Stealth photography
Arnold
them being aware. Reason is I will be in Mumbai India next month and
am keen on taking pictures of street scenes.
In a lot of places, the best way to take sneaky pictures is to just
have the camera in plain sight and shoot without raising it to the eye
or at arm's length. And if you conceal the camera, I know from my own
experience that street people can often sense that... or maybe I did
it the wrong way before.
But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to show if
possible. That's for security reasons -- less chance of a snatcher
getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about shooting.
So just interested in anyone who has done this successfully in this
type of situation.
Arnold
Bob Williams
In the "Old Days", (35 mm film Cameras), Vendors sold a screw-on lens
attachment that positioned a mirror at a 45° angle to the lens.
So the camera captured the scene that was 90° to the aiming direction.
They may be available for digicams too. You will have to Google on it.
Might be under "Right Angle Lens Adapter" or something similar.
Bob Williams
Alfred Molon
Perhaps avoid to use a DSLR...
--
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Val Hallah
buy an Olympus 565
Chris Malcolm
> I need some advice on taking pictures of people on the street without
> them being aware. Reason is I will be in Mumbai India next month and
> am keen on taking pictures of street scenes.
> In a lot of places, the best way to take sneaky pictures is to just
> have the camera in plain sight and shoot without raising it to the eye
> or at arm's length. And if you conceal the camera, I know from my own
> experience that street people can often sense that... or maybe I did
> it the wrong way before.
> But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to show if
> possible. That's for security reasons -- less chance of a snatcher
> getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about shooting.
Make something you can hide the camera in while holding it under your
arm and pointing forwards, such as a bag or folded jacket. Fire the
shutter with a radio trigger carried in your pocket.
--
Chris Malcolm
MC
news:qt25n4pc5j26b6e0r...@4ax.com...
I do this a lot with a dSLR. I shoot from the waist. I keep the lens wide
and just point in the general direction and snap away. It is a game of pot
luck as to what your results will be but you can get a few pleasant
surprises. This is part of the fun I suppose. Still with digital it does
not matter how many snaps you waste.
MC
Alan Smithee
news:qt25n4pc5j26b6e0r...@4ax.com...
I personally use a 1200mm lens with 6 X2 converters. Don't even need to
leave the hotel, just shoot and crop in PP.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>I need some advice on taking pictures of people on the street without
>them being aware. Reason is I will be in Mumbai India next month and
>am keen on taking pictures of street scenes.
I don't think I would do it. They are rightfully a little
nervous right now after what recently happened and I would not want to
do anything that might cause concern. Not only would you be putting
yourself at risk bur but you would be making others worry not knowing
why you are tying to hide what you are doing. Go ahead and take
photos if you like, but be obvious about it and don't try to worry
anyone. If someone asks you to stop or expresses some concern don't
try to argue you have a right, which you may, but comply and help them
recover.
David J Taylor
That would be my feeling as well, although I don't know what the risks are
there of walking around with an expensive looking DSLR.
David
tony cooper
wrote:
>...and here I was thinking I was the sniper. You just have to get up
>there and stick the camera in the subject's face and be prepared to
>run!!
>http://snipr.com/aal5i-vpdvdn
I prefer sitting in the car parked near a corner and use my 55/200
through the window.
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/streetman.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
C J Campbell
> I need some advice on taking pictures of people on the street without
> them being aware. Reason is I will be in Mumbai India next month and
> am keen on taking pictures of street scenes.
It is India. People are going to stare at the camera. No getting around
it. So you just have to be quick and get as many shots as possible
before it becomes too dreadful.
You get this in a lot of Asia. In the Philippines, not only do they
stare at the camera, but they start waving and making bunny ears and
like that.
So the only real answer is not stealth, but speed. Get your shot before
anyone notices that you have a camera. The more you try to conceal it,
the more attention you will attract to yourself.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
mianileng
shooting with my FZ30 which is almost as conspicuous as a DSLR. I
understand the OP's concern, especially when visiting a poorer,
less advanced country. But I'd think the risks are not much more
than in any other crowded city.
Tip to the OP: Unless things have changed since my last visit,
the taxi drivers are pretty decent, though average-sized
westerners will feel cramped in the oooold Fiats. The fare is
regulated by the government and is calculated from the readings
on the meters which are mostly very old. They are required to
carry a tariff card which you can ask to see. It's a chart giving
the meter reading and the current rate. You can ride a long way
for the equivalent of US$2 or 3. Usually, tips are not given or
expected.
And if your camera does get snatched, shout "Choor, choor" (choor
= thief in Hindi, one of the very few words in my Hindi
vocabulary :)) and you'll have several citizens trying to catch
the thief. :)
C J Campbell
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> said:
Having been in all kinds of third world countries, I can say that I
generally feel safer there than on any street in big-city America. I
don't know why that is, but I get the feeling that in the third world
people are kind of used to watching out for one another. This is not to
say that there is no crime and that you can be careless, but I
certainly think it is no more dangerous to walk around with an
expensive DSLR in Mumbai than it is in Seattle.
That said, it is easy to get into trouble when you are in a strange
city. The locals know where the trouble is. You do not. It is sometimes
well worth it to hire a cabby to show you around. Cab drivers tend to
be rather protective of their fares, especially if they think you will
tip well. I have developed some rather long-lasting friendships with
cab drivers in different parts of the world. Most of them grew up in
tough neighborhoods or even on the streets, so they know how to watch
your back. And you would be surprised at how many of them are rather
accomplished photographers.
Chris H
sligoNo...@hotmail.com writes
I couldn't agree more.
Now is not the time to play at spies/terrorists doing a recon in many
parts of the world.
