Most of which would agree with the quote “You can have your opinions but not your own facts” ( those that don’t agree, we will have to renegotiate the friendship agreement ).

But it turns out, not if you’re an Apple iPhone user, facts are actually not facts.

Via Fairfax: “Apple has leapt to repair an embarrassing bug that last week caused the personal assistant app Siri to declare that the Nokia Lumia 900 was the best smartphone ever.

The article says that Siri pulls “Facts” from Wolfram|Alpha ( The article actually states WolphramAlpha, but we know that Fairfax outsourced sub-editing anyway ).

However if you were to ask Siri what is the best phone is, fact is not something that would be returned.  What is returned is opinion.

Are Fact verse Opinion clearly delineated when you get a result? Of course they aren’t.

Most people would think this is a small issue. What does it matter that that Apple would “fix” their software to support themselves.

Shades of the future via the Simpsons comes to mind

“Troy: Now turn to the next problem.  If you have three Pepsis and drink one, how much more refreshed are you?  You,the redhead in the Chicago school system?
Girl: Pepsi?
Troy: partial credit!”

We let companies get away with this, after all facts are such trivial things.

My question immediately is what other facts simply became collateral damage.

Where does the line get drawn. Perhaps we are already so far passed it, there is no turning back.

I have managed to find a copy of the flow chart Hockey/Abbott will use for the Budget Reply.

…. I’ll wait till see if I am wrong.

Using history as I guide, I don’t think I am.

( Note: this graph can be used for any Coalition statements )

So here is a quick one, looking at one of the shots from the #wolfcatnz trip.

This was Dawn over Golden Bay. I am also more impressed that I was even up that early given the large percentage of a bottle of Bushmill’s Black Bush that my Grandfather and I manged to drink the night before.

Given my lack of predilection to being up at this hour, the shot was taken in Auto No Flash Mode.

The following are the screen shots for the “Developing” I did in Lightroom 3.6.

This was about 5 min of work in total.

( Each of these images opens in a new window to Flickr, where you can view the full size screen grab )

As with most of my photography, I’d like to give a big shout out to the location for making the shot possible.

Stage 1 – The Raw File


Stage 2 – Auto Tone ( can be handy to see what needs to be corrected, although I find it tends to over expose to my taste )

Stage 3 – Lens Correction.  Having these built in saves so much time.  In this case, it was for my good old Sigma 18-200mm.

Stage 4 – Camera Profile – Vivid.  To bring out the richness of the tones I was looking for in the image. ( ah shooting Raw I do love thee )

Stage 5 – Clarity/Saturation/Vibrance – Tweeks to make the image sing that little bit more.

Stage 6 – The all important crop.  Bring the image down to where I wanted it.  Not so top heavy for starters.

Stage 7 – Graduated Filter. With the sun quite high in the sky and focal points being on the shadowed hills, the sky was a touch over blown.  ( and while yes a set of Grad Filters is on my to buy list, I don’t have them yet. )

Stage 8 – I often refer to this stage as the … oh didn’t see that till I uploaded it to Flickr Stage.  In this case, Stage 8 involved a small correction to the crop angle and I removed one spot of reflection from a building.  When looking at the image large, the sun hotspot reflection draws your eye in the wrong direction.

I hope you are as happy with the final image as I am.  Five min in lightroom can be well worth your time.

And the EXIF Data.

And of course… Here is what the Framed version looks like if you were to buy it via RedBubble ( go on click it…. )

I wonder if I can claim something as lost before it has even hit the stores…

or see this blog post This Photo is worth $̶U̶S̶D̶5̶9̶9̶9̶ ̶R̶R̶P̶ ( Now $USD 3300 RRP )as another way to help me get my D800

A few quick impressions.  Yes the Sigma 150-500mm will try and auto-focus with this converter…. but and it is a big one.. it won’t be very successful.  In bright light you can get focus but it requires a tripod and a lot of luck at the long end of the range.  So you are better off switching to manual focus.  In fully auto mode I found the d7000 tended to over compensate for the F stop which pushed out to f13 at 500mm, and so the ISO jumps to 1600.  So, once again push to manual. Even my Nikkor 18-105mm does autofocus with this teleconverter.

It is going to take me a while to get the hang of this new teleconverter, but first impressions they say are the ones that count.  My impressions are nice.  Yes images aren’t as sharp, there are issues with focus.  But the EXIF data is all correct, the Kenko works with my Sigma perfectly.

Part of the major issue with focus is that most of my lenses don’t hard stop at infinity.  Which means looking through the view finder to get the image as sharp as possible. Quiet hard to do when a mm movement will reduce sharpness dramatically.

And if you have ANY dust devils on your sensor… you will notice them straight away.  I am going to have to get the D7000 cleaned before the Point Cook Airshow, at f13 the shots are full of dust.

