Ping HEMI-POWERED

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by doS, Nov 15, 2008.

  1. doS

    doS Guest

    bet you looked good in a dress

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >
    > Hey.
    >
    > Back in the late '60s I used to go to the drags frequently. I hadn't been
    > in nearly 40 years until I went out to Pomona yesterday. I had a great
    > time. Some things have changed; some things haven't. I had a lot of
    > flashbacks yesterday. Nothing like the way a fueler rattles your insides
    > on its run. :)
    >
    > Here's a nice visual I caught.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105928128
    >
    > I have a new camera; yesterday was a shakedown for shooting fast subjects
    > with it; I was quite pleased.
    >
    > Starting line fun:
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105929250
    >
    >
    > --
    > Blinky
    > Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    > Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    doS, Nov 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. doS

    doS Guest

    just kidding mate brill pic too!!!

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > doS wrote:
    >
    >> bet you looked good in a dress
    >>
    >> "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>>
    >>> Hey.
    >>>
    >>> Back in the late '60s I used to go to the drags frequently. I hadn't
    >>> been
    >>> in nearly 40 years until I went out to Pomona yesterday. I had a great
    >>> time. Some things have changed; some things haven't. I had a lot of
    >>> flashbacks yesterday. Nothing like the way a fueler rattles your
    >>> insides
    >>> on its run. :)
    >>>
    >>> Here's a nice visual I caught.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105928128
    >>>
    >>> I have a new camera; yesterday was a shakedown for shooting fast
    >>> subjects
    >>> with it; I was quite pleased.
    >>>
    >>> Starting line fun:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105929250

    >
    > Response to top-post: Blinky looks good in anything!
    >
    > --
    > Blinky
    > Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    > Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
    >
     
    doS, Nov 15, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hey.

    Back in the late '60s I used to go to the drags frequently. I hadn't been
    in nearly 40 years until I went out to Pomona yesterday. I had a great
    time. Some things have changed; some things haven't. I had a lot of
    flashbacks yesterday. Nothing like the way a fueler rattles your insides
    on its run. :)

    Here's a nice visual I caught.

    http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105928128

    I have a new camera; yesterday was a shakedown for shooting fast subjects
    with it; I was quite pleased.

    Starting line fun:

    http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105929250


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 15, 2008
    #3
  4. doS wrote:

    > bet you looked good in a dress
    >
    > "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >>
    >> Hey.
    >>
    >> Back in the late '60s I used to go to the drags frequently. I hadn't been
    >> in nearly 40 years until I went out to Pomona yesterday. I had a great
    >> time. Some things have changed; some things haven't. I had a lot of
    >> flashbacks yesterday. Nothing like the way a fueler rattles your insides
    >> on its run. :)
    >>
    >> Here's a nice visual I caught.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105928128
    >>
    >> I have a new camera; yesterday was a shakedown for shooting fast subjects
    >> with it; I was quite pleased.
    >>
    >> Starting line fun:
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105929250


    Response to top-post: Blinky looks good in anything!

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 15, 2008
    #4
  5. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >> Back in the late '60s I used to go to the drags frequently. I
    >> hadn't been in nearly 40 years until I went out to Pomona
    >> yesterday. I had a great time. Some things have changed;
    >> some things haven't. I had a lot of flashbacks yesterday.
    >> Nothing like the way a fueler rattles your insides on its run.
    >> :)
    >>
    >> Here's a nice visual I caught.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105928128
    >>
    >> I have a new camera; yesterday was a shakedown for shooting
    >> fast subjects with it; I was quite pleased.
    >>
    >> Starting line fun:
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/105929250
    >>
    >>

    > Nice sites, thanks, Blinky.
    >
    > Believe it or nor, I've never been to a drag strip, not Milan or
    > Detroit Dragway, nowhere. Likewise, I've never been to a
    > professional sports game, ever.


    I used to go to what was called (may still be) US131 Dragway. It was
    along side US131 (literally) between Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo, near the
    village of Martin.

    > But, I did do a fair amount of street racing.
    >
    > I pretty much stopped liking NASCAR racing when it stopped being a race
    > of "stock cars" as it's name implies. It is more today like IROC -
    > International Race Of Champions - where everybody drives an identical
    > car and is thus a race of driver skill and not cars. OK, fine.


    Yeah. Racing was more fun when they could experiment. Let's say when
    they "tried out" the Ford Lotus as Jimmy Clark's ride, and all of a sudden
    they were the dominant hardware at Indy. (I've been to an Indy 500; and
    got paid to shoot it.)

    > Likewise, I stopped likeing drag racing after cars stopped using engines
    > derived from something in production cars for the very same reason. I
    > see no glory in building a Mopar Hemi drag race engine from a solid
    > billet of aluminum and just making it look like a Mopar. Some do, I
    > don't.