Your best bet might be to get a BIG lens for your DSLR and a BIG camera
bag and paint CNN, BBC, AP or Rueters down the side (but NOT FOX :-).
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Arnold
wrote:
>In message <6gu6n4hmqsbr4g4bu...@4ax.com>,
>sligoNo...@hotmail.com writes
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:03:50 -0700, Arnold <Arn...@Internet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I need some advice on taking pictures of people on the street without
>>>them being aware. Reason is I will be in Mumbai India next month and
>>>am keen on taking pictures of street scenes.
>>
>> I don't think I would do it. They are rightfully a little
>>nervous right now after what recently happened and I would not want to
>>do anything that might cause concern. Not only would you be putting
>>yourself at risk bur but you would be making others worry not knowing
>>why you are tying to hide what you are doing. Go ahead and take
>>photos if you like, but be obvious about it and don't try to worry
>>anyone. If someone asks you to stop or expresses some concern don't
>>try to argue you have a right, which you may, but comply and help them
>>recover.
>
>I couldn't agree more.
>
>Now is not the time to play at spies/terrorists doing a recon in many
>parts of the world.
>
>Your best bet might be to get a BIG lens for your DSLR and a BIG camera
>bag and paint CNN, BBC, AP or Rueters down the side (but NOT FOX :-).
Making it look like a diaper bag might be better...
Arnold
Chris Malcolm
> And if your camera does get snatched, shout "Choor, choor" (choor
> = thief in Hindi, one of the very few words in my Hindi
> vocabulary :)) and you'll have several citizens trying to catch
> the thief. :)
Interesting! That suggests an origin for the British slang "chore" for
"steal".
--
Chris Malcolm
Arnold
wrote:
What's the pronunciation of the Hindi choor? Same as English chore?
Bob Williams
Check out these attachments.
I think they will do the trick for you
Bob Williams
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Voyeur-Right-Angle-Canon/dp/B000F49052
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/464906-REG/Bower_VL144_37mm_Right_Angle_Mirror.html
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
There are many "British" words Char == tea, bint == girl etc etc that
come from India, middle east and Africa brought back by the military
whilst they were " civilising" the rest of the world :-)
Neil Ellwood
> In message <6ti58gF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>mianileng <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> And if your camera does get snatched, shout "Choor, choor" (choor =
>>> thief in Hindi, one of the very few words in my Hindi vocabulary :))
>>> and you'll have several citizens trying to catch the thief. :)
>>
>>Interesting! That suggests an origin for the British slang "chore" for
>>"steal".
>
> There are many "British" words Char == tea, bint == girl etc etc that
> come from India, middle east and Africa brought back by the military
> whilst they were " civilising" the rest of the world :-)
But chore is a boring repetitive task.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Chris H
<cral.el...@btopenworld.com> writes
Yes.. It is not a crime or theft Time to search the dictionary... chore
is NOT a British English word for steal
mianileng
I didn't know for sure so I asked a friend who speaks Hindi
fluently. He confirmed that it's pronounced the same as the
English chore.
It may surprise some people that there tens of millions of
Indians, maybe hundreds of millions, who speak little Hindi or
not at all. India is a chaotic mixture of different races, each
with its own language and culture. For example, my people, who
number about a quarter of a million, have our own state with just
a sprinkling of other races. We have practically nothing in
common with the rest of India. We have our own unique language
and alphabet (very similar to the English alphabet). We are 100%
Christian and our basic nature is quite different from mainstream
India. Heck, we don't even *look* Indian. A westerner will
probably take us for Koreans or some other oriental race.
mianileng
I didn't know that. In that case, the origin is most probably
what you suggested. There are other words in English, not just
slang, that originated from Hindi and other Indian languages.
E.g., jungle comes from the Hindi "jangal".
bugbear
> I need some advice on taking pictures of people on the street without
> them being aware. Reason is I will be in Mumbai India next month and
> am keen on taking pictures of street scenes.
>
> In a lot of places, the best way to take sneaky pictures is to just
> have the camera in plain sight and shoot without raising it to the eye
> or at arm's length. And if you conceal the camera, I know from my own
> experience that street people can often sense that... or maybe I did
> it the wrong way before.
If you're trying to take pictures of people
who do not want you to, a moral dimension exists
to this question.
BugBear
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <yeadndMuCJrg2-nU...@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood
><cral.el...@btopenworld.com> writes
>>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:49:12 +0000, Chris H wrote:
>>
>>> In message <6ti58gF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>>> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>>mianileng <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And if your camera does get snatched, shout "Choor, choor" (choor =
>>>>> thief in Hindi, one of the very few words in my Hindi vocabulary :))
>>>>> and you'll have several citizens trying to catch the thief. :)
>>>>
>>>>Interesting! That suggests an origin for the British slang "chore" for
>>>>"steal".
>>>
>>> There are many "British" words Char == tea, bint == girl etc etc that
>>> come from India, middle east and Africa brought back by the military
>>> whilst they were " civilising" the rest of the world :-)
>>
>>But chore is a boring repetitive task.
>
>Yes.. It is not a crime or theft Time to search the dictionary... chore
>is NOT a British English word for steal
It's a slang term for "to steal" according to the Dictionary of Slang,
Jargon and Cant and Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and other sources.
Some sources give the origin as Hindi and some from the Romany word
"cor".
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
Are those British dictionaries?
I have not heard the word used like before in the UK and neither have
my sons (early 20's) or my wife , a teacher who is "down with the kids"
:-)
Is there an on line link to your references? Not that I don't believe
you it is just that I am curious and would like to look it up. My Full
Oxford (the 21 volume version with Etymology) does not have it listed
in that context.
