I've got to disagree with you (and I mean this in a polite manner)-- who is to decide what is dangerous and what is not? Violent actions are illegal, you cannot punish the motivation for such actions. To do so makes no sense.
What if my church says homosexuality is a sin. Some crazy person in my church takes this the wrong way and kills a gay person. Is my church liable? They shouldn't be. Its not the church that condoned or made the murder happen. It was the crazy person.
What if a greenpeace activist kills a cattle farmer? The activist was just doing the will of greenpeace, right?
So now we are going to ban any activist organizations because their words made lead to crime. It doesn't make sense. You've just outlawed free speech.
Its a crime to hurt or kill somebody. You think we should instead punish motivation?
Hate crime legislation makes no sense. Its merely an attempt to legislate thought.
I was shocked that kids these days don't respect the 1st amendment, but one only need look at the comments on Slashdot to realze how pathetically real this sad trend is.
Free speech means even that which you happen to disagree with must be free--- even that which sounds hateful and bigoted must be free! http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Or maybe its because Canada is much less populated.
What do you have to say about high murder rates in Chicago, where guns are outlawed? What about low murder rates in Texas, where guns are perfectly legal to carry and own?
1. "Guns should not just be purchaseable all willy-nilly. Most gun violence (at least in Canada), that people fear, is high-school/young adults who turn to gang violence/crime. These laws are largely in place to keep guns out of their hands. Also to make it more punishable if they do get caught with one. Obviously any adult who REALLY wants a gun will get one no matter what."
We have similar laws in the US.
2. I'm not attacking you because of Bill O'Reilly. I don't even watch him. Some people are Conservative. Get over it. In fact, there are many of us, which is why Bush got more votes than any President in history.
Freedom must never become conditional. Please, listen people, its not for you to decide what is "hate speech" and what is not. Canadians have accepted a government bent on punishing hateful thought and speech. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot say.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?
Should the government ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous.
Freedom is dangerous, so I guess we should ban freedom altogether.
Whatever. It amazed me that some people can be so elite as to think that people in the middle east are less entitled than they. I guess you're a racist.
Canadians have no rights.
Christianity is being outlawed there, under the cloud of 'hate crime legislation.'
Gun ownership is illegal.
I'll stay in the US, thanks.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Do you think for one minute gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Nope. They only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the criminals keep their guns.
I wouldn't want to be a Canadian:
1. They have no freedom of speech. They cannot say "hateful" things. I'm not sure who defines what is hateful and what is not. Scary.
2. They have no right to keep and bear arms, or defend themselves against criminals.
Yeah, great country, eh?
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
How much Rocky Dennis (MASK) could have sold his forehead space for. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089560/?fr=c2l0 ZT1kZn xteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9bWFza3xo dG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc=1;ft=2;fm=1
Re:Enough with the silly.
on
Ho, Ho, Ho
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
There is a big difference betweeen lying to children and letting children enjoy the magic of childhood. I'm sorry your childhood was so bland... http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
It IS nice to be able to go to 1.8 sometimes, for those narrow depth of field shots... Makes for great portraits sometimes.
I almost exclusively use a $70 lens for what I do (portraits), but if you want to do wedding photography, landscape, etc, be prepared to spend ALOT more. The $70 Canon 50mm prime 1.8 is an anomaly-- a great, cheap lens. You won't find many of those...
http://www.rupertphotography.com/
May I suggest the 50mm f1.8 lens from Canon. At $70 it is a remarkable lens--- its generally the lens I used almost exclusively, as most of what I do is portrait work. You will be amazed by its sharpness. http://www.rupertphotography.com/
...a digital SLR has a shallow depth of field, which means it can be more difficult to get everything in focus.
Not true at all. A SLR makes it easy to control depth of field, and (on many models) see the effect of depth of field. And it doesn't matter how much control you have if your lens cannot stop down that far. With DSLR, plan to spend as much (probably more) on lenses before you realize the benefits. http://www.rupertphotography.com/ http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
I'm glad you said this. The Digital Rebel is a great camera, but the kit lens isn't all that great. If all you ever want to use is the kit lens, you'd probably be more satisfied with a prosumer 8mp or something.
If you're going to go SLR you should be serious or not do it at all. The benefits of SLR aren't noticed unless you know what you're doing and have some money to spend on glass....
Slashdot Mirror
I've got to disagree with you (and I mean this in a polite manner)-- who is to decide what is dangerous and what is not? Violent actions are illegal, you cannot punish the motivation for such actions. To do so makes no sense.
What if my church says homosexuality is a sin. Some crazy person in my church takes this the wrong way and kills a gay person. Is my church liable? They shouldn't be. Its not the church that condoned or made the murder happen. It was the crazy person.
What if a greenpeace activist kills a cattle farmer? The activist was just doing the will of greenpeace, right?
So now we are going to ban any activist organizations because their words made lead to crime. It doesn't make sense. You've just outlawed free speech.