    :)

    > One dragster driver I used to greatly admire was Shirley Muldowney in an


    Cha-Cha!

    > old-rear seat rail. Other's including Don Garlits and Connie Kalitta,


    Yeah, when I was going, they were still using slingshots.

    I once grabbed a discarded piece of rear-end gear that Kalitta pulled out
    of his car in the pits and kept it for years as a souvenir. There's a
    Kalitta racing now -- dunno if it's a son or a grandson.

    > Muldowney's mentor and boyfriend. In those days, Top Fuel drag racing
    > was a combination of engine and car building talent and raw driving
    > ability, and NOT seeing how much over 7,000 hp one can attain for 1,320
    > feet.


    But you hafta admit that's an impressive hp-to-foot ratio. :)

    > It's just me, I guess. So, my meager collection of drag race pictures
    > pretty much stops at about the 1970s when things got out-of-control -
    > from my point of view.
    >
    > All of that aside, what did YOU drive back then, Blinky?


    Drive? (I didn't race.) 1964 Corvette.

    > And, what new camera did you buy? I assume a good DSLR with a high burst
    > rate or at least very low shutter lag.


    I moved up from my Nikon D60 to the new D90 released a couple of months
    ago. Burst is 4.5 shots per second.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 15, 2008
    #5
  6. philo wrote:

    > I think it's just a matter of time before nuclear and coal will have to be
    > relied on considerably more.


    "Building an alt-energy power plant is risky and expensive, but thanks to
    a new ruling by an Environmental Protection Agency panel, building a coal
    plant may become riskier and more expensive...."

    Source: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/epa-ruling.html


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 15, 2008
    #6
  7. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > My father's first new car in his entire life was a 1957 Plymouth
    > station wagon - with a flat-head six, 3-on-the-tree and electric


    A flathead in *1957*?


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 15, 2008
    #7
  8. doS

    joevan Guest

    On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:03:55 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    <> wrote:

    >HEMI-Powered wrote:
    >
    >> My father's first new car in his entire life was a 1957 Plymouth
    >> station wagon - with a flat-head six, 3-on-the-tree and electric

    >
    >A flathead in *1957*?

    He is probably reflecting on what his father called him in 57 a
    towhead, or a flathead 3 year old.
     
    joevan, Nov 15, 2008
    #8
  9. joevan <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:03:55 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>HEMI-Powered wrote:
    >>
    >>> My father's first new car in his entire life was a 1957 Plymouth
    >>> station wagon - with a flat-head six, 3-on-the-tree and electric

    >>
    >>A flathead in *1957*?

    >
    > He is probably reflecting on what his father called him in 57 a
    > towhead, or a flathead 3 year old.


    Ya, after his mommie dropped him on his head - prolly on purpose.

    (; JK. It could'a been an accident while she was reaching for
    her crack pipe.

    --

    I'm Bucky Breeder, (*(^; , & I'd audition Sarah Palin for MILFs Gone Wild.

    http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/6haynes.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfJunZu22VU
     
    Bucky Breeder, Nov 15, 2008
    #9
  10. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >> I used to go to what was called (may still be) US131 Dragway.
    >> It was along side US131 (literally) between Grand Rapids and
    >> Kalamazoo, near the village of Martin.

    >
    > Really?! I've been to Grand Rapids a couple of times but never
    > really had a chance to tour. It's at least a two-hour tough drive
    > for me and I have no good reason to go there these days.


    I lived in Grand Rapids the last ten years before I moved to Los Angeles.
    At about the beginning of that decade, I married a girl from Kalamazoo;
    she was from there, and her family was all there, so I did many, many
    trips on US131 between the towns.

    > Last year I saw a really good IMAX 3-D movie titled just "NASCAR". Some
    > outstanding shots through the windshield of a race car. And, about 1/3
    > was devoted just to the design and building of the engines and cars. I
    > take nothing away from the builders, of course, but the only thing that
    > differentiates a Dodge from a Chevy from a Ford these days are the
    > decals. Bah, humbug!


    It's incredible what they're doing now with broadcast technology with auto
    racing.

    >> Yeah, when I was going, they were still using slingshots.

    >
    > Garlits nearly losing a leg was perhaps the best illustration of why the
    > dragsters needed to have rear engines. About that same time, HP went


    And for fire, as well.

    > crazy and even later, computers got into the game. Now, as you know, I'm
    > a big IT fan, but one place I think best left to ingenuity still is
    > racing. Sorry.


    I have a photo of that somewhere. Let me look......

