad thing for bad people. Find a way to make them give up theirs first and maybe we can make some real progress.
Agreed. But that provides no justification for denying the noble man the use of arms. Quite the opposite.
That's so true.
Personally, I love the more acute grip angle of Lugers, Ruger MKs, and Glocks. 1911s feel like bricks to me, forcing my wrist to an odd angle.
I've observed the same thing with the Remington XP100. The old Zytel middle-grip stocks were almost universally loathed. I loved 'em. Recently, they've gone up in price but for years I could pick them up for $10-$25 all day long and play with modifying and painting them. Nowadays they cost more but they're still cheaper than the $200+ unfinished replacement stocks you can buy from third parties.
And triggers? Holy cow, I think I could write a book. I hated my rear-grip Wichita with the Canjar Lite-Pull. That was a safe 2-ounce trigger. By itself, that was a huge achievement. But the trigger felt like garbage. It was creepy with an unpredictable letoff. I now have a 2-ounce Jewell BR-style trigger in that pistol and it makes all the difference in the world.
Yep, it comes down to interface. It's possible to find plenty of different designs that are reliable and accurate but the final choice is made by how the pistol feels. IMO, that's as it should be.
Actually, I specified "serious" classes. Go to the temple of the 1911, Gunsite, and check out what mid-level civilian training class attendees bring. Those people already shoot better than 99%+ of the folks on the planet. Their judgement is something that can, in the aggregate, be relied on. And in those classes you'll see an about-even split between 1911s and Glocks.
You're quite right that cops were early adopters. Later, Sig aggressively went after that market with improved pricing. It's easy to see lots of either in duty holsters. None of that supports your contention that Glocks are junk. I have 2, of various vintages. They've seen, between them, over 50K rounds. Nothing has ever broken (although I have buggered up that plastic front sight on my early M17). I know that my Glocks aren't junk. I can't imagine why you'd say they are. No, they're not elegant, graceful, or pretty. They are not "fine" equipment like a Rolex is a fine watch. It is even fair to say that the great Cooper was correct when he denigrated them as "a machine for throwing balls." But sometimes a machine for throwing balls, every time, without fail, is exactly what you want.
If I want a pistol that says "not junk" by saying "built like a fine timepiece," I'll pull out my Wichita pistol. When I just want to perforate paper up close or be comforted by a reliable bedside table companion, I'll take my Glock.
Quality thinking is rare enough that it should be rewarded.
Firearms are an area where this dynamic is often seen. There are lots of gee-whiz techno toys in that arena - caseless ammo, (that fucking stupid overhyped) MetalStorm (shit), etc. But when you really need reliability, like when you're relying on a piece of hardware to save your life, you tend to want the tried and true.
:-)
The best example I can think of? The Colt model of 1911 is still considered by lots of people to be the finest fighting sidearm ever. It certainly was in its day. That day lasted until the mid-1980s when the Glock came along. It's taken 20 years, but if you attend a *serious* personal defense class (not one of those "get your carry license in a day" things) where the students select and bring their own sidearm, you'll generally find something close to an even split between 1911s and Glocks. It's taken more than 20 years for a superior design to achieve acceptance by the cognescenti.
Old and obsolete often means tried and true. When I'm betting my life, I like the idea of tried and true. That attitude is often displayed by thoughtful folks in all areas of their life; we like what works and will change only when something demonstrably better is available and the inconvenience of using the old tech becomes sufficiently painful.
In other news, I'm considering switching to a digital camera any day now.
Are there any HTTP to email servers left out there? You sent an email to an address with the URL as the subject; the server on the other end fetched the web page and mailed you a copy.
I occasionally have use for such a thing but the last server I used for this (maintained at a Japanese university, iirc) shut down years ago.
