I guess moving to the 415 is still a thing, so you fly on over from New Yawk or Joisey and then have your Beemer loaded up in a car carrier for delivery direct to your new stoop in the Western Addition:
Just as the Tenderloin has Ace’s, for the New Yawk crowd, the Lower Haight has DANNY COYLES, apparently, on Any Given Sunday:
My aging cell phone, which was the King Of The Hill back in 2012, crashed after I installed the app found at NYTimes.Com/vr, oh well.
But someday I’ll VR.
Consarnit, I remember back in aught-nine when a person could buy a 47-inch focal length EOS camera lens for a mere $120,000, but these days? In these days, the very same lens will run you $180,000:
Go ahead and slap it on your $400 Drebel – it’ll fit. No fancy IS Image Stabilization or nothing, but it’ll fit
All the deets:
“The Canon 1200/5.6L USM, the longest fixed telephoto lens ever built by Canon, contains 13 elements (2 Fluorite) in 10 groups and focus’ down to 49.5′. With an angle-of- view of about 2° on a full-frame 35 mm camera, calling this lens a ‘tele’ is like calling King Kong a monkey.
Built-to-order by Canon from 1993 to 2005, each lens was hand-crafted at the rate of about 2-per-year and a delivery time of about 18 months. Only a dozen-or-so were ever made. Who bought them? National Geographic magazine and Sports Illustrated are known to own a couple, the Feds probably have a few squirreled away somewhere, and a few well-heeled photo enthusiasts.
This particular lens is extremely clean inside and out. Included with this lens is a leather slip-on ‘lens cap’, the original fitted aluminum trunk case, a custom trunk case with wheels that holds the original trunk case, and a prodigious measure of ego satisfaction. Weighing in at over 36lbs and an overall length of 33 inches, a sturdy tripod and pan/tilt head is highly recommended.
Pack mule not included.“
So the barge was the Left Coast Lifter and not the crane part?
As seen just a couple months ago in Oakland:
Click to expand
Hoo boy: “Don’t Blame Malaysia Airlines”
“Was this disaster somehow the airline’s fault? The answer is no — but to understand why, you have to look at the complex realities of modern commercial aviation.”
My isn’t this a touch patronizing? Well, obviously the primary fault is with the crew and commanders of the Gadfly missile system used to shoot down the plane. But Malaysian Air Systems is partially to blame for its negligent operation.
“Malaysia Airlines, already world famous because of the still-missing flight MH370, appears to have been following all normal safety rules.”
Is anybody suggesting that this flight was somehow illegal? I don’t think so. So talking about Malaysian following the “rules” is pointless.
“…explicit prohibitions are critical, because the entire aviation system works on the premise that unless airspace is marked as off-limits, it is presumptively safe and legal for flight.
OK again, Jimmy, the flight was unsafe but legal. Nobody’s suggesting that the flight was not legal.
“…when they crossed this zone at 33,000 feet, they were neither cutting it razor-close nor bending the rules, but doing what many other airlines had done, in a way they assumed was both legal and safe.”
Again, Jimmy, why are you harping on what’s “legal” to make your point that Malaysian wasn’t negligent? It’s as if the New York Times has turned into the Public Relations arm of Malaysian Air Systems or the government of Malaysia.
All right, it’s time to review. Here’s a partial list of airlines that were specifically avoiding this part of eastern Ukraine before the shootdown:
Korean Air Lines
Air Berlin [Germany’s second-largest airline]
The operators of these airlines would have been able to fly over eastern Ukraine legally, but they chose not to. Why’s that, Jimmy? Why would these airlines spend more on kerosene for no reason?
Somehow I suspect that if it had been a Lufthansa plane that was attacked, there would be fewer starting-point assumptions that the carrier had somehow been cutting corners at the cost of its passengers’ safety.
This sounds like it came straight from Malaysian Airlines, this racism (or whatever) argument he’s pushing. In any event, corner-cutting at the expense of passenger safety is exactly what occurred here.
And here’s the stinger:
“If a government or rogue faction shoots down a commercial plane, is that really an “air safety issue?”
Well, hell yes it is, Jimmy. It’s exactly an air safety issue. That’s why all those airlines cited above, plus others, were avoiding the area. For safety.
Comes now aviation writer Christine Negroni to offer views contrary to that of flyboy fanboy James Fallows:
So while Malaysia is self-evidently correct it its statements; the airspace was open and hundreds flights between Europe and Asia were using it every day, it is a weak reply to a valid question of responsibility.
Why James Fallows wants to shut down the conversation about the question of responsibility is a mystery to me…