Pregled posta

Marketing

Likewise this is an eye-catching little subset of a larger scene. Like many things in life, just because they are small doesn't mean that they aren't interesting, and to put a good # of pixels on them you have to use a long lens.

...this whole issue, of useful focal-length range, especially when combined with the photographic "advantages" of small-format and the ease of daylight-shooting combined with the ratio of subjects worth shooting during the day vs at night, these all combine to explain why bridge-cameras with their 28-500mm effective focal-length ranges are so popular, even with their 1/2.5" sensors with between 5 and 10MP. Because even a crappy, noisy camera with a crappy dull lens can take decent shots if there is enough light, and even more so with enough of a zoom-range. That is why for every LX3 you will find a TZ1, for every G9 you will find an S2, and for every DSLR you will find 5 bridge cameras, and nowadays for every DSLR you'll find an IS superzoom or at least 24-70 F2.8 and 70-300 IS lenses. Because having range in your pocket is a good thing, even if you don't always use it. Because you can always use a tripod, but you can't take a good shot of something that you can barely see in the viewfinder.

Sure a short, fast lens (in front of a low-resolution sensor) makes life easier but only when taking wide-angle shots handheld in low light or with bokeh. In almost all other shooting conditions it's a handicap, not a benefit. Plus it's only going to be so *much* of a benefit and you will still get better shots with a flash or a tripod & good technique. It's like putting training-wheels on a bicycle: you will still ride better if you take them off and learn how to ride, plus they can't keep you from crashing anyway. Just like how frame-sliders won't save your $9k motorcycle if you flip it while pulling a wheelie at 25MPH. It's still going to tumble, it's still going to shred parts.

But...sure, while you don't even know how to ride and you want to ride and you're afraid of falling, training-wheels sound like a great thing. This is why a little knowledge can be dangerous: because you don't know the context of what you're talking about, and you tend to say and do things that you wouldn't say and do if you *did* know that context. At least not if you're a rational person...but would a rational person ever speak in ignorance? That's the problem: a so-called "rational person" thinks that they are perfectly entitled to speak as an authority on any subject given ANY information as long as that information is correct :)

But they don't know the whole picture, there is a ton of relevant information that they don't know, they don't know how that information fits together. Not knowing that, they will -at best- merely qualify their opinion and say "well, based on what I know and until I'm told otherwise, this is what I think". And then in the next breath they will dismiss everything that you have to say because in their opinion you're not an expert on anything of interest to them. At *worst* they will extrapolate from some situation that they are familiar with to the current situation at hand, and add a few general bromides and polemics and come up with some half-ass opinion that if you *also* look at it like a retard, kinda-sorta makes sense. Maybe. But not really. It might even sound great in theory, but in practice quickly turns into "wishful thinking". That is because it is -at best- theory that is extrapolated from one situation that is being applied to a different situation by someone who, at best, thinks that they are "rational". The true problem with "the rational person" is that they think that if they stick to what they know and use "logic" as they know it, then they will never be wrong. But that very opinion depends on their knowledge of logic in and of itself, their ability to make use of it, as well as what is and what is not "a fact". And the problem is made worse when these are completely dependent on what another "rational person" has told them that they are. When that evaluation process is disconnected from reality (certainly in the scope of their own lives), when you are talking about a completely abstract situation that suddenly crashes into Reality, that is when Real Trouble ensues.

And that is why I am such a big fan of photography, not to mention general science, experimental-science in general. Because in the real world real things happen, and in experimental science the results are right there for all to see. In the "mental world" things are completely dependent on the mentality of the participants. And it is nothing but funny to see people who think that they are ultra-smart and ultra-educated have to deal with real-world situations in which their bullshit simply doesn't hold water. Oh they would FAR

FAR

rather stick to their bullshit-laden "mental"' worlds,

A brief history of the Westminster Congregational Church

by Deacon Clarence Kneeland

AN OVERVIEW

Captain Sherebiah Butts and his seven sons built the Westminster Congregational Meetinghouse, with considerable assistance, no doubt, from other determined citizens of Westminster.
It is doubtful that these good folk of another day would recognize their own creation, should they step back into life today. Changes have been many and drastic during the past two hundred years. The building has been turned and burned, additions and modifications made both inside and outside.
Although slightly damaged by fire and hurricane, the original building still stands, a monument to its sturdy builders, and the lasting quality of their work.