The Absolute Sound, back in the day, was a literate, thoughtful magazine devoted to high quality sound reproduction in the home. It was heavy on the "listen to it and describe what you hear" and tended to discount the "hook it up and measure it" methods of testing. Nevertheless, it was wonderful. The publisher, a guy named Harry Pearson, had some belief in astrology. He described it as just an indicator and didn't seem a slavish adherent but just the fact that a guy so dedicated to rigorous thought expressed precisely could assign any weight at all to such nonsense floored me.
Now, here's why I get twisted around. I let my subscription go. There were some problems getting it to me; their servicing bureau screwed up. The focus of the magazine had started to diverge from mine. And that whole astrology thing really bugged me; it put me over the top.
But...should it have? Pearson's writing was as good as ever. Pretty much all of the contributors were excellent. The magazine was worth the money just for the entertainment value. Yet I let it go because the head guy believed at least a little in astrology, even if it was just as a shorthand for understanding personality types. In the years since, I've come to believe that I acted wrongly and let prejudice against a perceived willful ignorance lead me to a decision not in my self-interest. I should be willing to ignore harmless affectations.
Yet I couldn't. *This* one really bugged me. Why, I wonder? And is the same true of others? Yes, I'm willing to denounce astrology as stupid but I shouldn't toss away its adherents, should I? After all, they can otherwise be wonderful people.
Why is astrology such a deal-breaker for so many of us who consider ourselves fairly intelligent and logical?
The summary (and, I assume, the article) talks about far-reaching effects. They're not kidding.
:-)
I have diabetes. Despite my best efforts, my blood glucose control was poor until recently. I knew I needed to eat right; I was doing that pretty well. I knew I needed to exercise; I was doing poorly. I seemed to hit a brick wall every time I tried to fit regular exercise into my routine.
I sort-of knew that I needed to get a good night's sleep. I never did.
A while back, I was so exhausted I actually set aside time to sleep for two nights in a row. I got 11 hours sleep each night. By that third day, something weird was going on. My blood sugar kept dropping low. I had to eat some carbs to bring it up, but my BG readings didn't jump high and stay there like I usually expect when I consume those carbs.
Since then I've found a direct correlation - If I get 10 hours of good sleep (I've always needed more sleep than most people), my BG stays in control. I'm ramping up my exercise and losing weight and if this keeps up, at my next consult with my endo, I'm going to explore going off my meds as an experiment.
And to think - a few months ago, we were discussing how soon the inevitable was going to come to pass and I'd have to start injecting insulin. It's tough to leave the computer untouched and not watch TV every evening when I come home from work. Basically, during the 5-day work week, I just work, commute, and sleep. But I can live with that. In fact, I'm living a lot better with that. I use my Tivo to catch up during the weekends and my computer does pre-scheduled runs at usenet all day during the off-peak, unmetered access times specified by my usenet provider. I just process all that stuff on Saturdays. And I post to Slashdot from work.
Moral? Life is better when you sleep. It may even turn out to be a hell of a lot longer, too.
To me, the "default" desktop background is the one I choose when I set up my machine. The notion of just accepting what's there never occurs to me.
I don't see what's so bad about brown. All my default desktop background choices are sorta brown, anyway. "Flesh" is sort of brown, isn't it?
Well, maybe not. There's usually a lot of pink involved, too.
Thanks. That is a meaningful expansion of what I was saying. I should not have glossed over the notion that the 50-150 per year figure I was quoting was for abductions by complete strangers. There's probably an identifiable set of crimes committed by people barely known to the family/child, such as a neighbor. And there are family members who don't actually live in the house. Those situations are tough to call since people tend to say "I know that guy; he wouldn't do that" even when they don't *really* know the guy since there has only been casual contact.
My point was that the threat we work so hard to avoid, the complete stranger in the trench coat hanging out at the playground, is essentially nonexistent in the sense that he's so rare that changing the way you live your life to avoid him is an irrational reaction. My point is that we'd increase real security without making ourselves and our offspring paranoid if we'd abandon the useless security theater and just open our eyes to the notion that Uncle Charlie might be a nice guy but if you gave him lots of opportunity, he'd be willing to get his jollies with a little kid. The number of people (yes, mostly guys) who fit that profile (I'm not sure but I think it's called "situational pedophilia," a label for folks who would never seek out and don't prefer kids but will grab one if the child is conveniently and persistently available with little perceived risk) is far larger than most people realize.