    ....

    http://blinkynet.net/stuff/wheredidmyfeetgo.jpg

    >>> ability, and NOT seeing how much over 7,000 hp one can attain for
    >>> 1,320 feet.

    >>
    >> But you hafta admit that's an impressive hp-to-foot ratio. :)

    >
    > As you know, I was edumacated as an engineer. I KNOW that it is
    > impossible to generate more than 1G of accelation with tires, the
    > coefficient of friction is the limiting factor and says that it is
    > completely independent of surface area. Except that it's not. At least,


    :)

    > not if one can deform the tires to keep more rubber on the ground for
    > longer during the launch and keep it there down the strip. Then, it IS
    > possible to put 7,000 horses and I don't know how many torques on the
    > ground and use it to do Newton's F = MA, from which one can do the
    > integral to backfind acceleration. And, with a few derivatives and
    > integrals from this basic law of motion, it is possible to predict ET
    > and trap speed. Yeah, that could be done in Kalitta's day, too, but it
    > was easier to just go run 'er!


    I have another

    >>> All of that aside, what did YOU drive back then, Blinky?

    >>
    >> Drive? (I didn't race.) 1964 Corvette.

    >
    > I meant on the street, Blinky. What are the details on your Vette,
    > engine, etc.? And, new or used? What about now?


    My answer was "on the street". Used. 327" 4.11 rear (I replaced a
    blown out diff). Headers and Edlebrock intake manifold. Holley. Factory
    rated 365 HP, 10 below the FI version. Today I drive a Ford Focus. :)
    (From 1983 until I got the Focus in 2005, I drove a Triumph.)

    >>> And, what new camera did you buy? I assume a good DSLR with a high
    >>> burst rate or at least very low shutter lag.

    >>
    >> I moved up from my Nikon D60 to the new D90 released a couple of months
    >> ago. Burst is 4.5 shots per second.
    >>

    > Nice camera. I chose Canon a few years back because the Rebel XT was
    > about 25% lighter and smaller than a Nikon D70s. I liked it except for
    > the noise, but now I am just in love with my newer Rebel XSi. No need
    > for the big guns, this is more camera than I can really handle.


    My D60 is a small-body true DSLR. The D90 fits me better, although it's
    still smaller than the D3.

    Lenses: Nikkor 18-55mm VR, Nikkor 55-200mm VR, Nikkor 18-105mm VR, Tamron
    90mm f/2.8 macro, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ultrawide

    > Seems to me that the real problem in taking pictures at the drags is to
    > get enough telephoto and enough burst yet at the same time get a high
    > enough shutter to avoid shake and blur (unless you want that!) and a
    > small enough aperture to take care of AF misses. That said, I sometimes
    > go to the full 12 MP of my Rebel to get an effective zoom and keep the
    > DOF of a shorter lens.


    That shot (the heat ripples) was a crop from a 12MP image.

    > So, in your case, what lens(es) do you find best? And, what ISO do you


    See list above.

    > typically shoot? And, RAW or JPEG? If I had the time and energy, I'd go
    > RAW, just don't have either though.


    All of those Qs depend. :) I try to shoot as much at ISO 200 as I can,
    but the D90 is very good with much higher speeds. The heat distortion
    image was shot at f/8 at 1/1000 with ISO400. 200mm focal length, cropped.

    Lenses naturally depend on the subject (see below); all I took to the
    drags was my 55-200. I shoot RAW when I'm serious; I snapshot with JPG
    fine; I always shoot full resolution (image size). (Nikon changed their
    RAW format a bit with the D90, so until I get software to handle that I'm
    shooting JPG.)

    Macro lens: http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/flora

    Wide lens: http://blinkynet.net/stuff/season_over.jpg

    Medium tele zoom (tech details below image), not much cropping:
    http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/97680000

    And so on. :)


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 16, 2008
    #10
  11. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >
    >>> I think it's just a matter of time before nuclear and coal
    >>> will have to be relied on considerably more.

    >>
    >> "Building an alt-energy power plant is risky and expensive,
    >> but thanks to a new ruling by an Environmental Protection
    >> Agency panel, building a coal plant may become riskier and
    >> more expensive...."
    >>
    >> Source:
    >> http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/epa-ruling.html
    >>

    > 'Tis true, but 'tis also old news since the new guy hit town. He
    > said just days before the election "I will bankrupt the coal
    > companies and force electrical rates up astronomically." WTF?! This
    > is a guy who also says he will achieve 100% independence from OPEC
    > in 10 years? How dat, please?