THE SOCIETY IS BORN

In 1769, a group of Canterbury citizens petitioned the general court of the colony (now the General Assembly) for permission to be set off as a separate society to serve members in the western part of town who found the long trip to meeting at Canterbury Green a hardship in the winter months. This they did after one failure in a similar attempt in 1767. In October of 1769, the Assembly established a separate ecclesiastical society "to be known and called by the name of Westminster".
A hilltop site (one of the highest in the state) nears the center of the society, and at the crossroads was selected as the location of the new meetinghouse. Sherebiah Butts, captain of the local militia, was engaged as master builder and architect. He, along with his sons and other helpers proceeded to the work at hand with suuch promptness that the new church was ready for use in the middle of 1770.
On November 20, 1770, a counsel having been called from churches of several surrounding parishes, fifteen men from Westminster signed the covenant, which definitely established the new church. Excerpts from the covenant read as follows:

WE PROFESS TO TAKE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS AS THE ONLY ULTIMATE RULE OF OUR FAITH AND MANNERS, AND TO BELIEVE ALL THE DOCTRINES THEREIN REVEALED....
WE AVOUCH THE LORD JEHOVAH, FARTHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST TO BE OUR GOD AND THE GOD OF OUR SEED, AND PROMISE, BY THE HELP OF DIVINE GRACE TO ENDEAVOR TO WALK IN ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESS.
WE AGREE THAT THE TERMS OF COMMUNION ARE, A PROFESSION OF FAITH IN CHRIST, (BY WHICH WE MEAN A SOUNDNESS IN FAITH, OR A BELIEF OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL;) ACCOMPANIED WITH SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCRIPTURES AND A CONVERSATION BECOMING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST.

The brethen voted unanimously to give Mr. Elijah Fitch an invitation to take pastoral charge of the church. However, Mr. Fitch declined the offer. It was almost a year later, on November 12, 1771, that Mr. John Staples was given an invitation to become pastor of the new church. The church received an affirmative answer on March 8, 1772, and the Rev. John Staples was ordained as pastor on April 7, 1772. He served the church until his death on February 15, 1804, "in the 61st year of his life and the 32nd of his ministry. Ministers are not suffered to continue by reason of death." So wrote a dutiful scribe of long ago. (Tradition has it that Mr. Staples died as a result of a cold allegedly caught when he forgot to wear his wig one winter evening when asked to call on a woman suffering with scarlet fever.)

THE YEARS ROLL BY

The church common, a tract of about four acres was a gift of John Park for use as a meetinghouse site, burial ground and common. In 1790 the society voted that any who wished might build "convenient and decent horse sheds on the Meeting House Green near the meeting house in said Society." Repairs were found necessary and made on several occasions between 1790 and 1800. In October of 1799 a committee was directed to make necessary repairs and a tax, "of one cent and five mills on the dollar be made on the last August list of the polls and Raitable estates in this Society." At the same time, this committee was given power to "make such alteration in the seetment of the meetinghouse in said Society from time to time as they shall think proper."
In 1803 the society voted to pay for "Building and painting the new gates at the burying yard near the Meeting House in said Society."
It was about this time that a proposition was made that Westminster reunite with the first society of Canterbury. Nothing came of this movement. Instead, the Rev. Erastus Learned was engaged as pastor in 1804, with the annual salary of $333.34.

A BIG CHANGE FOR A LITTLE CHURCH

By 1835, the building, though only 65 years old, and though it had been repaired and painted several times, was in a bad state of disrepair, and considered out of style. On December 28, 1835, a committee reported that they considered it unwise to remodel the old church. They had no plan for a new building, but suggested that "