I found
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/c.htm
Which says ad you have found it is Romany so it would probably not be
in common English usage. However it would be the link from the
Romany's to the Hindus but appears, from the Oxford Dictionaries
Etymology to have nothing to do with the common English chore as in "to
do work".
Though I did find http://www.slangsite.com/slang/C.html
chore: Chat room whore.
Example: I'm typing naked, said the chore.
OR I'd have sex with you, but I hate to do chores.
Don't you just love the Internet you chores :-)
Chris Malcolm
> Are those British dictionaries?
It's been commonplace playground and street slang in Scotland all my
life. I'd be surprised to find a local Scot who wasn't familiar with
it.
> Is there an on line link to your references? Not that I don't believe
> you it is just that I am curious and would like to look it up. My Full
> Oxford (the 21 volume version with Etymology) does not have it listed
> in that context.
However not only is in not in the full OED, it's also not mentioned in
any on-line Scots dictionary. So I conclude that it's one of those
common street terms which hasn't yet made it into print. The OED is a
dictionary of printed English.
--
Chris Malcolm
Ofnuts
> But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to show if
> possible. That's for security reasons -- less chance of a snatcher
> getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about shooting.
This is India. Actually safer for foreigners than many places in the US
or Europe.
--
Bertrand
Chris H
George Kerby
On 1/19/09 3:15 PM, in article 4974ed8f$0$27584$426a...@news.free.fr,
"Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote:
Tell that to the patrons of the Taj Mahal Hotel...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal_Hotel>
"The casualties were mostly Indian citizens, although westerners carrying
foreign passports were singled out."
Chris Malcolm
> Where in Scotland?
At least the big lowland cities.
--
Chris Malcolm
tony cooper
wrote:
They are dictionaries of slang. They include English language slang
terms from all over the world. Eric Partridge, author of several
dictionaries and books on slang and other unconventional uses of
English, was born in New Zealand and attended the University of
Queensland and served as a Fellow at Balliol College, Oxford.
At one time, he was a teacher in Lancashire. He worked at the British
Library (the national library of the UK) for over 50 years. He died
in Devon (UK) in 1979.
He was one of the world's most noted lexicographer, philologist, and
etymologist. An unimpeachable source in this field.
>
> I have not heard the word used like before in the UK and neither have
>my sons (early 20's) or my wife , a teacher who is "down with the kids"
What you have personally heard has nothing to do with whether or not a
word has a slang meaning or if slang word has current use.
>
>Is there an on line link to your references?
Several. Look them up. Try a Google search using "chore slang
steal".
>I found
>http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/c.htm
>
>Which says ad you have found it is Romany
"from the Romany" means "derived from a Romany word or term". It does
not mean that it is a Romany word. It is *from* "te chorel". Or, it
may be from the Hindu word. Slang terms often have cloudy histories
that make it impossible to accurately determine the origin.
>so it would probably not be
>in common English usage. However it would be the link from the
>Romany's to the Hindus but appears, from the Oxford Dictionaries
>Etymology to have nothing to do with the common English chore as in "to
>do work".
You need a dictionary of slang to find it. An etymology dictionary
gives you the history of words, but does not always include all words
that are used as slang.
tony cooper
wrote:
That's a meaningless statement. Many places in India are safer than
many places in the US, and many places in the US are safer than many
places in India.
Arnold
Okay, I will leave that passport in the room then.
Arnold
tony cooper
wrote:
>My understanding is the usual meaning(non-slang) is a routine household
>task; the 18th cent. root is a variant of the obsolete char or chare
>as in charwoman (chore + woman).
Sure. The common and usual meaning of "chore" is "a task". However,
many words have multiple meanings, this is one of them, and not all of
the many meanings of some words are commonly known or used.
Some slang terms are almost unknown outside of a particular locale,
profession, or society. But, they can be commonly understood in their
slang sense by a particular group of people.
Some professions - notably the police and the military - use slang in
everyday conversation, but the terms may not be at all familiar to
outsiders. I don't know if you would call the underworld a
"profession", but that field is particular ripe with slang that has
meaning to insiders but not outsiders.
Similarly, the British rhyming slang can produce terminology that
would baffle people not familiar with it. Brits may know what "to
have a butcher's" means, but your understanding may lead you believe
it has something to do with supermarkets. It doesn't.
Chris H
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
That is cockney rhyming slang. From a small part of London (not all
Londoners are cockneys)
to have a "Butcher's"
Butchers Hook == Look
Ones "plates"
Plates of Meat == Feet
to comb one Barnet
Barnet Fair == Hair
Apples and pares == stairs
Trouble and strife == wife
the problem for non Londoners is the rhyme is with the second word which
is often dropped. :-) No it was not done to confuse the Germans in
WW2 :-)))))
Chris H
<Arn...@Internet.com> writes
The best bet is not to have an American one
Chris H
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> writes
This sort of thing can happen anywhere.
The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
ones.
Chris H
<o.f.n...@la.poste.net> writes
Really.... I thought there were dragons and tourists were taken as
slaves and people with knives slit everyone's throat.... People always
fear what they don't know :-(
They know about India from multiple screenings of the documentary
films " the North West Frontier" and the "Khyber Pass" etc and the
information about the average Saturday night in Mumbai a few weeks ago.
After 9/11 90% of Americans stopped flying the Atlantic for about 3
months.
NOTE that after all his travels across Asia and China Marco Polo had to
get back to Europe to be robbed....
whisky-dave
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:z7H6oYN8...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <4974ed8f$0$27584$426a...@news.free.fr>, Ofnuts
> <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> writes
>>Arnold wrote:
>>
>>> But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to show if
>>> possible. That's for security reasons -- less chance of a snatcher
>>> getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about shooting.
