A few days ago I got a surprise when I heard a chainsaw start up at the bottom of the garden. Unbeknownst to me, the next-door neighbours had hired a company to perform some tree surgery. So, I thought I'd pop out with my 70-300 and see what I could snap. The lighting wasn't great, and my 650D really struggled with the dynamic range of the harsh early-afternoon sunlight and the shade provided by some of the trees. Thankfully I was able to recover quite a bit of detail with the shadow/highlight sliders in Lightroom from the RAW files.
I went to a "mud run" event yesterday (I didn't even know it was on until Saturday night, but a nice touch of serendipity popped up). I haven't finished editing the full gallery yet, but one sequence of images stood out to me. I was sitting on the course and getting some shots of people who were mostly gingerly walking through this big puddle slowly and attempting (and in some cases failing...) to make it through without falling. However, these 2 guys came up and the first one just jumped straight in and belly-flopped into the muddy water. Sadly for me I didn't shoot that because I had been looking in the opposite direction and just caught the end of it. I shouted something like "You should have told me you were going to do that!" and the second guy, without hesitation, shouted back "I'll do it!". The following sequence is his dive:
Thanks. I didn't end up using an ND filter because there were so few periods where there no clouds obscuring the sun. I did have my variable ND (up to 8 stops worth) ready to use if it had been a clearer day though. I also kept the eclipse obscured from the camera when I wasn't shooting pictures or video, just to reduce the risk of sensor damage.
Clearly the UK doesn't have the same scale of problems in terms of shooting unarmed civilians as the US does. However, we do still have a culture of institutional racism in our police force and some areas of society. Something which may be worth reading up on is the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. He wasn't a black man, but there are certain parallels to the death of Michael Brown.
WARNING! Please read the following before clicking on the link to the image below.
The image linked below is of a satirical and humorous letter which appeared in a newspaper. The title of the letter is "Playing football like a girl". However, fear not, for this letter does not in fact contain any sexist or misogynistic content (as an aside, if you read the title of the letter and presumed "like a girl" was used in a pejorative sense you might be sexist). That sort of content has no place on the Live for Speed forum, where all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, age, sense of humour or any other factor are to be treated equally.
The title of the letter and the first paragraph, if read in isolation and taken out of context, could, possibly, be interpreted as being sexist or misogynistic. However, the clever twist in the letter is that the author is not saying that women can't play football. The author is contrasting the sense of "fair play" which is often found in women's football with the general atmosphere of winning at all costs which appears to be inherent in the English Premiership league. Now, those of you who are especially attuned to potential sexism might question the content of this letter. You might, for example, interpret the letter as being sexist against men, since all players in the English Premiership at this time (to the best of my knowledge) are men. However, let me assure you that I do not believe that was the intent of the author. There is a potentially interesting side avenue of investigation into why exactly it appears there is a sense of "fair play" in professional women's football which is sadly missing from the English Premiership. Rather than being rooted simply in the gender of the participants it may centre around the comparatively lower stakes (e.g. in wages, TV revenue) and/or the lower viewing figures and attendance. However, I digress.
Anyway, I just wanted to pre-warn anyone who might be potentially offended by the following image. I do realise that by explaining the content of the image here I may have diluted the comedic effect of said image. However, I firmly believe that's a price worth paying if it stops even one person being potentially offended after reading the title and first paragraph of the letter. Of course, that person could have continued reading the whole letter themselves and determined via the context that the title and first paragraph were, rather than being gratuitously offensive, a clever set-up which the author was employing to make the pivot to the lack of a sense of "fair play" in the English Premiership.
That being said, please enjoy the letter in the following image:
I think part of the 'problem' Rosberg has is that he doesn't feel comfortable being as aggressive as Hamilton does. Hamilton seems to be able to exist on a level where he's pushing 10/10 for lap after lap whereas Rosberg doesn't seem able to do that. Of course, Hamilton does occasionally make some errors (including quite serious ones) with this style. He's had a significant number of off-track excursions and spins in the last few races and qualifying sessions (e.g. Brazil, where it probably cost him the win, and Suzuka (off track 3 times between quali and the race)).
When someone ends their post with "Insert more cliches here" you don't need to know anything about Bernie or be an expert in English. The fact that you intentionally removed this sentence from your original quote betrays your motives.
You may not read this (as you've unsubscribed from the thread), but if your justification for continuing to defend the ban is "If people only read part of the post they'd think it was sexist" then that's incredibly unfair. There are so many things which can be taken out of context and appear offensive.
Obviously you're not going to change your mind on this issue (the fact you don't even acknowledge what you've done wrong is very instructive) is depressing.