Lying and denying the suffering of thousand of people is not only immoral, but disgusting. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. Numbers can`t lie. Check wikipedia amongst other official resources. And we are only talking about Chernobyl. Aren`t you ashamed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschernobyl

No, I'm never ashamed of using my brain and stating facts and being truthful. You report an estimation, which is not a scientific fact. There have been several studies showing NO strong correlation between cancer rate in Europe and Chernobyl. You can be as disgusted as you like, but i suggest you to use your time studying instead. It's more productive.

Example:
http://www.sfrp.asso.fr/img/pdf/7-hindie.pdf

Note how the only measurable effect is on Thyroid cancer that is prevented simply by administering jodium as it happened in Japan.

Please next time get your facts straight before insulting people who actually study this stuff.

Why nobody is drilling for the use of geothermal energy? What are the obstacles for tidal plants? I think these two sources should be the priority, the cleanest and they'd produce enormous amounts of energy, nuclear, coal, gas etc plants could be shut down completely.

It's kind of funny reading this hazard/risk free comments about nuclear power. Only mentioning Fukushima. What about Chernobyl? Is your memory really that short?

Chernobyl caused about 200 casualties, probably less, I can't remember the exact number now. Most of the deaths could have been prevented by administering yodium to the population, as it happened in Japan. So, numbers at hand, Nuclear power caused less than 500 deaths (much less in fact) in 20 years compared to thousands and thousands per year associated with fossil fuels. Numbers can't lie.

Geothermal energy is not available anywhere. It's used where it is. Same with tidal plants: not available anywhere, and they don't produce a constant stream of energy and the energy produced is very expensive. What happens when there's no tide? You shut off your PC and lights? Don't forget that any mean of energy production must be as constant and reliable as possible to be useful (solar, wind and tidal are not constant and reliable).

Dude, you are totally lost. Nuclear power is everything but clean. It produces toxic and radioactive carbage in amount that nobody can handle. Japan switched off 52 of 54 reactors and is doing well. Germany decided to get out and is doing well. The opposite. Those countries will develope the technology necesary for the future and will have a huge advantage.
The USA did a huge damage to the world through introducing the "Profit is all" Model. It destroys our world. The concept of infinite growth is destroying our world. It lacks intelligence and moral.

There's an article on the Economist after Fukushima showing that if Germany decides to shut down all nuclear plants today and substitute them with oil and coal, this would cost about 20.000 deaths per year both by pollution and by accidents in the oil/coal production chain. Nuclear power won't cause 20.000 deaths per year. Note that Fukushima, one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, caused zero indirect deaths: radiation levels in Tokyo after the accident were lower than in Rome, for example. Again on the Economist there is a very interesting article showing how Japan prevented any serious health damage.

Renewable energy is an interesting topic: sun power is everything but clean. Producing solar panels is not a clean process and, more, producing and disposing batteries used for storing energy for use at night is extremely polluting.

Nuclear power is de facto the cleanest and more secure way to produce reliable energy while we wait for fusion power.

A good book about Environment and Nuclear power:
http://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Gaia-Earths-Climate-Humanity/dp/0465041698/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

Lovelock is the scientist who invented the Gaia theory, is the first and most well known environmentalist. He invented the green movements. He's a fervid pro-nuclear.

Did you by any chance see that movie, " the enemy within" or something like that, it was about two snipers, one German and one Russian, I think that was more or less based on a true account. although probably dramatized, there was a lot of sniper actions going on.

Enemy At The Gates with Jude Law, the first half an hour is brilliant. The rest of the movie is meh :S
It was the story of Zaitzev, there's still his sniper rifle in a museum in Volgograd.

Yes, I would like to visit as well. The entire WW2. is fascinating, also there is this BBC, series, the world at war, in color, new footage that has never been seen before and apparantly theres lots of film footage from inside Stalingrad.
I think the series is staring again during this summer.

I watched the old one last summer, and I'm waiting for the new one in color

I dont agree with you on this one. No matter what without the US. Europe was broken, the Russian soldiers and people were starving alive, there was nothing left, the US, came in with fresh troops, modern technology. There is no doubt, without the US intervention, todays world would have been very differant.

This is not factual. The Red Army was extremely powerful, in fact in '44, i'll repeat it again, the Wehrmacht was in full retreat across Poland, the Luftwaffe essentially gone and the only strategic objective was to slow down the Red Army to allow the german population still in Poland to evacuate safely to Germany. The main reasons why Americans had air superiority on the Western front was that the Luftwaffe had been wiped out by the Red Army. According to all military historians, at that point (mid '44) there was no way Germany could have asked for an armistice. The war was lost. Imagine only that the Red Army sieged Berlin with more men and artillery pieces than Germany used in the whole Operation Barbarossa!