>>
>>This is India. Actually safer for foreigners than many places in the US or
>>Europe.
>
> Really.... I thought there were dragons and tourists were taken as slaves
> and people with knives slit everyone's throat.... People always fear what
> they don't know :-(
No that's sarf lundun ain;t it ;-)
tony cooper
wrote:
>The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>ones.
You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
unsafe in?
In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
in all American cities in all areas of each city?
mianileng
> In message <C59A5A44.1F2F6%ghost_...@hotmail.com>, George
> Kerby
> <ghost_...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/09 3:15 PM, in article
>> 4974ed8f$0$27584$426a...@news.free.fr, "Ofnuts"
>> <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote:
>>> Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>>> But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to
>>>> show
>>>> if possible. That's for security reasons -- less chance of a
>>>> snatcher getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about
>>>> shooting.
>>>
>>> This is India. Actually safer for foreigners than many places
>>> in
>>> the US or Europe.
>>
>> Tell that to the patrons of the Taj Mahal Hotel...
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal_Hotel>
>>
>> "The casualties were mostly Indian citizens, although
>> westerners
>> carrying foreign passports were singled out."
>
> This sort of thing can happen anywhere.
>
an airplane crash or a hijack. Not like being in Gaza right now.
I walked along the beach near the Taj Hotel several times a few
months before the killings. It's hard to imagine
such tragic events taking place there.
> The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than
> American
> ones.
I don't know if it's actually safer, but I'd say it's no less
safe. I sometimes prowled the slum areas of Mumbai alone at
night, but I never encountered anything but courteous decent
people. I don't mean to say that there are no bad elements in
Mumbai. There are. I was there in 1993 when several bombs
exploded. I heard some of the explosions and saw some of the
casualties. I saw the effect in the Air India building where the
blast ripped through several floors. But I'd say that, with
reasonable precautions, the chances of being the victim of
terrorism or theft are smaller than that of being in an air
crash.
ChrisM
Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
But some of those expressions have a wider usage/understanding than just
those that live 'within the sound of Bow Bells' these days. Many people who
live outside London would understand 'have a butchers' or 'look at the state
of his barnet!" and especially 'apples and pears' for stairs.
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:40:36 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>>ones.
>
>You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
>unsafe in?
San Jose... (apparently we were in the wrong part) Though I felt quite
safe in want I was told was the wrong area of San-Francisco. No I was
not on holiday I was working there.
>In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
>in all American cities in all areas of each city?
Friends who have travelled extensively in both the US and India tell me
India is safer in that you are less likely to get violent robbery or
physically threatened. In India pick pockets are more of a problem than
a gun in the face.
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <nvjbn4tgkr0is3b2s...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:40:36 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>>>ones.
>>
>>You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
>>unsafe in?
>
>San Jose... (apparently we were in the wrong part) Though I felt quite
>safe in want I was told was the wrong area of San-Francisco. No I was
>not on holiday I was working there.
>
>>In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
>>in all American cities in all areas of each city?
>
>Friends who have travelled extensively in both the US and India tell me
>India is safer in that you are less likely to get violent robbery or
>physically threatened. In India pick pockets are more of a problem than
>a gun in the face.
I have traveled extensively in the US, spent time in most of the major
cities, and lived in a large city (Chicago). I've never been robbed
or otherwise the victim of a crime on the street. The only time a
pickpocket made an attempt on my person, it was a young child in
Cologne, Germany. My car was broken into in Dublin, but nothing was
taken. I had a jacket taken in the train station in Amsterdam, but it
was my fault. I left it on a bench and walked away from it. I can't
think of anyone that I know personally who has been robbed on the
street in any country, but I do know people who have had their cars
broken into.
Street crime is common in any country if you venture into the wrong
area. My experience - or lack of experience with street crime - is
partially luck and partially in having an awareness of my surroundings
and acting accordingly.
Blanket statements like "X is safer" depend mostly on the specific
area of any city in the world more than anything else. Comments like
"my friends tell me" don't mean squat. Tourists like a good story.
Tourists, in any country, are likely targets because they carry around
valuable things visibly and leave them in sight in automobiles.
I've been to San Jose, btw. How you could feel unsafe there is
amazing. Did you think you'd be mugged by some suburban ladies in
town for lunch? It's not exactly Brixton.
Staffordshire tops the list in crime increase in the UK according to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1120016.stm
"Overall, 17 of the UK's 43 police forces recorded rising levels of
crime. Topping the list were Staffordshire, with a 13.4% rise, and
Suffolk, up 10.8%."
Who would have thought it's dangerous to walk the streets in Burton
Upon Trent?
Arnold
Downtown Detroit or Houston come to mind... and parts of downtown San
Francisco... and Little Rock east of downtown... south Chicago...
Arnold
Arnold
wrote:
>In message <blian4dtakgcqp3tv...@4ax.com>, Arnold
><Arn...@Internet.com> writes
>>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:26:44 -0600, George Kerby
>><ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 1/19/09 3:15 PM, in article 4974ed8f$0$27584$426a...@news.free.fr,
>>>"Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arnold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to show if
>>>>> possible. That's for security reasons -- less chance of a snatcher
>>>>> getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about shooting.
>>>>
>>>> This is India. Actually safer for foreigners than many places in the US
>>>> or Europe.
>>>
>>>Tell that to the patrons of the Taj Mahal Hotel...
>>>
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal_Hotel>
>>>
>>>"The casualties were mostly Indian citizens, although westerners carrying
>>>foreign passports were singled out."
>>
>>Okay, I will leave that passport in the room then.