So here are two moon shots the settings in camera and are copied from one shot to the other in lightroom3 so are identical. These are the uncropped versions, click on the images for the bigger versions on Flickr. ( But I did do a dust clean up on them )

The Moon at 500mm

The Moon at 1000mm


The Set up:

Enjoy.

( See also 11mm to 1000mm a slideshow showing shots from one location zooming in on the complete focal range I have access to. )

This shot is from 8.5km away…

well I posted this

“help twitter… mrs wolfcat is holding my new 2xteleconverter ransom … she won’t release it until more chores are done”

below are the replies…

( The names have been deleted to protect the innocent )

Female: one is free to throw oneself on ones own sword, [howls with laughter :0))]
Male: if she breaks the teleconverter, you’ll have to buy a new, high-res D4 / D800 and crop
Male: 2 options comply or dare, comply you’re done. Dare she’ll break everything you care about until you’re done are we clear yet?
Female: Well do the chores then! #UsGirlsStickTogether
Female: no mercy, dude, no mercy
Male: you’re on your own mate :/
Female: well then, you’d better hurry up and finish up those chores…
Male: Definitely by the short and curlies
Male:  We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

To be honest the not “not negotiating with terrorists” is about the most useful…

anyway I must get on and back to my chores…  review of the teleconverter will have to wait.

———–

Update – the next morning…

I was finally told the secret hiding location… in typical Mrs Wolfcat fashion it was in plain sight all along..

… Next step the D800…..

Won’t be long before I am saying sit down and shut up….

SOME REPORTER: Could I read you a letter from yesterday’s Australian? It said ‘Actions of corporate dishonesty and custodial sentencing. Pity the same rules don’t apply to politicians.’ What’s your response?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I can understand why people feel unhappy about the Government’s decision to introduce a price on carbon. But we took a decision that in the end it was more important to be economically responsible, and more important to maintain the climate in the long term than it was to avoid embarrassing the Prime Minister.

SOME REPORTER: So honesty comes a distant second in this?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, when I made that statement, in the election campaign, I had not the slightest inkling that there would ever be any intention to change this. But obviously when circumstances change, governments do change their opinions, and that is actually the responsible course of action.

SOME REPORTER: You say you had no inkling it was likely to change, but Scientists knew that there’d been a blow-out, didn’t it?

JULIA GILLARD: Yes. We certainly were aware the costs were increasing, and there was no secrecy about this, Some Reporter. The, the pre-election climate outlook statement revealed that there had been a substantial increase in the cost of the carbon, and obviously since the election the Government has had the opportunity to consider this blow-out — to look not just at the current quadrennium, but to look at the long term — and has made the decision that the price had to be applied.

SOME REPORTER: So it didn’t bother to look at the long term before the election?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, we, we were looking at the long term before the election. But obviously in a budget context you can focus even more directly on the long term, and that’s what we’ve done.

SOME REPORTER: It sounds as though you can’t believe anything anyone says in an election if they follow those rules.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter…

SOME REPORTER: Unless it coincides with the budget.

JULIA GILLARD: Some reporter, look, I can understand your scorn.

SOME REPORTER: Mm.

JULIA GILLARD: And I can certainly understand the dismay of — of some electors. I can obviously understand that. But there are all sorts of values here. One value is obviously keeping commitments. But another important value is economic responsibility, and another — a third important value is solidarity with the team.

And in the end I think voters expect above all else that governments will be economically responsible, and certainly I think economic responsibility has been the chief hallmark of the Gillard Government.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, again let me say that I can understand why people are dismayed by this decision. But in the end governments have to balance a whole lot of objectives. And sometimes you have to choose between a range of difficult, even unpalatable, alternatives.

And we could stick with the pre-election position. And further blow out the cost to the climate. Or we could make a change. And we thought on balance it was best to take the economically responsible position now.

SOME REPORTER: On balance wouldn’t it have been better to be honest before the election? Acknowledge it had blown out to $1.3 billion and make the changes thenJULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, we did acknowledge in the pre-election financial outlook statement that there had been a very significant blow-out in the cost to the climate. I think the, the first year cost of the climate had blown out by some fifty per cent in the pre-election financial outlook statement, and obviously there had been a commensurate blow-out in the forward estimates.

SOME REPORTER: Now, Wayne Swan also knew the figures were phony, didn’t he? In fact he said the parameters of the Carbon Tax will not change. In other words, he committed himself as much as you did.

And yet he’s led the charge now to break the promise. What do you think of that? This is the bloke who wants to be prime minister.

JULIA GILLARD: Some Reporter, again, I can understand your dwelling on this. But, but sometimes governments have to choose between a range of unpalatable alternatives. Now…

SOME REPORTER: One of the unpalatable alternatives is telling the truth, presumably.

JULIA GILLARD: We set up this Carbon Tax back in March of last year. Thinking that it was going to cost $440 million.

SOME REPORTER: You knew by the election it was $1.3 billion.

