Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[sandt38 448]

It is impressive how quickly 10 ounces of 100 proof hits you. Of course, that is considered almost 13 legal drinks in ~30 minutes.

[mikel7829 90]

It is impressive how quickly 10 ounces of 100 proof hits you. Of course, that is considered almost 13 legal drinks in ~30 minutes.

 I can get any flavor you can imagine for $5.00 a quart $15.00 a gallon..

[sandt38 448]

 

It is impressive how quickly 10 ounces of 100 proof hits you. Of course, that is considered almost 13 legal drinks in ~30 minutes.

 I can get any flavor you can imagine for $5.00 a quart $15.00 a gallon..

 

 

I meant the Knob Creek Old Fashioneds... but that's cheap. I am paying $10/20

[mikel7829 90]

 

 

It is impressive how quickly 10 ounces of 100 proof hits you. Of course, that is considered almost 13 legal drinks in ~30 minutes.

 I can get any flavor you can imagine for $5.00 a quart $15.00 a gallon..

 

 

I meant the Knob Creek Old Fashioneds... but that's cheap. I am paying $10/20

 

It comes with real fruit..they do the wine too but I don't care for it..It's to sweet

[mikel7829 90]

Watching my all time favorite movie....Blow

[sandt38 448]

Wow. Well if nothing else, at least I am not a Faders fan. How pitiful.

[///M5 2,833]

F2.8 is the key. Should have a 17-50 and 70-200 option. Combination is basically what you need.

Speaking of Matt, I shot a wedding with my body and a 70-200 2.8 II USM IS. Now I fucking need one, you bastard.

What was the first statement related to? Lol so random.

I told you man. I used every 70-200 they had and the 2.8 USMii is not just an upgrade. It's a huge leap ahead.

J asked an expenditure question

[///M5 2,833]

So Sean, when I muddle my sugar and orange bitters, do I muddle until there is no grain left of my sugar? I forgot to grab the Agave nectar when I was at the store yesterday, so I am stuck using sugar in the raw granules.

 

Admittedly for muddling I am using a spoon on the side of the glass. I know, not the right tool, but it seems easier than using a rounded wooden muddler in the bottom of the glass. Even with the spoon, I wind up with a lot of granules left. They are very fine, but you can see them rolling under my cubes. I thought about using my mortar and pestle, but didn't want to lose any ingredients in the bottom of my mortar. My pestle is too short to use in my rock glass *waits for smartass comments*.

I would. If the muddle time is too long then adding a very small amount of fluid will help too. Never had a problem with mine being too short though.

[Godsmack 360]

F2.8 is the key. Should have a 17-50 and 70-200 option. Combination is basically what you need.Speaking of Matt, I shot a wedding with my body and a 70-200 2.8 II USM IS. Now I fucking need one, you bastard.

What was the first statement related to? Lol so random.I told you man. I used every 70-200 they had and the 2.8 USMii is not just an upgrade. It's a huge leap ahead.

J asked an expenditure question

Looks like some great glass. A bit pricey (for me) in the 70-200 models but from the images shot with it, damn what a lens.

I may just step up the body for now as my D3000 has been used for 4 years now and had numerous bumps.

J

[Godsmack 360]

Our defense is dominant, but our offense does fuck all in the red zone. This fucking game shouldn't even be close, but here we are in a 3 point game in the 4th.

Game should have been a blowout. Not having Watkins was a BIG thorn in our side. Especially with Spiller out and Jackson not even close to 100%.

J

[S.DeYoung 967]

Um Watkins played and was targeted quite a bit

[dem beats 1,223]

Looks like I may have some coin I can spend on some new camera gear. What size glass have you guys been using lately and what for?

Looking at a new body too, but that will be a last minute decision.

J

I missed this.

What Sean said.

If you go full frame you can "get away with" 24-70 and 70-200. If you use a crop sensor you will want wider.

2.8 aperture.

IS is something you can deal without. I wouldn't want to on the long end of that 200 though.

It really depends on what you shoot. I shoot portraits 80% or more. 95% are not posed. Almost 99% cannot be duplicated (wedding, birthday, event). So I care about IS and speed of focus more than someone who spends their time at wide angles shooting scenery.

I'm horrible with long exposures actually. I don't practice them either and I really should.

[Godsmack 360]

Um Watkins played and was targeted quite a bit

Should have said not playing 100%.

J

[Godsmack 360]

Looks like I may have some coin I can spend on some new camera gear. What size glass have you guys been using lately and what for?

Looking at a new body too, but that will be a last minute decision.

J

I missed this.

What Sean said.

If you go full frame you can "get away with" 24-70 and 70-200. If you use a crop sensor you will want wider.