>
>The best bet is not to have an American one
I kind of doubt they would actually take the time to do a passport
check on you.
Arnold
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:24:24 -0500, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:40:36 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>>>ones.
>>
>>You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
>>unsafe in?
>>
>>In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
>>in all American cities in all areas of each city?
>
>Downtown Detroit or Houston come to mind... and parts of downtown San
>Francisco... and Little Rock east of downtown... south Chicago...
>
How does "in all areas of each city" bring "parts of..." to mind?
George Kerby
On 1/20/09 2:34 PM, in article o2dcn49odm3ulm9up...@4ax.com,
"Arnold" <Arn...@Internet.com> wrote:
Downtown Houston has one of the lowest crime rates. Many Professionals live
in lofts and condos there and the night life is excellent.
The action is in the 'burbs and surrounding illegal apartment complexes
where the gang bangers hang.
You don't know what your are babbling about...
Wally
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:34:43 -0700, Arnold <Arn...@Internet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:24:24 -0500, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:40:36 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>>>>ones.
>>>
>>>You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
>>>unsafe in?
>>>
>>>In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
>>>in all American cities in all areas of each city?
>>
>>Downtown Detroit or Houston come to mind... and parts of downtown San
>>Francisco... and Little Rock east of downtown... south Chicago...
>>
>
>How does "in all areas of each city" bring "parts of..." to mind?
If you don't like the response, best to just ignore it instead of
arguing about it.
Arnold
I was thinking about the area along Westheimer just west of downtown.
Used to be a nice area, then went downhill.
Arnold
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 12:36 AM, in article fggdn4t8ij7p6ffkt...@4ax.com,
"Arnold" <Arn...@Internet.com> wrote:
You talking about the antique dealer area? Maybe gays bother you, but it
isn't a high crime area.
<http://www.ericcarlson.net/crimestats/blocks2007.html>
As you can see, the area west of downtown that you speak of hasn't a hit.
Sharpstown, where the gang-bangers (Soutwest) thrive, is a hotbed, OTOH.
In fact, most is outside the Loop. So, again, you don't know of which you
speak.
Paul Furman
>
>
> On 1/21/09 12:36 AM, in article fggdn4t8ij7p6ffkt...@4ax.com,
> "Arnold" <Arn...@Internet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:02:14 -0600, George Kerby
>> <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/20/09 2:34 PM, in article o2dcn49odm3ulm9up...@4ax.com,
>>> "Arnold" <Arn...@Internet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:24:24 -0500, tony cooper
>>>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:40:36 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>>>>>> ones.
>>>>> You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
>>>>> unsafe in?
>>>>>
>>>>> In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
>>>>> in all American cities in all areas of each city?
>>>> Downtown Detroit or Houston come to mind... and parts of downtown San
>>>> Francisco... and Little Rock east of downtown... south Chicago...
>>>>
>>>> Arnold
>>> Downtown Houston has one of the lowest crime rates. Many Professionals live
>>> in lofts and condos there and the night life is excellent.
>>>
>>> The action is in the 'burbs and surrounding illegal apartment complexes
>>> where the gang bangers hang.
Agreed, SF has it's skid row areas but not particularly dangerous except
late at night. Head over to the more sprawling areas of Oakland or
Richmond if you want to get carjacked or beat up.
For the OP, I think photography is a very popular pastime in India, no?
I would use a compact lens & tape over any identifying marks on my
camera, make it look like some generic old piece of junk carry it in a
dumpy looking bag, no strap & just go ahead & shoot, mostly giving the
impression that I was shooting the building beyond and occasionally
squeeze some people shots in too.
>>> You don't know what your are babbling about...
>> I was thinking about the area along Westheimer just west of downtown.
>> Used to be a nice area, then went downhill.
>>
> You talking about the antique dealer area? Maybe gays bother you, but it
> isn't a high crime area.
>
> <http://www.ericcarlson.net/crimestats/blocks2007.html>
>
> As you can see, the area west of downtown that you speak of hasn't a hit.
> Sharpstown, where the gang-bangers (Soutwest) thrive, is a hotbed, OTOH.
>
> In fact, most is outside the Loop. So, again, you don't know of which you
> speak.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Chris Malcolm
Not the same Chris, but oddly enough in my visits to the US I never
felt unsafe, but was often told very sternly by locals that I was
unsafe. For example police picked me up taking an after dinner evening
stroll in Washington and drove me back to my hotel. They found it hard
to repress their scorn for someone so absurdly naive as not not
realise how much risk I had been putting myself in. (That's British
understatement for them being extremely insulting.) And when they saw
that they didn't seem to be scaring me enough, they said if they found
me walking the streets again they'd arrest me. For my own good. If
they found me alive.
Then there were the Boston cab drivers in heavily fortified cabs who
wouldn't drop me outside my hotel. They didn't care about my safety,
they said it was far too dangerous for them to stop in that area. I
guess that explained why the hotel's rates were so reasonable :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 12:01 PM, in article 6tp67vF...@mid.individual.net, "Chris
Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:40:36 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>
>>> The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>>> ones.
>
>> You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
>> unsafe in?
>
>> In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
>> in all American cities in all areas of each city?
>
> Not the same Chris, but oddly enough in my visits to the US I never
> felt unsafe, but was often told very sternly by locals that I was
> unsafe. For example police picked me up taking an after dinner evening
> stroll in Washington and drove me back to my hotel. They found it hard
> to repress their scorn for someone so absurdly naive as not not
> realise how much risk I had been putting myself in. (That's British
> understatement for them being extremely insulting.) And when they saw
> that they didn't seem to be scaring me enough, they said if they found
> me walking the streets again they'd arrest me. For my own good. If
> they found me alive.