JULIA GILLARD: We, we discovered in September-October that it was going to cost a lot more. We made a decision in a budget context that the best thing we could do for the long-term health of the climate, and indeed for the long-term health of the climate, to change the thresholds.?

SOME REPORTER: And con the people through the election.

JULIA GILLARD: Look, we, what we, what we said to people back then was what we honestly believed to be the case. And…

JULIA GILLARD: But, but Some Reporter, the point I make is that there was no deception about the cost blow-out. The cost blow-out was there for all to see in the pre-election financial outlook.

SOME REPORTER: The deception’s about what it meant.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, the thing is this: obviously when you have time to reflect and consider these things, as governments obviously do in a budget context, you’ve got to make a decision. And the decision was to be economically responsible.

SOME REPORTER: Now, you opposed that decision. Did you at any point consider resigning?

JULIA GILLARD: Not seriously.

SOME REPORTER: But you considered it?

JULIA GILLARD: Oh, look, when you tell me that I should resign, Some Reporter, on national television, obviously the thought goes through your head. But as I said, there are many important values here. One is keeping commitments. Another is economic responsibility. And a third is solidarity with the team.

And it’s been a very good team. It’s been a very good Government. And in the end I think people don’t have a simple-minded approach to this. They understand that governments have got to balance a range of different objectives, and probably economic responsibility is the most important one.

SOME REPORTER: But your word’s not worth much any more, is it? A Julia Gillard commitment now will rouse horse laughs.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, look, these are the risks you run, obviously. And I guess I would simply ask people to appreciate the totality of the circumstances in which governments operate.

SOME REPORTER: The Productivity Commission has suggested that Australians who can afford a price on carbon should be allowed, or even obliged, to opt out of the public electricity network. Is the Government going to do that?

JULIA GILLARD: That’s not something that the Government plans to do.

SOME REPORTER: Is that an iron-clad, rock solid commitment?

JULIA GILLARD: Some Reporter, I, I’m not…

SOME REPORTER: You see the problem you’ve got?

JULIA GILLARD: Yeah, look, I understand that, Some Reporter. But the point I’m making is that when circumstances change, governments change their view. And that’s not mendacity. That’s responsibility.

SOME REPORTER: The circumstances that changed was you won the election.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, we, we are considering the long term health of our climate in a budget context. And we believed on very full consideration that the best thing we could do to protect and preserve our climate — a climate which The Liberals still pledged to abolish.

SOME REPORTER: You said repeatedly in the election that the Government would not price carbon

Is that a rock solid, iron-clad commitment?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, yes it is.

SOME REPORTER: You see, at this point we cue the horse laughs, don’t we?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, well, Some Reporter, as I said, I can understand your scorn. But I think that the citizenry of Australia know that governments sometimes have to choose between a range of difficult alternatives. And in this case we had to choose between strictly keeping that commitment that I gave, and the long term health of the economy, and the long term health of the Climate.

And we chose the long term health of the economy and the Climate.

SOME REPORTER: Julia Gillard, we thank you.

JULIA GILLARD: Thanks  Some Reporter.

————————————————————————————————————-

ok… I have a confession, I didn’t write this… in fact apart from changing the words in italics and the names “Julia Gillard”, “Some Reporter” and references to Labor, the rest is actually a word for word transcript. I admit I did change the meaning, by swapping Medicare Safety Net for Climate Change.

As for the original, the actual person who broke the election promise, well that was one Tony Abbott.  See this is a transcript of an interview from April 17, 2005.  ( Sunday Programme with Lauri Oakes ) Well after Howard decided that there were “non-core promises” at election time anyway.

Food for thought next time Tony Abbott rants on about broken promises….

This pic is Erin in her Jolly Jumper.  I must say I am a big fan of the Jolly Jumpers, it also helps that the Cubs are as well. The one tip I would give anyway is always put a rug underneath the child.  If it isn’t vomit from bouncing there will be litres of drool that soak into the floor.

The advantage of twins is that you can put them both in the jumpers they do amuse each other.  This gives parents 30 min or so to run around and get some chores done. An added bonus it that they are still where you left them and at the same time wears them out (ready for  a nap) like nothing else yet.

Oh yeah and they are cute too boot as well.

Due to the Wolfcatcubs currently (and for the next 30+ years I think) Redbubble is the only money that I have to spend on new toys for the camera. ( Hint hint hint )  Of course in the last few days I have no offers on my $5999 print, so no new d4 for me, but I will have about $400 to spend in the next few weeks.

With so many toys I still NEED, I thought I would put out my list of possibles and see what others think.

I could get one of the following… to go with a Nikon 90 and D7000

• AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G
• Cokin U960 Z-Pro Graduated Neutral Density Kit
• or either the 1.4 or 2x Teleconverter for my Sigma 150-500mm

of course I’d like all of these… but you can’t have it all can you.

Perhaps there is something else in the ballpark that I really should get?

Thoughts below please…

–

update: brought a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 2x Converter.