    I don't follow energy arguments closely. I didn't read the whole article.
    So I can't answer any questions.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 16, 2008
    #11
  12. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >> HEMI-Powered wrote:
    >>
    >>> My father's first new car in his entire life was a 1957
    >>> Plymouth station wagon - with a flat-head six, 3-on-the-tree
    >>> and electric

    >>
    >> A flathead in *1957*?
    >>

    > Yepper! Chrysler's first OHV six was the Slant Six of 1960, in 170
    > and 225 CID. Even after that, we built flatheads for the Dodge
    > Powerwagon into the late 1960s, IIRC.


    I did not know that! I know that the slant six was very well respected,
    but I did not know that it was the first OHV six from the company. Wow.

    We had a Blue Flame 235 CI OHV six in the family '53 Chevy.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 16, 2008
    #12
  13. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    >> It's incredible what they're doing now with broadcast technology with
    >> auto racing.


    > Excuse my denseness, but what do you mean here? You're making a joke on
    > how well disguised these Fords, Chevies and Dodges are?


    "Broadcast technology" would be the technology of broacasting the races.
    Cameras in every car, and they all will pan nearly a full 360 degrees.
    Taps into the crew communications so they can air the team chatter between
    the drivers and the pits. More, that I can't really fully describe here.

    > I don't recall seeing any FI Corvettes in my day. I'd guess it was
    > because of the price premium. But, you car is as good as they get with
    > any reasonable amount of money.


    I'm pretty sure they started putting injected small blocks in Corvettes in
    the late fifties. Certainly by '60.

    > Nobody today can begin to drive such a car anymore. But, a Focus?! You
    > can feel free to take a swipe at Chrysler's styling if you like, but my
    > view of the Focus is an example of "why do most/all small cars have to
    > look so ugly?".


    After 22 years in my Triumph, I finally opted for comfort and space for
    grocieries. And simple and hopefully reliable, and reasonable on gas. :)

    > Why is it that you drive something like that and not a Mustang GT or
    > even a Shelby Mustang? Can't be the cost of gas, it's been up, down, up,
    > down since 2005.


    See above.

    >> My D60 is a small-body true DSLR. The D90 fits me better, although
    >> it's still smaller than the D3.

    >
    > I don't recall the D-60 when I was looking, back around summer of 2006,


    It came out early this year. It's the follow-on to the D40X which was the
    follow-on to the D40.

    > I think. Don't even know what a D3 is. For any number of reasons, I


    Nikon's full-frame, $5,000 "pro" DSLR.

    >> Lenses: Nikkor 18-55mm VR, Nikkor 55-200mm VR, Nikkor 18-105mm VR,
    >> Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ultrawide

    >
    > Mine are all on the short side of the zoom range except for a Sigma
    > 18-125mm which I find is a great all around lens outdoors.


    Good walking-around lens; for that I use my 18-105.

    > I understand why you want VR and why you have the 55-200mm, but why the
    > ultrawide? I assume you're also into either architecture or landscapes.


    The forced perspective of very wide pulls the viewer into the photo. I
    like. I just got it. Haven't done anything but testing with it at this
    point.

    >> That shot (the heat ripples) was a crop from a 12MP image.

    >
    > OK, sounds good. Normally, I shoot only at6 MP. Since I don't print all
    > that much and my tolerance of aliasing is very broad, I don't need much
    > beyond 1600 x 1200 for on-screen displays so even 6 MP is overkill.


    I guess you never do any cropping. If you cropped, you'd realize that you
    can crop more, for your final framing, with 12MP worth of resolution than
    you can with smaller sized images, and still have useful image quality
    left. :)

    > However, the XSi only does 3, 6, and 12 and I think 3 is too low just in
    > case I really like what I see. 12, OTOH, is way overkill for me unless
    > I'm either looking for an equivalent zoom, as you did


    There ya go.

    >>> typically shoot? And, RAW or JPEG? If I had the time and energy, I'd
    >>> go RAW, just don't have either though.

    >>
    >> All of those Qs depend. :) I try to shoot as much at ISO 200 as I
    >> can, but the D90 is very good with much higher speeds. The heat
    >> distortion image was shot at f/8 at 1/1000 with ISO400. 200mm focal
    >> length, cropped.

    >
    > My old XT was absolutely crap at ISO 400 and up. The new XSi is pretty
    > damn good all the way to 1600. Wish it had 3200 but I think the
    > processor is limited by the original Rebel architecture. Prior to now,
    > available light was completely out- of-the-question. Now, I do get noise
    > but it is generally quite manageable. But, like you, if I can, I stay at
    > 100 or 200.
    >
    > As to the specs for your head shot, very nice compromise. The dang thing
    > must've really been moving, though, to require 1/1000!