Without the US intervention the world would have been very different, as you say, simply for the fact that USA wouldn't have such a huge market like Europe for their industry to flourish. But you can not claim that without US intervention in '44 Germany would have won the war. They wouldn't have even been able to request a conditional surrender. War was essentially lost at Stalingrad.

Here's an excellent book that explains what I'm arguing much better than I possibly could:
http://www.amazon.com/Wehrmacht-Retreats-Fighting-Modern-Studies/dp/0700618260

So what was the USA doing from Dec. 1941 until D-Day, sitting on their hands waiting? Seems you are l;leaving out something?

No denying that the USSR and numerous other countries were heavily involved, that wasn't the original claim. Nor did I say anything of the sort.

What started this was, The US didn't join until 1944 when the German's were already on the run. Which is a flat out, lie! There's your revisionist history.

Sorry, but that's historic fact, not a lie. USA entered the war in Europe on June 6, 1944. It's undeniable. Technically, though, the invasion of Europe started in the south of Italy in '43, but it was pretty much stopped cold there at the Gustav Line. For everything else, I urge you to remain civil and accept facts.

Well its a truth with a slight modification, ofcourse they participated and did it very well, just look at Stalingrad!  however, Stalin, was unfortunately not much better then Mr. Hitler, on the contrary, late evidence proclaims him even worse.
Your right though, they did a lot during WW2.

best.

Stalin's attitude is irrelevant to the question: did USA save Europe from Nazi Germany? The answer is no. You could argue that Stalin would have done even worse in Europe, but there is no evidence that Stalin wanted to go beyond Germany and conquer Western Europe, there is actually evidence of the contrary in the form of Kremlin's plans for securing Eastern Europe after the fall of Germany. Stalin, USA and UK were allied at that time, till well beyond Yalta, and even if plans for a follow up war were being drafted by all parties, they were more precautions than anything.

But coming back to today, a long term rise in oil price is inevitable and it is a Good Thing. India, China, South America are seeing a huge influx of cars, for example, that drives oil demand up, which drives oil price up, given that oil production can not rise much further, but will likely slowly fall. More expansive oil means more investment in better cars that consume less gas (something that has been hindered by oil companies for decades), more research and investment in renewable energy, higher tech industries. This will produce more jobs, especially high-tech, which will also require better education, driving school standards higher. Even if I now live in USA, I welcome the rise in oil price, by looking beyond my immediate needs.

Haha thanks guys! Timelapse has become a bit of an addiction at the moment, but its adds a bit of variety from shooting stills. 

It's stunning! It really gives the feeling of the city and left me scratching my head several times asking "where did he put the camera?"
How did you get the shots on the railway?

If I didn't buy a 5D2 last summer this alone "This correction is based on Canon-created lens profiles, up to 29 of which can be downloaded and saved onto the camera. These profiles allow correction not only of lateral CA but also of the harder-to-fix axial CA" would almost make it worth the upgrade. I only use a couple of fast primes and CA is killing me, especially when I have to remove 3 differently coloured aberrations from the high contrast edges

You can use DXO to convert raws, it will do all the chromatic aberration correction for you automatically.

Uh, no, I'm not.

"I know I'm on the right side."  As if there is some moral obligation for an agency to accept a digital release.  There isn't, so there isn't a "right" side.  All there is is the rules per Agency, which you are trying to circumvent.

That's exactly arguing semantics, cause I know you know what I mean. Honestly, I don't have the time, neither the will to argue semantics with you, also cause I respect you.
I prefer to invest my very very little spare time in trying to be somehow decent at photography (and it's a loooooong way), instead of wasting it on compiling and managing "real" model releases for a company with little respect for their business partners and arguably very poor business sense. You call it circumventing? Fine by me. I know I'm on the right side.

Well, you're not.  The policy is that they don't accept it, and you're trying to circumvent that.

You are arguing semantics here. Which is fine by me if you enjoy doing it.

I have not idea about the app you're talking about, but if the signature looks as bad on that as it does on e.g. that thing delivery men carry about with them, or me trying to write a signature on my Wacom, I'm surprised anyone accepts it.

Signature looks very good, and it's accepted literally anywhere except IS.

Unless you swear to me that what I'm doing is wrong. Trust you more than ISP

Phew, feeling way better now.