Mentioned artefacts and noise, over-saturation, everything caused by high ISO. From my experience, Canon 50D gives unacceptable noise above 200 ISO..."

I recall a few years ago a similar situation, and the upshot was they could do that, but they were required to purchase a new copy of the image for each sale. There was nothing against the licensing (it was DT or FT, I don't remember which) that prevented this. The defense of this practice was that it is no different at all from a buyer purchasing one of our images and then going to a photo shop to get an expensive print made of it.

Quote from: adijr on December 12, 2010, 18:17

... I don't disagree that most governments have some corruption, but I think for the sort of facts you're posting you need some references (and I mean statistics, studies, etc back up by some scientific plan, not an article from FoxNews) ...

An article from Fox News, LOL.  I never watch it.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that probably if you watched Fox News for a little while, and then compared their opinions to other networks, you would conclude that all of these networks are pro-(big)-government, and they only disagree on which areas should have Big Government and which areas should have Really Really Big Government.

Here is the case against government, it rests on logic and not on statistics.

A government is by definition a group of people who claim a monopoly on the use of violence in a particular geographic region.  Violence is the beginning and end of government power (if you don't believe it then try subtracting from your tax payment the money which you feel is being wasted or stolen, and wait to see what happens).  Yet, governments claim that this violence is necessary for them to perform beneficial acts of charity and cooperative "public works".  That is a logical impossibility - governments are saying, "Let us help you ... or we'll kill you."  That is not charity, it is brigandage.

Quote

... I've heard all too many times about the long lines and people dying because they can't get a surgery, but very little in terms of proper numbers. I can definitely understand how overhead goes up due to strong unions, misuse of money and so on. But to go from that to saying that all these systems will collapse, especially without numbers, might be overdoing it.  And this of course is a completely different discussion from the one that decides just who is allowed to have medical access in each system ...

With the possible exception of Norway, Alberta and a handful of oil sheikdoms who can (for now) afford to pay for exorbitant social welfare programs, there is NO country right now that I am aware of who provides welfare, medicare, government pensions, etc. and who can balance their budget.  None of 'em.  Go google it if you want, I think you'll find that all of these countries are facing not only budget problems right now, but are also facing more and more severe problems in the next few decades because of demographic problems.  They will have many, many more old people who expect receive pensions and free medical care than they will have young, working people who could be taxed to support the old people.  Whatever savings that older people might have put away are being severely eroded through monetary inflation (printing money) so it's hard to see how any of this is going to end well.  Laughably, what the EU considered to be a "good" amount of unbalanced budget was to borrow "only" an extra 3 percent per year of the value of the entire production of the country.  Even that is digging a hole then pulling down the walls down on yourself (and your children and grandchildren) but many of the countries, especially the benighted PIIGS, simply lied about their deficits and were allowed to participate in the Euro welfare scam anyways.

Any system that gives away "free" stuff will end in the same way.  When the cost of something (to the consumer) approaches zero, the demand approaches infinity.  Stated another way, there is no such thing as a free lunch (unless you steal it).

What happened was this - the politicians who created these social welfare programs did not give a cr_ap whether they would be sustainable for 20, 50 or 100 years.  Being politicians, they sought to grab power only in the next election.  That is the only horizon that matters to any politician.  Every "social program" is in fact a pyramid scheme.  The neatest example I can think of is a little old gal called Ida May Fuller, the first ever recipient of US Social Security.

Quote

By the time of her death, Fuller had collected $22,888.92 from Social Security monthly benefits, compared to her contributions of $24.75 to the system.

Nice little scam!  And she didn't finish collecting the free money until around 40 years after the politicians who created SS won their election in 1936.  Did they care?  Why would they?  Not a single one of them will still be alive when SS collapses in a cesspool of unfunded liabilities in a decade or two from now.

If you dig a bit into the origins and future of every other social welfare program - such as Canada's Biggest Sacred Cow (medicare) you will find the same, scummy, political opportunism and the same, hopeless financial dead-end.  That is why I say that government welfare programs are not just a little bit corrupt and inefficient, but they are inherently corrupt.  It is an irrational fantasy to believe that politicians can create or sustain wealth in a country by collecting money under threat of violence and redistributing it to their political supporters so that they can win the next election.

Quote from: pet_chia on December 12, 2010, 12:36

Quote from: adijr on December 11, 2010, 21:07

I am a canadian living in the US as a student. Canadian taxes are skyhigh compared to here. Most people I know in Canada and with whom I've at least mentioned finances are quite content to pay their taxes, even those taxed at 50%.

I am really curious why (some?) people are sooo eager to not pay taxes here in the US. In my mind, the equation was very simple, more taxes = more social programs, infrastructure, etc. (of course, assuming no excess of corruption)
...

Excess of corruption?  All of these social programs are inherently corrupt...

I don't disagree that most governments have some corruption, but I think for the sort of facts you're posting you need some references (and I mean statistics, studies, etc back up by some scientific plan, not an article from FoxNews)...

Now, why do I have to pay 30% if I don'tlive in the USA?   

A self-employed "rich" person living in a high tax state can easily approach a 50% tax rate, depending on circumstances.

The highest Federal tax rate is 35%. Self-employment tax is an additional 15.3% (the proposed cut notwithstanding), but that applies only to the first $107K of earnings. Only 2.9% is applied to all earnings. State and even city taxes (rare) can be as high as more than 10% (though deductions on the federal return might lower the real rate a bit).

I've never been up there, but while I'd love to earn that kind of money, I suspect I wouldn't be that thrilled with giving up almost half of it to the government.

Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2010, 10:23

What on earth is the point of joining the forums and starting a post to complain that we're all a bunch of whiners?

Yeah, there should be a rule that they have to read the complaints and constant crying for six months, before announcing that we're a bunch of whiners!

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 12, 2010, 11:26

of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity

Ah... fair enough Luis.  I suppose it will remain a curiosity if we can't see his/her port.