MattH

It's all a load of hot air.   Read noise is all they need to measure.

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

It's not a shame to admit that you are a KKK/White Power/buy guns everywhere/Wannabe Ultra rich/Trophy girlfriends/Chauvinist sympathizer. This is the government you vote for, you must be proud.

Haven't watched CNN not even 15 minutes for the whole year by the way.. 

P.S Of course you are not, but this is what you vote for. Maybe you are a victim of your system. Only 2 political parties? This is not democratic at all..Check the Swiss democratic system to note the vast differences between them.

Anyway, this is what John Weaver, (Republican) said about Bannon (you know him, right?) “The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office. Be very vigilant America.”. He is not trying to be poetic.

Umm, I'm not even American so I didn't vote for anyone in this election.  Nor have I actually said anything positive about trump whatsoever.  It seems to be that you have created a bogey man in your head, and seem keen to superimpose this bogey man of your own making on to other people willy nilly.

When I said CNN narrative, I didn't mean CNN specifically. I meant the narrative specifically. CNN was just an example.  The narrative on CNN is the same narrative peddled by the majority of the mainstream media in the US and in the UK.  And no doubt Europe.  Its a 100% biased narrative.  Just as Fox news is biased one way.  Every single other channel was 100% biased the other way.  And you regurgitated the entire over the top and off-base narrative.

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

The guy admited commiting these acts. Spending so much mind power to try to prove the unprovable is plain sad. 

The people he said that he will put in his government are favorable of the white power movement and pro-guns. He even said that he would prefer teachers have guns to control violence in schools. KKK,yes, the famous one, not the Kupa Keep one (Cartman's team in Stick of Truth) declares that for the first time there is a worthy president, and from 3 things that he thank just after his election, one was the NationalGunAssociation.

The guy said on public television "that if she wasn't my daughter, I would date her", he has insulted almost every minority in the whole world (except KKK ofcourse), women, lgbt community, muslims, latinos, blacks, poor, eastern European countries, Germany, South European countries, Japan, Korea, and I am sure some others for sure, he respecta Putin and Erdogan, 2 of the most autocratic and imperialistic rulers (that rule since forever by the way, because of the new laws they discover everytime), he born ultra super rich (not a working class hero I guess) and he always was consider women as his trophys.

You can vote for whatever you want, and I will support your right (as I did here as well, I commented 4-5 times and didn't insult anyone for his vote) but do not play with logic, reasoning and common sense, some things are objective, and you are not only "loosing face" (what a degrading term, only fools loose face, wise people learn from their mistakes and they are open to other people's wisdom or knowledge) but your whole substitute.

I feel for you man.  I'm all for criticising people where criticism is due.  It's nonsense and blowing things out of proportion that irritate me.  I think its interesting that you have basically regurgitated the whole CNN media narrative, proven by the fact that you have actually missed the one element that Trump should be criticised on more than any other: The fact that he supports waterboarding and 'stronger than waterboarding'.  Of course the media stopped talking about that because it wasn't juicy enough to put in their headlines.  The fact that he said that and you are whinging about what he said about his daughter:  That tells me what I need to know.

23 minutes ago, Richard Bugg said:

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. You have an interesting take on the matter. However, it might not surprise you that I don't agree with your conclusions. In the first instance, the timing has no relevance as to wether or not an assault(s) actually took place. It either did or it didn't and the timing of the publicising of the matter won't change that one iota. What will matter is evidence, both Trump's apparent confession, the evidence of the women involved, and any other relevant evidence. There would undoubtably be political relevance in making the matter public, but not legal relevance. Second, I don't concede that his apparent admission has been debunked. It is neither bunked, nor debunked by your opinion, or mine. There may be other explanations, such as he was trying to impress the reporter with his aggressive machismo, but I find it more likely that he was simply describing what he has done and felt that he could get away with when he thought he wasn't being recorded. Your alternative suggestions seem a little too creative and forced for my mind. It will be interesting to see if the matter makes it to court. I was hoping the Trump University matter would proceed to trial, but alas not.

Thank you. You have in a way agreed to what I said, though you said it in such a way to try and save face.  The fact that you accept there are other possible meanings for what he said disqualifies his comments from being declared an admission or confession.   As an admission would have to be explicit.  A confession would have to be an admission of all facts neccesary for conviction of a crime.