    I kept it at 1/1000 (camera will go to 1/4000) regardless if I was doing
    stuff from the side, where apparent (angular) speed is the highest or down
    the track (like that fueler or alky run) where it is lowest

    >> Lenses naturally depend on the subject (see below); all I took to the
    >> drags was my 55-200. I shoot RAW when I'm serious; I snapshot with JPG
    >> fine; I always shoot full resolution (image size). (Nikon changed
    >> their RAW format a bit with the D90, so until I get software to handle
    >> that I'm shooting JPG.)

    >
    > I would think this would be your choice for the drags. Naturally, if
    > you're shooting RAW at all, or RAW/JPEG, then you must go with the full
    > resolution. That's another reason why I've not yet put my toe in the
    > water.


    I always go 4288 x 2848. No reason not to. It's not like I'm using 256MB
    memory cards. :)

    > Since you do RAW on occasion, maybe you can help me a bit. I still use
    > PSP 9, maybe PhotoShop Elements when I get a new PC. I have Raw Shooter
    > Professional but have yet to find a how-to book on RAW at all that
    > doesn't assume PS in all of it's examples. So, while I do understand the
    > concepts involved, I can't even begin to climb the learning curve. Can't
    > get out of the gate.


    Not off hand, and I've seen the strong PS bias you report. I use The
    GIMP, and it has a RAW converter plugin that uses ufraw. When I send a
    RAW file to The GIMP, the ufraw plugin opens with it, and when I finish
    working there and click OKAY, the converted image opens in The GIMP. I've
    just picked things up as I've gone; I've never read a tutorial in RAW.
    Good luck with finding something.

    >> Macro lens: http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/flora
    >>
    >> Wide lens: http://blinkynet.net/stuff/season_over.jpg
    >>
    >> Medium tele zoom (tech details below image), not much cropping:
    >> http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark/image/97680000
    >>

    > Very nice pictures.
    >
    > Another one of those things I have simply never had time for was to
    > learn how to build even a simple web site. I know Bucky the Breederless
    > thinks that makes me a simpleton, but posting to Usenet is so simple and
    > I have no desire to home brew facebook, no motivation to learn.


    I have three sites, and I've coded them myself, but I didn't feel like
    trying to reinvent the wheel for a photo gallery installation, and liked
    what I'd seen on pbase -- no ads, no teases to other people's images, no
    irrelevant images when I link you to one of mine (or one of my galleries)
    -- nothing there except what I put there. This is especially kind to
    users who don't have broadband. Thus http://www.pbase.com/blinkytheshark


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 16, 2008
    #13
  14. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > I have a bit of advantage on you, Blinky! <grin> Seriously, what
    > I find absolutely astounding is that ALL of Chrysler's flatheads
    > - both six and eights - were damn near identical in basic design
    > past the late 1920s when down-draft carburetors were installed. I
    > still have my father's old 1950 Motor's Repair Manual that
    > exactly shows this back to about 1930 and I already knew there
    > were no substantive changes to the end of the model run.


    Wow.

    >> We had a Blue Flame 235 CI OHV six in the family '53 Chevy.
    >>

    > I've never heard that name beyond the original Corvette. Was that
    > the general Chevy marketing name for all of it's six cylinders? I


    If not all of them, at least a family of them. IOW, they weren't
    something they built *for* those first 6-cylinder, two-speed
    Powerglide-transmissioned Vettes.

    > only know the slightly disparaging nickname, "stove bolt six"


    Sure thing.

    > referring to the size and thread type of many of the attaching
    > bolts on the engine being the same as somebody's brand of kitchen
    > stove.


    I wasn't aware of that origin. :)

    > So, I have almost zero pictures of my life's history of cars or
    > my father's, except for the last few years. And, asking you about


    Same here, other than slides my mom took on our family vacations every
    summer in the '50s. And she had a habit of taking at least one shot of
    the car in front of every motel we stayed at. :) Oh...I do remember Dad
    buying that '53 Chevy; mom demanded that he replace the '46 or '47
    Plymouth (that I also remember) that kept conking out on her. :) The
    first car I ever sat on my dad's lap and steered was a 1936 Chevy.

    > pics of a 1953 Chevy would be like me finding some of my father's
    > 1950 DeSoto. I do have a couple but only with people in them.


    I could actually find them. They're in a big unorganized box of slide
    boxes. :)

    > Incidently, Chrysler did make a prototype OHV six back in the 1930s with
    > - of course - a hemispherical combustion chamber. I've got exactly one
    > pic of that el strango engine I scanned from a book.


    Probably the only one that anybody has. :)


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 16, 2008
    #14
  15. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >>> Excuse my denseness, but what do you mean here? You're making
    >>> a joke on how well disguised these Fords, Chevies and Dodges
    >>> are?

    >>
    >> "Broadcast technology" would be the technology of broacasting
    >> the races. Cameras in every car, and they all will pan nearly
    >> a full 360 degrees. Taps into the crew communications so they
    >> can air the team chatter between the drivers and the pits.
    >> More, that I can't really fully describe here.