To be free you MUST take the good with the bad.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Its a crime to hurt or kill somebody. You think we should instead punish motivation?
Hate crime legislation makes no sense. Its merely an attempt to legislate thought.
I was shocked that kids these days don't respect the 1st amendment, but one only need look at the comments on Slashdot to realze how pathetically real this sad trend is.
Free speech means even that which you happen to disagree with must be free--- even that which sounds hateful and bigoted must be free!
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Or maybe its because Canada is much less populated.
What do you have to say about high murder rates in Chicago, where guns are outlawed? What about low murder rates in Texas, where guns are perfectly legal to carry and own?
1. "Guns should not just be purchaseable all willy-nilly. Most gun violence (at least in Canada), that people fear, is high-school/young adults who turn to gang violence/crime. These laws are largely in place to keep guns out of their hands. Also to make it more punishable if they do get caught with one. Obviously any adult who REALLY wants a gun will get one no matter what." We have similar laws in the US. 2. I'm not attacking you because of Bill O'Reilly. I don't even watch him. Some people are Conservative. Get over it. In fact, there are many of us, which is why Bush got more votes than any President in history. Freedom must never become conditional. Please, listen people, its not for you to decide what is "hate speech" and what is not. Canadians have accepted a government bent on punishing hateful thought and speech. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot say. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Wow.
So I guess you think freedom should be conditional? Freedom for people who think like you, but not like me? You scare me.
And to think, my comment is the one modded down as 'troll.' I think I'll stay away from these Slahsdot commies.
Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?
Should the government ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous.
Freedom is dangerous, so I guess we should ban freedom altogether.
People like you scare me.
Whatever. It amazed me that some people can be so elite as to think that people in the middle east are less entitled than they. I guess you're a racist.
fair enough... :-)
But my dad can beat up your dad.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
You didn't respond to the gun law legislation and outlawing of certain religions in Canada.
I'll take what little remains of my religious freedom and stay in the US.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
So, I suppose you think people in Iraq and Afgansitan didn't deserve the right to participate in free elections?
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Google couldn't afford to be headquarted there with the outrageously high taxes.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
But Google can't afford to be headquartered in Canada, with their outrageous taxes. Your idea of Canada being some social utopia is way off base, kid.
Canada has ridiculous gun laws. I guess they only want their violent criminals to own guns.
They are well on the way to outlawing Christianity through BS 'hate crime legislation.'
Love or hate the Patriot Act, the US remains the last truly free country.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Canadians have no rights. Christianity is being outlawed there, under the cloud of 'hate crime legislation.' Gun ownership is illegal. I'll stay in the US, thanks. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Do you think for one minute gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Nope. They only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the criminals keep their guns. I wouldn't want to be a Canadian: 1. They have no freedom of speech. They cannot say "hateful" things. I'm not sure who defines what is hateful and what is not. Scary. 2. They have no right to keep and bear arms, or defend themselves against criminals. Yeah, great country, eh? http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
They aren't very concerned about the other rights of humans in their country, like free practice of religion and ownership of firearms.
How much Rocky Dennis (MASK) could have sold his forehead space for.0 ZT1kZn xteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9bWFza3xo dG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc=1;ft=2;fm=1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089560/?fr=c2l
I love your sig.... :-)
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
There is a big difference betweeen lying to children and letting children enjoy the magic of childhood. I'm sorry your childhood was so bland...
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
It IS nice to be able to go to 1.8 sometimes, for those narrow depth of field shots... Makes for great portraits sometimes. I almost exclusively use a $70 lens for what I do (portraits), but if you want to do wedding photography, landscape, etc, be prepared to spend ALOT more. The $70 Canon 50mm prime 1.8 is an anomaly-- a great, cheap lens. You won't find many of those... http://www.rupertphotography.com/
May I suggest the 50mm f1.8 lens from Canon. At $70 it is a remarkable lens--- its generally the lens I used almost exclusively, as most of what I do is portrait work. You will be amazed by its sharpness.
http://www.rupertphotography.com/
...a digital SLR has a shallow depth of field, which means it can be more difficult to get everything in focus. Not true at all. A SLR makes it easy to control depth of field, and (on many models) see the effect of depth of field.
And it doesn't matter how much control you have if your lens cannot stop down that far. With DSLR, plan to spend as much (probably more) on lenses before you realize the benefits.
http://www.rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
...Not to mention the $$$ you'll sink into a decent flash! Its funny how many people I see using SLRS strictly in program mode.
http://www.rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
I'm glad you said this. The Digital Rebel is a great camera, but the kit lens isn't all that great. If all you ever want to use is the kit lens, you'd probably be more satisfied with a prosumer 8mp or something.
If you're going to go SLR you should be serious or not do it at all. The benefits of SLR aren't noticed unless you know what you're doing and have some money to spend on glass....
http://www.rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Type in goatse... :-)
It guessed it! Very funny....