As for the timing of the allegations. It is true that the timing has no bearing on whether the allegations are true or not.  I didn't say that it did.  What the timing has a great bearing on is whether people believe the allegation are true.  It effects the believing, not the truth itself.
It should also be noted for the record that an allegation existing also has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

1 hour ago, Richard Bugg said:

In many western jurisdictions sexual assault is considered any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Forced kissing and grabbing women by the genitals would appear to fit that definition. There seems to be a line-up of women claiming to have been groped and kissed forcefully and without consent - therefore sexually assaulted - by Trump. These claims that appear to be reinforced by his own words. Are you saying that in your view these claims are baseless and that DT was not speaking the truth on the bus?

Firstly, surely you cant honestly be telling me the timing of these allegations (and the relevance of this timing) has eluded you? Can you?

Not a peep for 69 years and then pumf, a few weeks before a presidential election they all emerge from no-where with their half assed tittle tattle stories.  I feel sorry if one of them is telling the truth because this was the worst possible time to come out.
This was an obvious last ditch attempt at mud slinging.  Any fool can see that.
And apart from with drama queens the mud hasn’t stuck.

As for whether he has in fact ever committed such an act, I cant say, and neither can you.
To be intellectually honest we must separate fact from opinion.

With respect to the tape, We are not asking whether he has in fact commited such acts, We are not asking whether it is your opinion that he has committed such acts. We are asking whether he is admitting to doing so.  And to be an admission it has to be explicit.

Lets take the easiest first.  The grabbing by the pussy comment. Could it be be admitting to actually grabbing a women by the crotch as soon as he meets them? It's possible. I cant say for sure it isn't.  But could he mean something else? Please be honest with yourself.  In my opinion it is highly unlikely that he would suddenly admit this in this situation.  What it clearly is in my opinion is a ridiculous hypothetical.
Imagine, for example, he had said “grab em by the pussy like scorpion from mortal combat”.  Would that be an admission that he fires a grappling hook from his wrist in to womens groin. Or would you accept it as a ridiculous hypothetical.

As for the “I don’t wait” comment.  Where in that sentence does he make any reference to consent?
Waiting, as far as I am aware, relates to time, not consent.  Could he be saying that he kisses women immediately even if they don’t want to? Possibly. But could he also be saying that he just does't mess around going on dates, and he goes in for the kill at the earliest reasonable occasion? Any honest non drama queen would have to accept that he could be saying this also.  He also could be bullshitting completely. That is another possibility.

So I hope that you can concede that this notion that he admitted anything has been thoroughly debunked.

As for my opinion of what he has done.  Say we had a crystal ball and could watch his entire life and could bet on it.   I would bet that on occasion he has been more forward with women then I ever would be. Probably kissed them when they were to embarrassed to shut him down. I doubt he has ever said “Can I kiss you?” or acquired written permission, but seriously, who has?  Would I bet that he has ever forced himself on someone in any way more than this. No I wouldn’t.
That is my hunch, which is as good as your hunch. But they are both hunches.

8 hours ago, Damphousse said:

There is a serial sex assaulter and a white supremacist in the White House.  And this makes you happy?!

I realize you must be one of those one issue voters but you need to wake up and start seeing the world as the complex thing that it is.  Going on and on about Syria while the sex assaulter in chief appoints a climate change denier to the EPA is delusional.  When the entire planet is polluted no one is even going to remember there was a war in Syria.  Wake up!

Wow, you really have drunk the cool aid!  Trump is no Florence Nightingale but "serial sex assaulter" and "white supremacist"? Come on man, you're making yourself look silly.

21 hours ago, Simon Shasha said:

I have seen a handful of reports about what ISIS has done in regards to my people. What I wish to uncover and show is how the more "moderate rebels", as Western media phrases it, have also done the exact same things to us that ISIS have. That is what I was getting at.

Though I disagree with some parts of the article, i.e. "U.S.-led Western coalition trying to restore stability with an as-yet-unidentified new regime" (that's a nice way of saying "we're trying to overthrow a government and replace it with a government that is favourable to us"), I am glad to see my people's plight get exposure, regardless. 