Actually, I didn't address the issue of guilt or innocence. Neither would a defense attorney. They would phrase it as "You should vote not guilty." That can be a lie by misdirection but it's not claiming that a guilty defendant is innocent.
On other issues, lawyers lie all the time. Jury nullification, for example, was brought up at my last voire dire. (You know a prosecutor is desperate when *she's* the one who brings it up.) The case was a prime candidate - aggravated sexual assault of a child where the victim was 13 and the perp didn't look 18 yet (though he probably was or else we wouldn't have all been there). No matter on which side of the question you fall, that nullification is a sacred duty or the act of lawless idiots, any intellectually honest discussion of the practice will have to include the notions that reasonable people can disagree, William Penn did get acquitted, and the juries that helped runaway slaves were ultimately proven right and just. Did the prosecutor do that? No, she passionately denounced the practice as "cowardly, despicable, and wrong." I only realized later that she never actually used the word "illegal." That was yet another slick lie by misdirection.
So lawyers lie. It seems to be an accepted practice. I was just wondering why NYCL felt justified in saying that lying lawyers should be disbarred.
No offense taken. I doubt my attitudes are obvious, anyway.
I know why I don't get chosen, though. I work for the IRS.
I realize that sounds simplistic but it's true. It's been made obvious to me by the attorneys during questioning. I've spent time as an Officer and in IT, so I'm viewed as either too prejudiced in favor of the law-enforcement types or too logical. Either way, I get struck every time.
The truth about how much the "Save Our Children" folks will lie to garner sympathy, donations, fame, etc., hit me hard almost three decades ago.
The Phil Donahue show interviewed a guy from the major child protection outfit of the day. (I believe, though I'm not sure, that it was the NCMEC, back before they obtained quasi-governmental, beyond-reproach status.) This was back when the first scares about "your children are being targeted by slavers/devil worshippers/perverts" were first gearing up. The rep plainly and unambiguously said that 50,000 children a year go missing.
50,000.
The entire audience was nodding their heads and agreeing about how this was a terrible problem. Something, however, bothered me about that number. Then I remembered - I had done a report in school about casualties during the Vietnam war. We had about 50,000 casualties during the time period I looked at for the report.
Everyone I knew had some family member who was killed or injured in Vietnam. NOBODY known to me had a family member who was a "missing child." Something was wrong here. If 50,000 children a year went missing, there wouldn't have been anyone in that audience; they would have all been out looking for their children.
I actually did some investigating. The stats they were quoting resulted from adding up every possible definition of "missing child." They included children who were being cared for by the (legally) non-custodial parent. They included every runaway reported, even if the runaway child returned 10 minutes after the police were called. They included throwaways. They included every damn thing they could possibly count, including certain "projections" for any numbers they thought unreported. In other words, they weren't even terribly circumspect about the fact they were exaggerating like crazy.
Then I did some research on what we think of when we think of "missing child" - a little kid, snatched by a stranger for nefarious purposes. There wasn't a lot of data. The only organization that had done much research was the Illinois state police. They concluded that by-stranger abductions of pre-high school kids happened at a rate of, roughly, 50 to 150 times a year in the U.S. Those numbers had been stable for some time and, afaik, remain so today.
Yes, some kids to get snatched, raped, and murdered. But there are so few that it's impossible to protect against it since the circumstances are so statistically anomalous that they can't be predicted.
We would actually raise healthier, happier, more social and caring children if we'd teach them to strike up conversations with and be trusting of strangers at every opportunity. Strangers are so statistically unlikely to be a threat that they can be entirely discounted as such. Those 100 or so kids are going to cross paths with a truly evil person and die every year, anyway; there's no need to instill fear in all the rest to protect against something that can't really be stopped.