    >
    > OK, thanks. Now, I can understand putting cameras in the cars for
    > the race teams but they broadcast the race live - through the
    > windshields of the cars? And, just in case I forget, I cannot for


    I just said they can pan 360 degrees. That would be all windows, where I
    came from. The pan is done by an electric motor; where it's shooting is
    controled by the TV guys, not the driver. This is for broadcast, as I
    said: the TV production.

    > the life of me understand sports team who are such whores for
    > money as to sell the name of their stadium, race track, whatever
    > to a commercial company. I mean Bic International Raceway? Egad!


    I hate the corporate stadium names and the corporate-name college bowl
    games.

    >>> I don't recall the D-60 when I was looking, back around summer of
    >>> 2006,

    >>
    >> It came out early this year. It's the follow-on to the D40X which was
    >> the follow-on to the D40.

    >
    > OK, the D40 I remember but was looking more at the D70s.


    There was the D70, it's follow-on the D80, and now the follow-on to that,
    the D90.

    >>> I understand why you want VR and why you have the 55-200mm, but why
    >>> the ultrawide? I assume you're also into either architecture or
    >>> landscapes.

    >>
    >> The forced perspective of very wide pulls the viewer into the photo. I
    >> like. I just got it. Haven't done anything but testing with it at
    >> this point.

    >
    > Like it is fine. I have a 24mm for my old Nikon FTN. Needed it for
    > interior shots and also liked the possibily of intentional perspective
    > distortion.


    Given the crop factor of my ASP-C sized sensor, my Tokina 11-16 has the
    field of view that a 16-24mm lens would have on a full-frame DSLR or a
    35mm SLR.

    >>>> That shot (the heat ripples) was a crop from a 12MP image.
    >>>
    >>> OK, sounds good. Normally, I shoot only at6 MP. Since I don't print
    >>> all that much and my tolerance of aliasing is very broad, I don't need
    >>> much beyond 1600 x 1200 for on-screen displays so even 6 MP is
    >>> overkill.

    >>
    >> I guess you never do any cropping. If you cropped, you'd realize that
    >> you can crop more, for your final framing, with 12MP worth of
    >> resolution than you can with smaller sized images, and still have
    >> useful image quality left. :)

    >
    > I do crop, Blinky! I try to allow at least 20-25% free space around the
    > main subject exactly for that reason - to crop in the digital darkroom.
    > However, when shooting at 6 mp but saving at 1600 x 1200, that is way
    > too much cropping, besides which it just ain't possible in museums or at
    > car shows to either zoom out enough nor get far enough away. Either my
    > back is up against another car or backing up puts distractions into the
    > picture. However, as both of us do, I occasionally use the effective
    > zoom feature of the full 12.


    See? You need something wider. :)

    >>> Since you do RAW on occasion, maybe you can help me a bit. I still use
    >>> PSP 9, maybe PhotoShop Elements when I get a new PC. I have Raw
    >>> Shooter Professional but have yet to find a how-to book on RAW at all
    >>> that doesn't assume PS in all of it's examples. So, while I do
    >>> understand the concepts involved, I can't even begin to climb the
    >>> learning curve. Can't get out of the gate.

    >>
    >> Not off hand, and I've seen the strong PS bias you report. I use The
    >> GIMP, and it has a RAW converter plugin that uses ufraw. When I send a
    >> RAW file to The GIMP, the ufraw plugin opens with it, and when I finish
    >> working there and click OKAY, the converted image opens in The GIMP.
    >> I've just picked things up as I've gone; I've never read a tutorial in
    >> RAW. Good luck with finding something.

    >
    > Never liked Gimp enough to even attempt it. But again, the problem for


    IOW, you ruled it out without trying it. Good move. :)

    > me isn't a poor GUI for Raw Shooter, it is that I don't know what to
    > tell it to do. Can't ever learn to drive a car if no one will first show
    > you at least how to start it and get it moving.


    Play with the settings. Observe the results. Keep what looks best.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 16, 2008
    #15
  16. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    >>> pics of a 1953 Chevy would be like me finding some of my
    >>> father's 1950 DeSoto. I do have a couple but only with people
    >>> in them.


    On DeSoto: I think I remember the name "Fire Dome" for their V8s back in
    those days or a little later. I had an uncle who bought a couple DeSotos.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 16, 2008
    #16
  17. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >>> OK, thanks. Now, I can understand putting cameras in the cars
    >>> for the race teams but they broadcast the race live - through
    >>> the windshields of the cars? And, just in case I forget, I
    >>> cannot for

    >>
    >> I just said they can pan 360 degrees. That would be all
    >> windows, where I came from. The pan is done by an electric
    >> motor; where it's shooting is controled by the TV guys, not
    >> the driver. This is for broadcast, as I said: the TV
    >> production.