You really were lucky. My wife and myself decided early one evening to leave
her Aunt's place in Arlington, near Crystal City and walk across a couple of
streets to have a drink at the nearby Hyatt near National Airport. In the
process, we were held up at gunpoint by some gangbangers who took my wallet
and her jewelry, jumped back in their lowrider and drove back to DC, where
firearms are outlawed. We were in a well-lit area and it was around 8:30 PM,
not some out of the way area. The same bunch of morons tried a week later to
hold up a liquor store and were caught. The dumbassed crack-head didn't have
any rounds in his weapon at the time they were busted. Again, a case of
going to the suburbs for the looting.
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:40:36 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>
>>>The point is you are generally safer in Indian cities than American
>>>ones.
>
>> You are? In your US travels, Chris, what American cities did you feel
>> unsafe in?
>
>> In your extensive experience with the US, Chris, did you feel unsafe
>> in all American cities in all areas of each city?
>
>Not the same Chris, but oddly enough in my visits to the US I never
>felt unsafe, but was often told very sternly by locals that I was
>unsafe. For example police picked me up taking an after dinner evening
>stroll in Washington and drove me back to my hotel. They found it hard
>to repress their scorn for someone so absurdly naive as not not
>realise how much risk I had been putting myself in. (That's British
>understatement for them being extremely insulting.) And when they saw
>that they didn't seem to be scaring me enough, they said if they found
>me walking the streets again they'd arrest me. For my own good. If
>they found me alive.
I have had that happen to a friend of mine in New York years ago.
>Then there were the Boston cab drivers in heavily fortified cabs who
>wouldn't drop me outside my hotel. They didn't care about my safety,
>they said it was far too dangerous for them to stop in that area. I
>guess that explained why the hotel's rates were so reasonable :-)
The crime rate in the US cities is quite high compared to many other
parts of the world. However in many cases it is internal among those
who frequent certain areas (ie rival drugs groups and street gangs) and
does not affect the general population or tourists
tony cooper
wrote:
Once, on a visit to NYC, I took the family to a New York Yankees night
game. There was a rain delay, and the game ended very late. We took
the subway from Yankee Stadium to the Columbus Circle stop and walked
our hotel (the St Moritz on Central Park South). Everyone I mentioned
this to said we were crazy.
No problem on the subway. The Yankees won and it was a friendly
crowd. Perhaps if they had played Boston, and lost, it would have
been different. (Intense rivalry there, Chris, in case you don't
follow American baseball)
tony cooper
wrote:
>The crime rate in the US cities is quite high compared to many other
>parts of the world. However in many cases it is internal among those
>who frequent certain areas (ie rival drugs groups and street gangs) and
>does not affect the general population or tourists
There are two high crime areas in this city: violence in the lowest
income area, and robbery in the tourist corridor. Thieves grab
tourists getting in and out of the cars in the expensive hotel parking
lots. Like Willie Sutton said about robbing banks, "That's where the
money is". Tourists carry more cash around than locals do, they have
pawnable cameras and devices, and they are not likely to remain in
town to come to court if the robber is caught and arrested.
ppp
(Being short of money), which is a 24-200 0r better 24-300 FX (not dx) not
too expensive? Tamron / Sigma ? other trens?
Possibly from somebody who is already using such a zoom lens.
Thanks for any advice.
ppp
David Ruether
"ppp" <p...@ton.it> wrote in message news:49785921$0$1121$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it...
The obvious question is, "Having spent a 'ton' of money on the
body, why put a low quality lens on it?". Look around for some
good used AF lenses (or even MF lenses) that will work well
on the body and are of high optical quality - and consider some
non-zooms, which are often faster and better than even good
zooms that include the same focal-lengths. My Nikkor evaluation
list may help, at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html,
and I have some FF lenses for sale, at -
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs.htm.
--DR
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Malcolm
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> saying something like:
<of chore/choor>
>It's been commonplace playground and street slang in Scotland all my
>life. I'd be surprised to find a local Scot who wasn't familiar with
>it.
I've never heard it used in Scotland meaning 'to steal'. That doesn't
mean it isn't used that way, but I'd suggest it's a very localised
usage, perhaps near a barracks where a regiment brought the word back
with them after Indian service, perhaps many decades ago, and it stuck.
Chris Malcolm
> <of chore/choor>
If so it must have spread since then, since I've heard it in Dundee,
Edinburgh, and Glasgow, which pretty much spans the Lowlands from east
to west.
--
Chris Malcolm
C J Campbell
> In message <4974ed8f$0$27584$426a...@news.free.fr>, Ofnuts
> <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> writes
>> Arnold wrote:
>>
>>> But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to show if
>>> possible. That's for security reasons -- less chance of a snatcher
>>> getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about shooting.
>>
>> This is India. Actually safer for foreigners than many places in the US
>> or Europe.
>
> Really.... I thought there were dragons and tourists were taken as
> slaves and people with knives slit everyone's throat.... People always
> fear what they don't know :-(
>
> They know about India from multiple screenings of the documentary
> films " the North West Frontier" and the "Khyber Pass" etc and the
> information about the average Saturday night in Mumbai a few weeks ago.
>
> After 9/11 90% of Americans stopped flying the Atlantic for about 3 months.
>
> NOTE that after all his travels across Asia and China Marco Polo had to
> get back to Europe to be robbed....
Ironic, that. However, the only place I have ever been burglarized or
robbed was in the Philippines. I have had stuff taken from my hotel
room in Rome. Come to think of it, when I was a kid, I was mugged at
knife point for my lunch money in a school yard in Bellevue, Washington.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Grimly Curmudgeon
I was born and brought up in the West and it was unheard of there, so
it's a recent introduction.