You wanna really protect little kids against real sexual abuse instead of wasting resources protecting them against some kid on the playground who steals a kiss or a boogeyman so rare as to be practically nonexistent? There are lots of guys who are a little dodgy but not a real threat; they would never dream of snatching a kid off the street. Put them in the house with a constantly available little girl or boy, however, and temptation starts to rise. If you really want to protect kids, here's what you do: Don't let Mom's new boyfriend move in. Even more generally - don't trust family members just because they're family members; they're the ones who will betray that trust.
That, however, isn't neat and easy like scaring parents because their kids are using the internet. That would actually require morality, hard work, a principled approach to the way people live their lives. That's way too much work. It'll never happen. Better to just go back to scaremongering.
I'm not trying to be funny, really, but I thought that lying was just what lawyers do.
I've spent many hours at the courthouse being passed over for jury duty and listened to a number of lawyers. I look at the defendant sitting there. I look at the lawyers. I know that they all know what actually happened and whether or not this guy should be found guilty.
Yet I also know that at the end of the trial, the prosecutor is going to tell the jury "You should find this guy guilty." The defense attorney is going to say "You should find this guy not guilty." It's my opinion that it's extremely rare for the circumstances of a case to be sufficiently fuzzy that these contradictory statements arise from a genuine, intellectually honest disagreement. Rather, one of them is lying and everyone in the courtroom knows it.
My local District Attorney office (Harris County, Texas) has been caught in so much misconduct going back so far that I can't trust a thing they say. Defense attorneys openly admit that most of their clients are guilty. Generally, I wouldn't want to have dinner with either side.
Is there anything left to believe in? Do you seriously believe that lawyers should be disbarred for lying? Or are you just parroting an ossified, nay, *dead* principle as a way of playing to this virtual audience?
No, I don't mean to be rude. I'm sorry if I come off that way. But something just struck a nerve, thus this little rant.
...he was just making too many assumptions and being too brief in his reply. I understood him completely. Since you didn't, I suggest you read this reply which says the same thing in lots more words (though hardly perfectly, IMO) and is a more appropriate response for people like you who haven't made their living as a photographer and, therefore, don't automatically know the difference between commercial contracts (almost always done as work for hire, unless the photographer is a major "name") and common consumer contracts (where the photographer retains more rights for reasons that are becoming less sensible as time and digital technology advancements march on).
Or you could even read this reply, which is about the best among all the people who've taken the time to respond to your question.
Your original question was reasonable and insightful, demonstrating perfectly forgivable and completely curable ignorance about an industry with which you have insufficient experience to understand. Don't screw it up by playing the smartass.
It's too bad you posted anon.
I made my living at wedding photography back in the dark ages. (I'm still a better photographer than 90% of the shooters I see exhibiting at bridal conventions. Still, that's not saying much, is it?) About 25 years ago, I changed career paths. Now I'm a few years from retirement and considering going back into wedding photography on a part-time basis. I don't need the money but I'd love to do it occasionally. The business model you describe is almost exactly the way I'd like to work.
If I knew who your wife was, I'd consider hiring her to consult for me. (Actually, just a few hours talking about the business would be all I need to know if I want to push forward with the idea.) In the absence of that information, do you know any person or organization that publishes applicable business process reference material? Back in the day, wedding seminars for photographers were a big business and I imagine they still are. Do you know of any that approach the business in a manner similar to what your wife does?
TIA for any info.
I note that the summary feels the need to mention the IRS, even though the IRS had only a brief paragraph in the article saying they had taken action against some snoopers. Some things you should know about the situation at the IRS:
The IRS was misused by Richard Nixon. Congress responded with certain privacy protections aimed right at the agency. As a reslut, for the last 30 years or so the IRS has been better than most places when it comes to snooping. Not perfect, but generally ahead of the curve.
