At least this is a simpler case than most for assigning responsibility. Obamacare was written and voted into law purely by Democrats, and a Democratic administration executed the law. The Republicans had no hand in it.
That the F-35 isn't a perfect warplane is well established. On the other hand the "Affordable Care Act" is absolutely useless against the latest Russian and Chinese combat aircraft. Even the elderly Iranian air force is more than a match for the ACA.
I see you have a very selective memory. Please read the original plan and then follow the idiotic path of compromises that Republicans forced onto it rendering it into the watered down ridiculous mess that it is.
Your memory isn't so good either. Obamacare was written by Democrats and "progressive" lobbyists*, voted for by Democrats, and implemented by a Democratic administration. They own it lock, stock, and barrel. The Republicans didn't vote for it, you can't blame the Obamacare debacle on them.
If you're going to create a massive new entitlement program grabbing control of 16% of the economy then you should have a broad consensus and support for doing it, and do it with care. The Democrats didn't have that but decided to force a badly written, ill conceived boondoggle on the country. We'll be paying the price for that for years, and I doubt that the Democrats will pay any real price at all.
I wouldn't worry about it. Once a Republican is back in the Oval Office the MSM will be interested in journalism again so there will be more places to find corroborating stories. Besides, the MSM won't have much choice, they'll need a break - carrying all that water wears on the arms and Obama has called for more than most. If only his presidency had turned out as well as Jimmy Carters. If only
Forbes? Really? REALLY?
It's called "journalism." Maybe you've heard of it? There's a whole amendment to the Constitution devoted to protecting it.
You forgot to include the economic costs of people having their hours cut so they no longer qualify for benefits and end up working two part time jobs without benefits to make ends meet. You left out the costs of businesses cutting jobs and locations, and refusing to expand, to avoid the fines, penalties, and costs associated with Obamacare. You left out the costs of people that had benefits but lost them due to companies being forced to drop benefits due to the unnecessary costs forced on them if they offer healthcare due to Obamacare. You left out the stifling of innovation due to the punitive costs and structure of the medical device tax. You forgot to include the cost of trying to force people to violate their conscience as Obamacare is doing.
And perhaps most important, you forgot to include the dangerous precedent of allowing the Federal government to directly force nearly everyone to go buy a very expensive service specified at the whim of the government and its bureaucrats.
What will you have to say if the next administration decides to enforce the militia clause by requiring every adult not convicted of a felony to purchase a $800 rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition and keep it locked in their homes, available for yearly inspection? Not much different than Obamacare, which is now enforced by the IRS. Well, actually that is probably a lot cheaper than most people's Obamacare bill.
. Most of the cost of Obamacare is recognizing costs that were, until now, hidden.
Obamacare is creating plenty of new costs all by itself. It is been a debacle and it has barely started. It will be inflicting plenty more damage on the economy and society in the years to come baring a repeal.
...the connection between the manual focusing ring and the lens part is electronic rather than mechanical...
Just because a lens has electronic focus doesn't mean that it doesn't have mechanical manual focus. At least on the Canon side of things, focus-by-wire lenses are rare. Most of the focus-by-wire lenses are old, discontinued models like the 50mm f/1.0. The only current focus-by-wire lenses I'm aware of are their STM lenses (mostly low end) and the 85mm f/1.2L II. The rest of their L line is mechanical, including the 50mm f/1.2 L (popular for movie work), the 135 L II, their various zooms, etc.
The big advantage that fully manual lenses have over autofocus lenses when it comes to manual focusing is that most manual lenses have a longer throw. This makes it easier to get a more precise focus when focusing manually. They don't do that on autofocus lenses because it would make focusing slower.
With that said, I think the industry's obsession with manual focus is badly misplaced. When you're dealing with 4K video, you want the focus to be right, not just close, and autofocus is a lot more precise than any human can possibly be, even with static subjects, with the best long-throw lenses, and with a separate person doing nothing but handling the focusing. The only thing holding back autofocus for video use was the slowness of contrast-based autofocus (and its tendency to seek). With the advent of on-die phase-detect autofocus capabilities, that limitation is rapidly disappearing. Add a bit of eye tracking into the mix, and I think you'll find that within the next ten years, nobody in their right minds will still be focusing manually, particularly when they're shooting 4K.
it is often better if the aperture can be set in a step-less fashion
AFAIK, that's fairly rare even in fully mechanical lenses unless they've been modified. Perhaps dedicated cinema lenses are different in that regard. I'm not sure. But even some of my old screw-mount lenses from back in the black-and-white TV days had mechanical stops, so I'm guessing stopless lenses aren't exactly common.