Chris Malcolm
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> saying something like:
>>Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly...@removegmail.com> wrote:
>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Malcolm
>>> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> saying something like:
>>
>>> <of chore/choor>
>>
>>>>It's been commonplace playground and street slang in Scotland all my
>>>>life. I'd be surprised to find a local Scot who wasn't familiar with
>>>>it.
>>
>>> I've never heard it used in Scotland meaning 'to steal'. That doesn't
>>> mean it isn't used that way, but I'd suggest it's a very localised
>>> usage, perhaps near a barracks where a regiment brought the word back
>>> with them after Indian service, perhaps many decades ago, and it stuck.
>>
>>If so it must have spread since then, since I've heard it in Dundee,
>>Edinburgh, and Glasgow, which pretty much spans the Lowlands from east
>>to west.
> I was born and brought up in the West and it was unheard of there, so
> it's a recent introduction.
I've been trying to remember, and I'm pretty sure I never encountered
it in my youth. My impression is that I first came across it among my
son's teenage school friends in the east, which is two or three
decades ago.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris H
<2009020918301450073-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>, C J
Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 2009-01-20 02:36:44 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <4974ed8f$0$27584$426a...@news.free.fr>, Ofnuts
>><o.f.n...@la.poste.net> writes
>>> Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>>> But in Mumbai I'm thinking I really don't want the camera to show
>>>>
>>>> getting it -- plus no need to be inhibited about shooting.
>>> This is India. Actually safer for foreigners than many places in
>>>the US or Europe.
>> Really.... I thought there were dragons and tourists were taken as
>>slaves and people with knives slit everyone's throat.... People always
>>fear what they don't know :-(
>> They know about India from multiple screenings of the documentary
>>films " the North West Frontier" and the "Khyber Pass" etc and the
>>information about the average Saturday night in Mumbai a few weeks ago.
>> After 9/11 90% of Americans stopped flying the Atlantic for about 3
>>months.
>> NOTE that after all his travels across Asia and China Marco Polo had
>>to get back to Europe to be robbed....
>
>Ironic, that.
Rather.
>However, the only place I have ever been burglarized or robbed was in
>the Philippines. I have had stuff taken from my hotel room in Rome.
>Come to think of it, when I was a kid, I was mugged at knife point for
>my lunch money in a school yard in Bellevue, Washington.
An interesting statistic is the USA makes up 5% of the worlds people but
has 25% of the worlds prisoners.... (and has the death penalty) so it
would seem that crime is comparatively high in the US (that or in other
countries they don't make it as far as the Police cells :-)
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>An interesting statistic is the USA makes up 5% of the worlds people but
>has 25% of the worlds prisoners.... (and has the death penalty) so it
>would seem that crime is comparatively high in the US (that or in other
>countries they don't make it as far as the Police cells :-)
The conclusion is not that there is more crime in the US, but that
more things are considered illegal in the US. When you add up the
population of the world, you include countries that do not have legal
penalties for certain actions. You include countries in Africa, for
example, where no one is in jail for traffic violations, drug use,
parole violation, tax fraud, and number of other things that are
considered to be crimes that can result in imprisonment in the US.
The above is pointed out not to say that crime is not high in the US,
but to bring those 5% and 25% figures into more realistic perspective.
Statistics like this are invariably flawed. I've seen statistical
comparisons that show that violent crimes are higher in one place than
in another, and then found that the statistics are dramatically skewed
because both places do not categorize crimes the same. One will
consider any crime where a weapon was involved as a violent crime, and
the other will consider it a violent crime only if the weapon was
used. A robbery at gunpoint in one place is a violent crime, but it
is only a violent crime in the other place if the weapon was
discharged.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:22:31 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>An interesting statistic is the USA makes up 5% of the worlds people but
>>has 25% of the worlds prisoners.... (and has the death penalty) so it
>>would seem that crime is comparatively high in the US (that or in other
>>countries they don't make it as far as the Police cells :-)
>
>The conclusion is not that there is more crime in the US, but that
>more things are considered illegal in the US. When you add up the
>population of the world, you include countries that do not have legal
>penalties for certain actions. You include countries in Africa, for
>example, where no one is in jail for traffic violations, drug use,
>parole violation, tax fraud, and number of other things that are
>considered to be crimes that can result in imprisonment in the US.
As I said... in some countries they don't make it as far as the police
cells. :-) Actually people do get jailed in Africa for traffic
violations, drug use, tax fraud, parole and the like. However the
systems are different.
On the other hand your argument falls down with Europe, Asia (where
laws are stricter) and many other countries. Then there are the
totalitarian countries etc
>The above is pointed out not to say that crime is not high in the US,
>but to bring those 5% and 25% figures into more realistic perspective.
Understood.
>Statistics like this are invariably flawed.
As are 94.5644% of statistics :-)
> I've seen statistical
>comparisons that show that violent crimes are higher in one place than
>in another, and then found that the statistics are dramatically skewed
>because both places do not categorize crimes the same.
This is true.
>One will
>consider any crime where a weapon was involved as a violent crime, and
>the other will consider it a violent crime only if the weapon was
>used. A robbery at gunpoint in one place is a violent crime, but it
>is only a violent crime in the other place if the weapon was
>discharged.
Quite so.... However it still remains the US has a far higher prison
population for the population of the country compared to any other
civilised, western country.
John McWilliams
>
> Quite so.... However it still remains the US has a far higher prison
> population for the population of the country compared to any other
> civilised, western country.
And your definitive source is? One simple and clear link will do nicely,
and not that of Google.