    >
    > NASCAR racing is really big business these days and the costs, so
    > I've read, are on the order of $20-25 million to field a car for
    > a season. So, I suppose it is only natural to try to sell as much
    > of the spectator stuff as possible. And, in today's wireless
    > world of hi-res video, while I'd not heard of 360 panos from race
    > cars, it doesn't surprise me.


    I saw the same technology at the Indy 500 this spring.

    >>> the life of me understand sports team who are such whores for
    >>> money as to sell the name of their stadium, race track,
    >>> whatever to a commercial company. I mean Bic International
    >>> Raceway? Egad!

    >>
    >> I hate the corporate stadium names and the corporate-name
    >> college bowl games.

    >
    > The new "Tiger Stadium" here in Detroit is now Comerica Park.


    Aye. Been there. Too many statues; too little history. :)

    > Call me old-fashioned, but I liked the old names like Darlington,
    > Daytona, and the like because there was history in them. And,
    > their was great history and great valor in the car builders, car
    > companies, sponsors, and yes, the drivers.


    Same here.

    >> Given the crop factor of my ASP-C sized sensor, my Tokina
    >> 11-16 has the field of view that a 16-24mm lens would have on
    >> a full-frame DSLR or a 35mm SLR.

    >
    > That is very wide, almost what a fisheye would see, except for
    > the intentional circular image.


    Right. This is rectilinear.

    >>> I do crop, Blinky! I try to allow at least 20-25% free space
    >>> around the main subject exactly for that reason - to crop in
    >>> the digital darkroom. However, when shooting at 6 mp but
    >>> saving at 1600 x 1200, that is way too much cropping, besides
    >>> which it just ain't possible in museums or at car shows to
    >>> either zoom out enough nor get far enough away. Either my
    >>> back is up against another car or backing up puts
    >>> distractions into the picture. However, as both of us do, I
    >>> occasionally use the effective zoom feature of the full 12.

    >>
    >> See? You need something wider. :)

    >
    > How so, Blinky? One more time, my main problem is that I CAN'T
    > backup and I CAN'T zoom out any more. Actually, I could buy a
    > shorter lens, but I don't at all like the look of a car in an
    > ultra-wide unless I'm intentionally going for drama.


    Sure. But "can't back up" plus "can't zoom out" equals "your widest lens
    isn't wide enough. :)

    > I am what is known as a documentary car photographer and not a creative
    > or dramatic one. I take nothing from the pros that do such a great job
    > on these things, but my "job" is to try to capture the proportions of
    > the car as best I can.


    Then you're screwed. :)

    > I know you've been to major car musuems and shows and you know that the
    > tendency most of the time is to park them only feet apart or with other
    > sub-exhibits such as an engine on a stand beside the car. Thus, as at


    Yep.

    > the Walter P. Chrysler Museum that has two floors of spacious exhibits
    > (and the basement which is tighter), it can still be a challenge to
    > capture the car in a pleasing composure without 1/4 of the cars either
    > side of it ruining the effect.


    Peterson's is the same way, yeah, albeit more floors.

    > But, if you could explain why cropping is a help here, I'd appreciate
    > it. I have shot pics of a car in front of a building from varying


    Didn't say it would be, in the specific situation you are describing.

    >>>>> Since you do RAW on occasion, maybe you can help me a bit.
    >>> Never liked Gimp enough to even attempt it. But again, the problem for

    >>
    >> IOW, you ruled it out without trying it. Good move. :)

    >
    > I ruled out Linux without trying it also, Blinky, just as I ruled out
    > personally learning Unix. My days of DOS-style command line switches and
    > arcane GUIs is well past and over. But, one more time, the issue is NOT
    > the particular app or it's interface, that really doesn't matter. It IS
    > that I don't know what the hell to tell it to do. That would be true of
    > Gimp, Irfanview, PSP, PS Elements, or full-blown PS.


    I guess your problem isn't solvable. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that.

    >>> me isn't a poor GUI for Raw Shooter, it is that I don't know what to
    >>> tell it to do. Can't ever learn to drive a car if no one will first
    >>> show you at least how to start it and get it moving.

    >>
    >> Play with the settings. Observe the results. Keep what looks best.
    >>

    > Why didn't I think of that? I do understand your point(s) but maybe you
    > don't mine. Or one of us just doesn't like the other's views. I just do
    > NOT have the time and energy to learn RAW even though I know it'd
    > produce better pics. Hell, I have 5,000 unprocessed pictures at least
    > that I don't even have the time to do a quick turn and burn on. Yeah, I
    > could do less debating on Usenet but it is also a perverse enjoyment and
    > I budget my time accordingly.