2.8 aperture.

IS is something you can deal without. I wouldn't want to on the long end of that 200 though.

It really depends on what you shoot. I shoot portraits 80% or more. 95% are not posed. Almost 99% cannot be duplicated (wedding, birthday, event). So I care about IS and speed of focus more than someone who spends their time at wide angles shooting scenery.

I'm horrible with long exposures actually. I don't practice them either and I really should.

No crop sensor. The IS is very important as I shoot concerts (from time to time), and what are posed shots are few and far between.

The reason for looking into an upgrade in body is also due to the development of faster shutter speeds, better mirrors, and a more efficent IS sensor.

J

[dem beats 1,223]

Body is next to worthless compared to glass.

I wouldn't buy a new body unless you need a feature that a new one has and your old one doesn't.

[Tirefryr 1,742]

Dammit, here goes the camera talk again.

[dem beats 1,223]

Aaron is BOINC showing my computer putting up numbers? I changed some settings and I can't tell if it has been running.

It kills my graphics drivers so I changed the work settings. The way I see the graphs doesn't show my personal output...... or maybe it can and I don't know how to look at it.

[dem beats 1,223]

Dammit, here goes the camera talk again.

All the porn you have watched is there because some nerds thought they should film it.

[dem beats 1,223]

Sold a bed to the VP of marketing for Gander Mtn and his wife.

Super cool dude.

I also sold a bed to 2 guys from Cray supercomputers this year. One is a friend from a long time ago. I didn't know he worked there. The other was random.

[dem beats 1,223]

Looks like I may have some coin I can spend on some new camera gear. What size glass have you guys been using lately and what for?

Looking at a new body too, but that will be a last minute decision.

J

I missed this.

What Sean said.

If you go full frame you can "get away with" 24-70 and 70-200. If you use a crop sensor you will want wider.

2.8 aperture.

IS is something you can deal without. I wouldn't want to on the long end of that 200 though.

It really depends on what you shoot. I shoot portraits 80% or more. 95% are not posed. Almost 99% cannot be duplicated (wedding, birthday, event). So I care about IS and speed of focus more than someone who spends their time at wide angles shooting scenery.

I'm horrible with long exposures actually. I don't practice them either and I really should.

No crop sensor. The IS is very important as I shoot concerts (from time to time), and what are posed shots are few and far between.

The reason for looking into an upgrade in body is also due to the development of faster shutter speeds, better mirrors, and a more efficent IS sensor.

J

I barely need the IS on the 24-75..... but I chose that rather than the ever so slightly faster focus of the Canon offering. It was nice that it saved me money, but for me at the moment cost is no object and I still chose the IS.

It's not needed for most situations, until you end up in a church in Italy that was build before before the city burned to the ground. Crazy dark in some places. Concerts should have enough light to make IS not needed and you need to shoot those fast anyway.

I would probably still want it though. If it was sports with a lot of lighting though, and I assume concerts to be relatively the same, I would want the fastest focus. How far away are you when you shoot a concert J?

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Earlier studies of American wealth have tended to show only small increases in inequality in recent decades. A 2004 study of estate-tax data by Wojciech Kopczuk of Columbia University and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, found an almost imperceptible rise in the share of wealth held by the top 1% of families, from about 19% in 1976 to 21% in 2000. A more recent investigation of the Federal Reserve’s data on consumer finances, by Edward Wolff of New York University showed a continued but gentle increase in inequality into the 2000s. Mr Piketty’s book, which drew on this previous work, showed similarly modest rises in wealth inequality in America.

 

A new paper by Mr Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics reckons past estimates badly underestimated the share of wealth belonging to the very rich. It uses a richer variety of sources than prior studies, including detailed data on personal income taxes (which the authors mine for figures on capital income) and property tax, which they check against Fed data on aggregate wealth. The authors note that not every potential source of error can be accounted for; tax avoidance strategies, for instance, could cause either an overestimation of the wealth share of the rich (if they classify labour income as capital income in order to take advantage of lower rates) or an underestimation (if they intentionally seek out lower yielding investments for their tax advantages). Yet they believe their estimates represent an improvement over past attempts.

 

The results are enough to make Mr Piketty blush. The authors examine the share of total wealth held by the bottom 90% of families relative to those at the very top. Because the bottom half of all families almost always has no net wealth, the share of wealth held by the bottom 90% is an effective measure of “middle class” wealth, or that held by those from the 50th to the 90th percentile. In the late 1920s the bottom 90% held just 16% of America’s wealth—considerably less than that held by the top 0.1%, which controlled a quarter of total wealth just before the crash of 1929. From the beginning of the Depression until the end of the second world war, the middle class’s share of total wealth rose steadily, thanks largely to collapsing wealth among richer households. Thereafter the middle class’s share grew along with national wealth thanks to broader equity ownership, middle-class income growth and rising rates of home-ownership. The expansion of tax breaks for retirement savings also helped. By the early 1980s the share of household wealth held by the middle class rose to 36%—roughly four times the share controlled by the top 0.1%.