--
John McWilliams
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <vivip49me0jn6adqs...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:22:31 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>An interesting statistic is the USA makes up 5% of the worlds people but
>>>has 25% of the worlds prisoners.... (and has the death penalty) so it
>>>would seem that crime is comparatively high in the US (that or in other
>>>countries they don't make it as far as the Police cells :-)
>>
>>The conclusion is not that there is more crime in the US, but that
>>more things are considered illegal in the US. When you add up the
>>population of the world, you include countries that do not have legal
>>penalties for certain actions. You include countries in Africa, for
>>example, where no one is in jail for traffic violations, drug use,
>>parole violation, tax fraud, and number of other things that are
>>considered to be crimes that can result in imprisonment in the US.
>
>As I said... in some countries they don't make it as far as the police
>cells. :-) Actually people do get jailed in Africa
Africa is not a country, Chris. Surely, you know this. I referred to
countries *in* Africa, and there are several countries *in* Africa
where your statement is not valid.
>for traffic
>violations, drug use, tax fraud, parole and the like. However the
>systems are different.
>
>On the other hand your argument falls down with Europe, Asia (where
>laws are stricter) and many other countries. Then there are the
>totalitarian countries etc
You have used the figure of 5% as being the percentage of the world's
population in the United States. In other words, if you add up all of
the population in all of the countries in the world, you get 100%. Of
that 100%, you say that the US accounts for 5% of that figure, but we
account for 25% of the world's prisoners.
If you use just Europe and Asia, the 5% and the 25% would not longer
be true because the total population has been reduced. You follow
that math, don't you?
Also, to make your figures right, all of the countries in the world
would have to accurately account for the number of people imprisoned.
I greatly doubt if this is the case. The number of people imprisoned
in China, for example, is the number the Chinese government is willing
to acknowledge. I think the US figures are reasonably accurate, and
that the UK figures are reasonably accurate, but I have serious doubts
about the accuracy of the Chinese, North Korean, Myanmar, etc figures.
>>The above is pointed out not to say that crime is not high in the US,
>>but to bring those 5% and 25% figures into more realistic perspective.
>
>Understood.
>
>>Statistics like this are invariably flawed.
>
>As are 94.5644% of statistics :-)
>
>> I've seen statistical
>>comparisons that show that violent crimes are higher in one place than
>>in another, and then found that the statistics are dramatically skewed
>>because both places do not categorize crimes the same.
>
>This is true.
>
>>One will
>>consider any crime where a weapon was involved as a violent crime, and
>>the other will consider it a violent crime only if the weapon was
>>used. A robbery at gunpoint in one place is a violent crime, but it
>>is only a violent crime in the other place if the weapon was
>>discharged.
>
>Quite so.... However it still remains the US has a far higher prison
>population for the population of the country compared to any other
>civilised, western country.
I agree. This is primarily due to our drug laws. There's a very high
number of Americans that are imprisoned for drug offenses that I -
personally - consider not to be deserving of imprisoned.
I don't use any form of (illegal) drugs, nor have I ever used any form
of drugs. I do think our drug laws are preposterous, though.
But what's your overall point? I know, from reading your posts, that
you take any potshot at American and Americans that you can, but
what's the point? I don't really give a rat's ass that you don't like
us, but I often wonder why you bother to let us know so often.
tony cooper
You know he's right in the general if not in the specific, though.
His figures are bogus, but the premise is accurate.
John McWilliams
Yes.
I wonder how one factors in those societies who've
murdered/exterminated/'cleansed' their populations rather than time in
the Big House.....
--
john mcwilliams
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
I can't find the link for it. However ti was on BBC Radio4 where it was
mentioned.
Chris H
<jp...@comcast.net> writes
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:45:19 -0800, John McWilliams
>> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris H wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quite so.... However it still remains the US has a far higher
>>>>prison population for the population of the country compared to any
>>> And your definitive source is? One simple and clear link will do
>>>nicely, and not that of Google.
>> You know he's right in the general if not in the specific, though.
>> His figures are bogus, but the premise is accurate.
>
>Yes.
>I wonder how one factors in those societies who've
>murdered/exterminated/'cleansed' their populations rather than time in
>the Big House.....
The US has the death penalty and executes more than any other Western or
European country. However you are right that in some countries people
disappear (though some reappear in Guntanamo)
Chris H
>On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:22:18 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <vivip49me0jn6adqs...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:22:31 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>An interesting statistic is the USA makes up 5% of the worlds people but
>>>>has 25% of the worlds prisoners.... (and has the death penalty) so it
>>>>would seem that crime is comparatively high in the US (that or in other
>>>>countries they don't make it as far as the Police cells :-)
>>>
>>>The conclusion is not that there is more crime in the US, but that
>>>more things are considered illegal in the US. When you add up the
>>>population of the world, you include countries that do not have legal
>>>penalties for certain actions. You include countries in Africa, for
>>>example, where no one is in jail for traffic violations, drug use,
>>>parole violation, tax fraud, and number of other things that are
>>>considered to be crimes that can result in imprisonment in the US.
>>
>>As I said... in some countries they don't make it as far as the police
>>cells. :-) Actually people do get jailed in Africa
>
>Africa is not a country, Chris. Surely, you know this. I referred to
>countries *in* Africa, and there are several countries *in* Africa
>where your statement is not valid.
That is true.
--
John McWilliams
> In message <lokjp4h4nh9l6gsb1...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
<< Snipped bits out >>
>>>> I've seen statistical
>>>> comparisons that show that violent crimes are higher in one place than
>>>> in another, and then found that the statistics are dramatically skewed
>>>> because both places do not categorize crimes the same.
>>>
>>> This is true.
>>>
<< Snipped bits out >>
Can you not trim, Chris??