The only issue I would take in how you phrase things is using the word "Western" or "US led".  There is no more a coherent western position than there is a coherent Syrian position.  By saying western it sounds to some that you are against 'western' liberalist values such as free speech etc, which I am sure is not the case.   If you were to say "Globalist corporatist factions of the western establishment" or something along those lines, it would help avoid this misconception.

The fact is that these factions are only getting away with this because the corporatist media are brain washing everyone.  They exploit the fact that people understandably have suspision of dictatorial governments, but if the media were honest that western agencies where arming and militarily supporting wahabist islamists (the word extremist is obviously superfluous), and were honest about what these people represent, then more people in western countries would be opposed to it.

1 hour ago, Richard Bugg said:

I also wondered about discussing politics on a site such as this and what effect it might have on the audience. But I'm not so sure about it being a bad idea completely. I wonder if it really is a bad thing to discuss important matters related to society as a sidebar to the main course. Where there is a strong emotional drive, it will be discussed. Politics is frequently a taboo subject, but if we want to progress to greater understanding then we need to be able to have the discussion with people who might have a different view. Perhaps the problem is more in how we have these conversations - personalising the issue through labelling each other, or lecturing one another, rather than approaching the problem more inquisitively and journalistically in an attempt to tease out the underlying issues by gaining another person's perspective. In this regard, Jonathan Pie (other thread) was right - have a respectful discussion with those who have different view. It's easy to have an opinion; much harder to empathise and get to the underlying issues instead of leaping to judgment. I'm not so good at this myself, but when there are important differences to discuss, instead of remaining silent on these matters within a community, I'd like to get better at having the discussion, but in a manner that is non-alienating to others or descending into argument. Is this too utopic? Possibly. But this forum is populated by some pretty intelligent and good natured people, so I expect it is possible.

I think I mostly agree.  A well mannered discussion about a particular issue of government policy isn't of any harm.  Its when people start spewing highly opinionated views on partisan politics like elections and referendums that things get messy.  Particularly if the views are demeaning and incendiary like the cartoon in the opening post. 

Like many people I think that if I spent an hour talking face to face with any reasonable person that I could convince them that any opinion I have on politics is well reasoned and well thought out.  But it is clearly impossible to do this with everybody, so I have to accept that there are millions of people whose opinions are different to mine and whose opinions I cannot change.  The most prudent way of avoiding conflict with such people is to refrain from talking about such things in situations where they aren't relevant.

Unfortunately but perhaps fittingly it seems to be the less thoughtful and the less prudent that are the most vocal.  The issue is that when people feel the discussion from such people begin to snowball into a back patting session they feel more compelled to reveal their hand.

People are free to do what they want of course, but I'd rather leave that stuff for youtube comments.

13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Although there's fake news on both sides of the political spectrum, I found in the UK during Brexit that there were a far greater number of people accusing the BBC and our prime minister of scaremongering, than the number of people reading fake articles... That's the bigger problem. People no longer trust the mainstream media and government, even when they are telling the truth.

Now all the scare mongering turned out to be right and the pound is worth the same as 1 monopoly note.

You really should separate your business and your politics.  It is a very foolish business decision to actively alienate up to half your audience/client base.  Especially when you are mistaken, your judgement will be questioned.  For the record, Britain is still in the EU, so no present economic situation can possibly be blamed on Britain having left the EU, because it hasn't happened yet.

Clearly not a mathematics major!

Looks cool, but is it any real use. All the shots from the actual device looked pointless.  Looks more fun as just a novelty flying toy.

For me it says it is private.

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It won't be more profitable in the long run when people are too afraid to buy a Sony camera for fear that in 2 months they will make it obsolete.

In real terms though, you knew what you were buying when you bought it and you thought it was worth the money. It's the same camera that can do exactly the same thing whether or not a newer camera comes out. You aren't in anyway disadvantaged any more than if they hadn't brought it out.  What you are asking is that sony innovate less in order to moddycoddle your irrational sense of camera inadequacy.    Maybe they did have it ready when the 6300 came out, in which case its fair to say you wished it was released then, but maybe they threw it together after they'd taken a look at the competition.  It that is the case, how would it disadvantage anyone releasing it as soon as its ready.

18 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

What the hell??? Why would you say that, that is so wrong. Of course it has 10bit 4K!!
(unless you are thinking of the much cheaper FS5??)