So I can conclude that while having a powered mount is very much desirable on Axiom cameras (and so it will come just a bit later) it is also true that the old lenses are in fact more suitable to the task of shooting movies and so the decision to deliver a fully manual Nikon-F mount first is justified
The problem with old lenses is that they're designed for a world where cameras had relatively poor spatial resolution, and for much less reflective sensor material (film). I enjoy playing with old lenses on a 6D, and they create an interesting artistic feel, but they don't even approach the level of flare resistance, sharpness, etc. that you'd want for a digital 4K cinema camera. So if you're limiting yourself to mostly old lenses, you might as well limit yourself to 720p as well, because you'll be lucky to out-resolve that with most lenses designed more than about a decade or so back.
And if you have the money for modern, full-manual cinema lenses, chances are you aren't in the market for anything less than a highly polished, turnkey camera system.
So I really think that they need to at least lay the groundwork (in hardware) by making the plastic plates in front of the sensor removable and by including USB and DC connectors near the back side of that plate so that the system will be readily extensible in the future. That small change shouldn't require a huge amount of effort, and it will future-proof the design in a way that nothing else will.
Or, if USB isn't feasible, a high-speed serial port capable of at least 230 kbps would probably be good enough.
Just my $0.02.
I think you missed my point. If they don't provide an electrical interface near the front of the hardware as part of the core design, there's no way that users can develop any electronic mount hardware, because there's no way to communicate with said mount hardware... or at least none that doesn't involve a box fastened to the back of the camera with a wire wrapped all the way around the camera to the front.
That said, so long as they provide a multipin connector with full-voltage DC and USB pins on the interior of the body, just inside the mount, that's good enough to make it possible to add electronic mount hardware by replacing the mount with a redesigned mount. That's the minimum that the core developers must do. If they don't, first-generation hardware users will be stuck with that limitation forever, and folks will try to work around the lack of that hardware with disgusting workarounds, which future hardware users will then get stuck with... probably forever.
The biggest problem I see with this is that the lens mount system appears to be purely manual. This seriously limits the lenses you can use, because these days, 99% of lenses don't have mechanical aperture control. They really need to have some sort of adaptable lens electronics in this thing, so that people can design adapters that actually support modern lenses, similar to the Metabones adapters for NEX. The absolute minimum requirement for such things is a set of electronic contacts inside the lens mount that are controllable through software.
I think if I were designing a camera system to be extensible, I'd make the lens contacts speak USB 2.0, with appropriate short-circuit protection for when the lens is being attached to the mount. That way, the adapters could be very basic USB controllers that speak a particular lens protocol, rather than having to convert one arbitrary lens protocol to another (potentially incompatible) protocol.
There is one caveat to using USB, though. You'd need to also provide a 7.2VDC pin on the lens mount. Many camera lens systems require that much voltage to drive the focus motors, and it would suck to have to boost the voltage from a 5VDC USB supply in an adapter, particularly given that you probably already have the higher-voltage DC supply floating around inside the camera.
I have little doubt you believe that, but it is complete nonsense, rubbish.
Even if you do believe it, and it would take little research to disprove it, you are still stuck with the question of what to do about ISIS.
Do you think there is a possibility you have a few things wrong?
If not, perhaps you should brace yourself.
First, I'm not talking about adding any additional gear. There's no reason that what I'm talking about can't be handled entirely in the DSLAM or head end or whatever and in the existing CPE hardware that talks to it.
Second, I wasn't really talking about changing the CPE for business customers with fiber connections anyway. They're not (usually) the ones who are constantly on the phone with tech support saying "The Internet is down" when really, they just accidentally unplugged something. I'm talking about providing smarter, preconfigured cable modems and DSL modems for home use.
Link to Original Source
No person is "evil". Calling extremists evil is a lazy manipulation designed to stop you thinking about their motivations and grievances. I think we've had quite enough of that.
ISIS engages in rape, torture, beheadings, amputations, crucifixions, live burials, mass executions, and genocide.
Are they simply misguided? They desire to spread their civilization and form of government over all the earth. Is that wrong? Are you being "judgmental"?
ISIS Attacks: “Religious Cleansing and Attempted Genocide”
Horrors Of ISIS: Children Buried Alive, Crucified Corpses
Iraq crisis: Islamic militants 'buried alive Yazidi women and children in attack that killed 500'
It isn't rare for would-be "martyrs" to disapprove of dying when it isn't under their control, and they don't get to take large numbers of people with them to "earn" their spot in paradise.