25-30 years ago, when online data was just becoming ubiquitous within the agency but auditing protocols were laughable, snooping was more common. Nowadays, things have swung the other direction. Some, particularly the Union, would say too far. Currently, if you work at a Taxpayer Assistance Center helping the public, it's entirely possible that an investigation will be triggered when you assist someone (a complete stranger to you) who, it turns out, happens to live in your apartment block or your subdivision (along with a few thousand other people). The data mining that goes on, matching people's database accesses with any possible connection with their lives, is thorough to the point of ridiculousness. I have no doubt that the majority of people at the IRS who snoop get caught. I would not be surprised if the 219 disciplinary actions referred to in the article were 99%-plus of the perpetrators in the reported time period.
And the penalties are *harsh*. Disciplinary actions are taken for inadverdent accesses. Deliberate accesses get you fired. Flagrant deliberate accesses result in jail time. Yes, jail time. I've seen employees hauled out in handcuffs for this stuff. (I've also seen a flagrantly deliberate access case that resulted in jail time that was a total miscarriage of justice. The perp was previously a rising star as an Officer. She was a wonderful young woman. Then, she had a major stroke and lay on the floor of her apartment for three days over a weekend before she was found. Afterwards, her mental capacity was severely reduced and she could no longer do the Officer job, so she was moved to a support position. The organization really tried to keep her employed so she could keep her health insurance. People really went out on a limb for her, even though if you knew her before and after, you could have easily concluded that she should have left the Agency on a disability retirement. Given her reduced mental abilities, it just didn't click in her mind that it was a serious violation of the law to look up the tax records of every one of her coworkers so she could compile a list of their birthdays so she could plan parties. She was that far gone. When she was prosecuted, her lawyer was strictly forbidden by her family from using any sort of diminished capacity defense. They were too embarrassed that their superstar child had become...well...what she had become. They preferred she go to prison rather being forced to publicly admit they had a less-than-perfect daughter. So she went to prison for a while, lost any shot at a disability pension, and God only knows whatever became of her. It was rumored that her parents took her back to Korea but I never found out for sure.)
Finally, why the big increase in incidents? Simple. Up until about 7 years ago, the IRS was a very convenient political punching bag. Politicos loved to cut funding to the IRS because that always played well with the constituency. As a result, the agency hired damn near nobody for about 15 years, from the mid-1980s to about 2000. Recently, though, we've started hiring in droves. The newbies, who don't yet appreciate the culture and public service mission of the agency, are doing things they figure no one will care about. They're getting caught. That's a good thing.
219 disciplinary actions out of about 100,000 employees is, in the real world, pretty damn good.
Yes, I work for the IRS. No, this is not official communication; it represents my personal feelings only.
For some of us, drive encryption has been standard for a long time.
At my job, we implement in software using Winmagic.
At home, I've used Flagstone drives for years. They're expensive (and for that reason I may soon switch to Seagate) but my peace of mind is worth a lot more.
Gotcha. In the U.S., at least in my jurisdiction, there would also be a court inquiry but it would be a mere formality. If someone's waving an axe, they're a deadly threat. I can't imagine anyone questioning that you'd be justified in shooting them. Same in the UK? Or not?
With credit to Massad Ayoob for his insightfulness -
You made a mistake by not helping this guy. You needed to communicate with him. You needed to ask him a deep, existential question that would cause him to question and reassess his actions, attitudes, and core beliefs in light of the impact he is having on the world and of the impact the world can have on him. You needed to ask him a question that would help him onto the path of nonviolent enlightenment.
Sometimes you can even ask such a question without using any words at all.
A question like -
"You don't really want me to shoot you in the face with this .38, do you?"
Oh, wait. You're in the UK.
Never mind...
No. I've rented them on several occasions, just like I rented an F5 a few times before I bought one. After 2 or 3 rentals I knew that the F5 seemed right to me in all sorts of hard-to-describe ways that have to do mainly with handling. That was enough to convince me to buy. At the time, too, I was making quite a bit of money doing photojournalism-type work so the camera paid for itself rather quickly. That was an easy decision.