 

 

From the early 1980s, however, these trends have reversed. The ratio of household wealth to national income has risen back toward the level of the 1920s, but the share in the hands of middle-class families has tumbled (see chart). Tepid growth in middle-class incomes is partly to blame; real incomes for the top 1% of families grew 3.4% a year from 1986-2012 while those for the bottom 90% grew 0.7%. But Messrs Saez and Zucman reckon the main cause of falling middle-class net worth is soaring debt. Rising home values did little to raise middle-class wealth since mortgage debt also soared. The recession battered home prices but left the debt untouched, further squeezing middle-class wealth.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, the fortunes of the wealthy have grown, especially at the very top. The 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01%, with an average net worth of $371m, now control 11.2% of total wealth—back to the 1916 share, which is the highest on record. Those down the distribution have not done quite so well: the top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and exactly the same share as the bottom 90% of the population. Meanwhile the share of wealth held by families from the 90th to the 99th percentile has actually fallen over the last decade, though not by as much as the net worth of the bottom 90%.

 

The outsize fortunes of the few would not be too worrying were they largely the product of entrepreneurial activity: riches amassed by hardworking billionaires who are as likely as not to give their bounty away through philanthropy. Messrs Saez and Zucman find some evidence for this dynamic. Wealthy families are younger than they were a generation or two ago, and they earn a larger share of the country’s income from labour: 3.1% in 2012 versus less than 0.5% prior to 1970.

 

Yet one should not yet rule out the return of Mr Piketty’s “patrimonial capitalism”. The club of young rich includes not only Mark Zuckerbergs, the authors argue, but also Paris Hiltons: young heirs to previously accumulated fortunes. What’s more, the share of labour income earned by the top 0.1% appears to have peaked in 2000. In recent years the proportion of the wealth of the very rich held in the form of shares has levelled off, while that held in bonds has risen. Since the fortunes of most entrepreneurs are tied up in the stock of the firms that they found, these shifts hint that America’s biggest fortunes may be starting to have less to do with building businesses, just as Mr Piketty warned.

 

[Godsmack 360]

Looks like I may have some coin I can spend on some new camera gear. What size glass have you guys been using lately and what for?

Looking at a new body too, but that will be a last minute decision.

J

I missed this.

What Sean said.

If you go full frame you can "get away with" 24-70 and 70-200. If you use a crop sensor you will want wider.

2.8 aperture.

IS is something you can deal without. I wouldn't want to on the long end of that 200 though.

It really depends on what you shoot. I shoot portraits 80% or more. 95% are not posed. Almost 99% cannot be duplicated (wedding, birthday, event). So I care about IS and speed of focus more than someone who spends their time at wide angles shooting scenery.

I'm horrible with long exposures actually. I don't practice them either and I really should.

No crop sensor. The IS is very important as I shoot concerts (from time to time), and what are posed shots are few and far between.

The reason for looking into an upgrade in body is also due to the development of faster shutter speeds, better mirrors, and a more efficent IS sensor.

J

I barely need the IS on the 24-75..... but I chose that rather than the ever so slightly faster focus of the Canon offering. It was nice that it saved me money, but for me at the moment cost is no object and I still chose the IS.

It's not needed for most situations, until you end up in a church in Italy that was build before before the city burned to the ground. Crazy dark in some places. Concerts should have enough light to make IS not needed and you need to shoot those fast anyway.

I would probably still want it though. If it was sports with a lot of lighting though, and I assume concerts to be relatively the same, I would want the fastest focus. How far away are you when you shoot a concert J?

Depends. Sometimes right in front pit barricades (in the photo pit) standing in front of a stage, shooting somewhat upward. Other times 15 rows back of the stage by the sound board. Some are rather dark, others have strobes, flash bulbs, etc everywhere.

Other activities (sports etc) all depend as well.

J

[dem beats 1,223]

7D mk2 and a 70-200 ISii.

Then something wide for fun.

You set then fam.

[MKader17 332]

Went to AT&T since my wife's Moto X speaker stopped working. AT&T said, sorry its out of warranty, want to "upgrade"?

2 weeks out of warranty...

Left and got on a chat with a Moto rep. By the time we got home they had a loaner on the way with return postage after they extended the warranty by one month.

[topgun 262]

The first two lines sounds typical, the last one doesn't.