My Quiet Life

Boring bridge engineering stuff.. Compare and contrast:

False Creek Bridge in Vancouver (pic by tab2space)

Shelby/Sparkman Street Bridge in Nashville

Notice the trusses look nearly identical. I researched it a bit and it looks like ther are just various kinds of truss bridges that were commonly built. This document has this to say about the Shelby street bridge here:

Significance: The bridge possesses state level engineering significance as an example of the through Parker and camelback truss types for its uncommon concrete trusses.

It doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the example of a Parker truss on the wikipedia page, though.

Anyone know more about this type of truss, or have any other similar examples? I know I've seen examples in other cities that look nearly identical.. I'm hoping Aaron, bridge fanboy #1 will chime in.

I think the reason I love watching Christopher Hitchens is very similar to the reasons that Obama is appealing -- and still so shocking after 8 years of Bush. I still have this "Holy crap, this guy is actually THINKING before he speaks -- it's AMAZING" reaction, despite the numerous areas (this interview among them) where I disagree with him.

Also, next to perhaps only Gore Vidal (or maybe Salman Rushdie), he's the most voraciously intelligent and unflappable personality I've seen. I remember in 2003 or whenever it was -- watching him debate George Galloway was just brutal.

So, a friend of mine was selling his Sigma 20mm f/1.8 lens, and after a quick bit of research, I decided I wanted it. My default carry lens for low-light portraiture (read: bars and concerts) is my canon 50/1.4. It's my baby. Sharp as a tack, fast as hell, quick AF, etc -- basically everything you'd want for low-light situations -- and the 50mm on a 1.6x crop sensor is good for portraits.

But. Sometimes, you know, you want something wider -- and there aren't a lot of fast wide/super-wide primes. But there is this one. So I bought it.

First, the good: ... it is 20mm. and it is f/1.8 which is nice and fast. That's ... about it, I guess.

The bad: It's huge, and it's heavy even for its size. The AF motor is basically the slowest I've ever seen on a lens, in addition to being noisy as hell. The glass is subpar, as well. It is ... not a sharp lens, especially wide-open at f/1.8, which is sorta where I had planned on usually using it. Not being sharp also impacts the ability of the AF to function properly, so in addition to not being sharp, you get a lot of missed AF acquisition, resulting in the slow, noisy AF motor chugging its way back and forth desperately hunting for focus that it can't find.

Bottom line: a 20mm f/1.8 prime would be a great addition to my lens collection -- unfortunately Sigma's offering kinda blows. Rather: you get what you pay for -- that's what I should say. If you're in the market for a decent wide-angle lens for landscapes or something, it's probably a good option for that. But I already have my EF-S 10-22 for that. I wanted something wide and yet fast. This doesn't cut it for that.

So, I think I am going to sell this. I am not sure what, if anything, I'd replace it with, though. The canon 14/2.8L is pretty sweet, but even that's pretty slow for low-light stuff. Plus, I haven't won the lottery. Yet.

UPDATE: So, so many people hit this page searching for this lens I feel should amend it. I haven't sold this lens, and I've learned to like it a bit more. It still has all the defects as listed above, but that's life. It also provided a convenient replacement for the EF-S 10-22 when I moved recently to a 5D.

So, yesterday, a man robbed the Verizon store on White Bridge road (and today, appears to have committed suicide). From yesterday's story on the robbery:

Authorities said the man held up five store employees and two customers inside, and when he came out into the parking lot, he held up a third customer.

He didn't realize that customer also had a gun. Police said the customer pulled a handgun and fired several shots at the robber.

A News 2 crew on the scene said four shots were fired in the parking lot as the suspect was fleeing.

No one was struck.

The customer missed his attacker but possibly hit the getaway car, 2005 or 2006 silver Ford Escape SUV.

Investigators said the victim did have a handgun carry permit and according to police, was within his rights to pull his gun in self defense.

Can anyone familiar with the law explain this to me? Is it state-specific? How is discharging a weapon in city limits at a person that is fleeing (i.e. not constituting a threat to the shooter, or anyone else) not reckless endangerment or something? I was under the impression that in most scenarios, shooting at someone that presents no immediate threat was illegal. That issue aside, his choice strikes me as wantonly irresponsible -- that area is extraordinarily crowded. He could have hit any number of innocent bystanders.

WKRN's article seems to be framing this debate in the context of carry permits and where it's legal to have a firearm:

Where it's appropriate to have a gun has been a hot topic for lawmakers in recent weeks.

The legislature recently approved a bill that will allow handguns in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the person has a carry permit.

Mitch Shelton does not support the legislation.

"You're at a family restaurant... No guns should be allowed in a place like that, no way, shape or form," he told News 2.

When it comes to self-defense, Giles said it's a different issue.

"That's a horse of a different color. When it's defense, that's a different story," he said. "You pick and choose where you go. Hopefully it's a safe place."

This seems to me to be missing the point entirely. This has nothing to do with whether or not he should have had a gun. It has everything to do with whether or not he should have discharged it -- and it shocks me that his actions are being considered "within his rights". What am I missing?