Mankiw recently posted about ticket prices and scalpers, and this reminded me that a while ago I thought of a reason why performers might allow some people to make so much money in their stead. It works more for music groups and football teams, but is more relevant for theater performances.
Say you are a music band who has just had a string of hits. You have two options: sell concert tickets for $60, in which case about half of them will go to lucky fans who have been following you since yours early days, and half will go to scalpers who will resell them for $500 to wall street traders that will use them to impress their dates. Or you can sell all of them for $400, and they will all go to wall street types.
It seems a no brainer, but what happens if the next album flops? In the first case, the guys that followed the band from the garage days will still go to the concerts to hear the old songs, and maybe your next effort has a better reception. Even if you never have another hit, you …
As most of you already know, Volkswagen was recently caught cheating on emission tests. But were they really alone in doing so? The EPA data shows some suspicious patterns.
Without getting too technical (in any case, the specifics are still unclear), there's a tradeoff between fuel efficiency, and NOx emissions. So for a given level of performance, the software that controls a modern diesel engine can be tuned so that it is more fuel efficient, but produces more NOx, or it can be tuned so that it is less fuel efficient, but produces less NOx.
Since Volkswagen had problems meeting the NOx standards in the US, they decided to introduce software that detected when an emission test was being performed, and tuned the engine so as to decrease NOx production, in the process potentially worsening fuel economy relative to regular driving conditions.
One possible outcome of this procedure is that the cars involved might actually have better fuel economy in real life conditions, than during …
I just upgraded from a D90 to a D750, and I decided to buy a superzoom to use when I don't want to carry around the full bag of primes. It was a tossup between the 24-120 and the 28-300, but in the end I picked the latter since I already had a 24mm f/2.8D which had been collecting dust during my decade of using DX-sized sensors. In fact I might trade the 24mm with a 20mm if the opportunity comes along.
Anyway, there's a lot of controversy surrounding this lens, so I thought I would make some tests to decide whether to keep the lens or not, and since I have them, I figured I'd post them online.
So here they are. The first one are 200x200pixel crops (roughly) from the center of a resolution target. I took every marked focal length, and every full stop of aperture. I put a green dot next to the combinations that I considered satisfactory. For comparison, the "Optimal" square was obtained by taking a photo much larger version of the same pattern and scaling it down …