The DSLRs have been more of a problem for me. I've rented them occasionally, going back to some of those multi-kilo Nikon/Kodak hybrids. I always managed to run into problems that were deal-killers. I could get used to the Canon bodies but then I'd have to replace my Nikon lenses. I could use my lenses on the Nikon bodies, but the crop factor meant my standard lens, a 20-35mm f2.8, was no longer wide enough for the type of work I was doing. If I bought a wider lens, write speeds in RAW were a problem. Given that I was often working in nightclubs, image noise was a major turn-off. The big thing was handling - too many buttons with insufficient tactile feedback for when things were happening fast. By the time the cameras got good, my paid photo work had dropped off to nearly nothing so it became a problem to justify the expense.
Nowadays, my attitude is changing. My home computer is fast enough to work well with digital imaging applications. Nikon has a full-frame camera that won't make me buy shorter lenses. Realistically, I know I can adapt to any control setup; I've done it before with a Speed Graphic, a baby Rollei, and a Rapid Omega, among others. And I have more money now than I did "back in the day." The time has come to rent a D3 two or three times and go ahead and take the plunge.
My previously expressed desire for a digital ZLR is just a function of my reality - I can't make a cold, hard, logical case for buying a DSLR system camera, even though full system cameras are all I've used since 1972 when I got my first Nikon F. Thus, a good all-in-one camera has some attraction for me. But the kind of camera I want doesn't exist, so I can go down-market to a point-and-shoot or up to a D3. It's a strange set of personal attributes and situations that render cameras in between those two extremes rather un-compelling for me; I'd rather continue to use my F5 than try on a D80. But the D3? That makes sense to me.
I wonder if my old rental-shop counter guy is still around? I may just have to call him up today.
As much as people like to put down the concept of high-dollar, fixed lens cameras, I think you just hit the nail on the head as to why they are loved by some of us. The Sony 828 and R1, for example, take great pictures with their great lenses. The full-size sensor of the R1 is wonderful, even if the camera has quirks and is crippled by that damn EVF. (All EVFs are damnable gizmos; I can't use 'em worth crap.) I've used both but never taken the plunge to buy. Still, I know that I want something like this.
My main camera is a Nikon F5. What I want is a fixed-lens SLR (what used to be called, back when film was king, a ZLR or zoom-lens relfex; Olympus made a couple of nice ones) with a quality-not-quantity, full-35mm size sensor and a 24 to 75 (or longer) f2.8 (at worst; faster would be better, especially on the short end) lens. I need RAW output. I need easy external flash, preferably a capable and powerful dedicated system but I'll accept just a strong hot shoe. Beyond that, everything else is negotiable. I don't even care if it has an LCD on the back as long as I can look through the lens. I'll probably do 98% of my shooting in digital the day after that camera becomes available.
If the same camera came without a zoom but with a premium all-around lens, like a 35/f1.4, I'd probably buy that, too. In fact, I'd buy three identical cameras if they came with three different lenses that adequately covered my needs, say a 24/f1.4, a 45/f2, and a 90/f2.
OK, now I'm just dreaming the sort of fevered hallucinations that can only come from a guy who loved his 43-86 fixed-lens Nikkorex.
Rant over while I go ponder how old that just made me sound.
I wonder how many of our youthful readers are staring at your post, muttering "WTF?"
Poor kids...
I have a real problem with having to specify the handgun you're going to carry. I've carried several different guns, depending on what I'm wearing and the occasion. I'd hate to have to specify all my carry guns on my license in advance. What happens when I buy a new one?
In Texas, if you qualify with a revolver, you can only carry a revolver. If you qualify with an autopistol, you can carry any handgun. At no time do we have to choose in advance and notify the state of our chosen carry gun for the day. Having to do so seems incredibly weird to me.
Of course, the existence of places where a non-trivial percentage of people are not always armed seems pretty weird to me, too. But I've heard that such places exist. :-)