14 minutes ago, Phil A said:

The FS7 shoots 4k 10bit 422 in XAVC-I. That's the big difference to the FS5.

My mistake. I will repost with correction:

I cant see sony going 10 bit with 4k in stills cams. Not in the next 4 years, nevermind half a year.  The FS5 doesnt even have 10bit 4k.  Regardless of how long the GH5 will take I think the fact that it's comming is why sony have released this upgrade so soon.  I mean lets face it, they could have waited another year and then called it the A6300 mkii.

4 minutes ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

The GH5 is at least half a year away, which in the camera business is a long time. You won't know what the scene will be like at that time. And if other companies are playing the same game as Panasonic (pre-announcing cameras) then there will always be something better on the horizon.

I cant see sony going 10 bit with 4k in stills cams. Not in the next 4 years, nevermind half a year.  The FS7 doesnt even have 10bit 4k.  Regardless of how long the GH5 will take I think the fact that it's comming is why sony have released this upgrade so soon.  I mean lets face it, they could have waited another year and then called it the A6300 mkii.

20 minutes ago, Phil A said:

Which? The A7s II and A7r II are double the price, the Canon 5D IV even more.

It's kinda harsh how much more expensive it is in Europe though. 1700€ vs 1400$

Thats where I am.  To be honest I havent fully researched the price of the A7 cameras rescently. Maybe im comparing the 6500 price in euros to the A7x prices in dollars.  Either way its certainly not as budget friendly as the G85. And underspeced compared to the GH5.

2 hours ago, Simon Shasha said:

I bought and kept the A6300, and I'll be the first to admit that it paid itself off quickly.

Regardless, you fail to realise that the A6300 has only been on the market barely eight months - and even then, much of those eight months were spent in back-order due to the Kumamoto earthquake. There is no consistency in this new model's release date whatsoever.

For Sony to release a superior successor so soon is somewhat arbitrary and irrational.

Not when the GH5 is about to come out with its superior specs. It makes perfect sense to get some more sales in while they can.  Its essentially the same camera as the 6300 with upgrades which explains how they managed it so quickly.  The added ibis makes people think twice about getting the G85 and GX85 too.  The price pushes it too close to full frame for my comfort though.

I like your first grade better mrjonkane. Looks natural to me.  With the second grade the dark areas like the top of their hair are too blue.

What I want to know is does it crop in 4k? It makes it a lot more interesting if it doesn't

Finally the pics.

http://photorumors.com/2016/09/15/pictures-of-panasonic-lx15-camera-leaked/

52 minutes ago, Lintelfilm said:

Exactly what I thought. Great for Vlogging! If you do all your vlogging handheld holding your camera above your head!

Barmy!  What exaclty is supposed to be the disadvantage of side articulating screens anyway? You'd think once they'd figured it out for one camera they'd just have it for all cameras and have done with it.

The wording of that suggests that the LX10 doesn't have those features. Maybe its just bad wording.  It would be strange if thats true as LX are generally meant to be higher end enthusiast compacts aren't they?

7 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

Good enough for 98% percent of work being done on the net. 

 

Is that what you will cheerfully brag to the cashier as you hand over $1000 for the thing?

50 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

"Maye"???
I rest my case. Don't use promos as measuring of new cameras.

Obviously you meant to quote 'maybe'.  Perhaps you didn't read my post before that when I admitted that sharpness and dynamic range were often messed up in promos.

I don't know what case you are resting.

What we are talking about here is the perceptive (aka actual) resolution.  You said that the GH4 promo looked like upscaled 720p.  Thats subjective, but everyone here can make their own opinion on that.  I would say that in terms of detail, the GH4, whether in the promo video or in general at least gives very detailed full hd when downscaled from 4k. The promo gave an accurate representation of the detail the camera delivers.  I would say that the canon promo video here in terms of detail gives not much more than 720p resolution. I see no reason to doubt that it too is giving an accurate representation of the detail the camera delivers

Expecting the output from the camera to magically increase in detail between now and release is in my opinion delusional.

All canon 1080p stills cams so far have not nearly aproached proper full HD detail, and there is no real reason to expect a change to that with this camera.

This video just seals the final side of the coffin with a row of 20 nail guns.

8 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The gh4 did.

This?

I could maybe accuse that of being over sharpened or over contrasty, but upscaled 720p? Please point me to that 720p camera.