    Yeppers -- we all have to prioritize things for ourselves.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 17, 2008
    #17
  18. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >>>>> pics of a 1953 Chevy would be like me finding some of my
    >>>>> father's 1950 DeSoto. I do have a couple but only with
    >>>>> people in them.

    >>
    >> On DeSoto: I think I remember the name "Fire Dome" for their
    >> V8s back in those days or a little later. I had an uncle who
    >> bought a couple DeSotos.
    >>

    > That was the original name even before there was a Firedome car
    > model, which was really a Dodge with DeSoto sheet metal and trim,


    Ah! I didn't know it was a car model! I live and learn.

    > built on the Dodge Main lines (Hamtramck Assembly Plant). Later on,
    > DeSoto also put "FireFlite" on their valve covers.
    >
    > Those were really heady days for the car industry. There seemed to
    > be plenty of money for pizazz and glitz and nobody had a second
    > thought about the folly of having completely different engines for
    > each car line. Sure is different today!


    And for full-on model changes every year.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 17, 2008
    #18
  19. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >
    >> Sure. But "can't back up" plus "can't zoom out" equals "your
    >> widest lens isn't wide enough. :)
    >>
    >>> I am what is known as a documentary car photographer and not
    >>> a creative or dramatic one. I take nothing from the pros that
    >>> do such a great job on these things, but my "job" is to try
    >>> to capture the proportions of the car as best I can.

    >>
    >> Then you're screwed. :)

    >
    > No, not really. I can and do two different things. I either accept
    > a less than glamorous composure or I do a partial clip of the car's
    > front or rear end, or both. But, it should be noted that an
    > absolute inability to move back far enough to get the entire car in
    > the frame has happened only about 3 or 4 times in 7 years of
    > digital photography of cars so it isn't like I'm going to die of
    > cancer if I don't buy a shorter lens.
    >
    > But, this still has no-thing to do with resolution, which is at the
    > opposite end of the contiuun, that of not having a LONG enough lens
    > for some things OR wanted to use a shorter focal length and a crop
    > for greater DOF and less camera shake.
    >
    >>> the Walter P. Chrysler Museum that has two floors of spacious
    >>> exhibits (and the basement which is tighter), it can still be
    >>> a challenge to capture the car in a pleasing composure
    >>> without 1/4 of the cars either side of it ruining the effect.

    >>
    >> Peterson's is the same way, yeah, albeit more floors.

    >
    > There's 3 floors, counting the basement, at the WPC. How many at
    > Petersen's? I've seen plenty of pics from there, and they are far
    > closer than what I usually have to contend with.


    IIRC, three from ground up. I don't remember if there's a basement that
    also contains public displays. So Chrysler and Peterson might be the
    same. Peterson is undoubtedly smaller, footage-wise. And it wasn't
    purpose-built. When I moved to Hollywood in 1981, that building was the
    Orbach's clothing store. Granted, it was a large store.

    > The Henry Ford Museum also packs the cars in tight, plus both places
    > have barricades in the way that make it difficult to manuever to get the
    > best shot. That's just the nature of the beast.


    Yeah, probably so.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 17, 2008
    #19
  20. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark added these comments in the current discussion
    > du jour ...
    >> And for full-on model changes every year.
    >>

    > The term was "planned obsolence" and worked well for many
    > decades. But, by the 1980s with the "invasion" of the Japanese,
    > Americans learned that it was possible to get far higher quality
    > AND much higher resale if they'd give up constant restyles, which
    > tended to kill resale plus forced the carmakers to spend money on
    > tooling and not quality, features, or price reductions.


    And a plant shut down for three weeks - or whatever it used to be - for
    setting up for the annual change isn't making cars, either.

    > Another big factor in the demise of the annual redesigns was simply that
    > it became much too expensive to do safety and emissions design,
    > development, tooling, and testing/certification when the bodies - now


    I never thought about that. Good point.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Nov 17, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Boomer

    FYI Alcohol-powered laptops ahead

    Boomer, Aug 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    457
    Boomer
    Aug 20, 2003
  2. k9phil

    re:"powered by veritas"

    k9phil, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    434
    longshotjohn7
    Sep 2, 2003
  3. Lookout

    HEMI-Powered wanted to talk about Reagan

    Lookout, Mar 9, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    766
    Lookout
    Mar 11, 2008
  4. joevan
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    997
  5. §ñühw¤£f

    HEMI gets it WRONG, again

    §ñühw¤£f, Dec 17, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    646
    Bucky Breeder
    Dec 18, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page