I was pointing out the flaw in your thinking. You said that the flood (Noah) is preposterous. That's not the thing that takes faith--- believing in God takes faith. If God created the Earth, the stars, the universe, and can easily make a big flood or a big fish to swallow up Jonah--these acts pale in comparison (I do happen to believe all this. Does that make me stupid? Low IQ? Not as educated as you?).
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Seems to me that Blogger is already taking over the blog space. It seems that MS is a day late and a dollar short in this arena. MS seems doesn't seem to compete very well in the Internet arena (outside of Explorer, and people are now discovering the Firefox is a much better browser).
Once you have a blog, its hard to switch blog providers.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Over 50% of the US population is against abortion. We don't need to promote more abortions so that babies can be a consumable that is harvested. Why? We can get stem cells ethically from umbilical cords, so why kill babies? [From The Morning]
So the federal gov't doesn't fund it. Whats the big deal? Does the federal government HAVE TO fund things that you like? Come on. And Bush is funding stem cell research, just not embryonic. Why do you have a problem with this? http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
um... ok. You sure are a kind, open minded, compassionate liberal. Wow- I can't even make a comment without being attacked. FWIW- this country was formed by people who were probably considered Liberal thinkers at the time- in that they didn't want to come under the rule of a king and pay outrageously high taxes.
Nowadays Liberals think we should all pay outrageously high taxes and have our lives controlled by the government. Hmmm.... I am pretty sure George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin would vomit if they saw what the Liberals are trying to do to our constitution these days.
No-- I am not saying this at all. Just because you are an intellectual, that does not mean that you have to act as though you are above everyone. I am smart, but I don't talk down to those who are less intelligent than myself. Maybe I should talk down to you, since you didn't understand my post.
The pundits said Gore won. The public decided Bush won- there is a big difference. Gore didn't connect well with the average Joe- he came across as elite and condescending. I think Kerry might have the same problem. He will be long winded and too political sounding. Bush will talk to the people whereas Kerry will talk to the political elitists. Because of this, despite what the talking heads say about the debate afterward (on the 1,000 cable channels), Bush will win with the public. I don't say this as a partisan (I make no secrets, I am a staunch Bush supporter). I just think this is an area where Bush will excel and win big time.
I think you're missing a certain other element- who won is really about how the public responds to a candidate. After a few days, it became clear that the public related more to Bush during the debates. I don't say this as a partisan (I am, aren't you?), but when Gore talks he's not very engaging. Bush is- Bush seems like "one of us" when he talks. That's good. I think Kerry is going to have the same problem that Gore had in 2000- he comes across as condescending when he speaks. Bush doesn't. This isn't Repub or Dem- its just an observation.
The Kerry cheerleaders are worried that it could be "exploited." Coming from a techie (whoever posted the article), its safe to say its a lib (I am trying to be unbiased here, but bias is inherent in everyone).
Whatever you think, its pretty clear that Bush has more of a supportive presence on the internet (blogs for bush, powerline, etc) than Kerry. Not sure how this happened, but it is very interesting.
Blogs are proving to provide very good checks and balances. The reader has at his disposal all the tools he needs to verify stats, facts, and accusations. This is why the media is so fearful of the blogosphere... It doesn't allow them to have any kind of bias. Big media is dead.
I think its cool that the candidates recognize the Internet as a battleground. I think the Internet is proving to be a more effective medium for getting out your message than television. Lib or Conservative, nothing wrong with that.
Otherwise it doesn't matter if the CMOS is 37mm or 40mm or 32mm or whatever, as long as there's enough room for however many pixels you want to stuff into it.[Rupert Photo]
I am small time (very small time). A camera like this is for National Geography and ESPN photographers- not jokers like me. I really don't need this much power anyway, at least not for what I do. Heck, even to my eye, at 8x10 or even 11x14, I can't tell the difference between a 6mp and a 1,000,000,000 mp image. They both look great.
For portrait photography, I don't need to shoot 6, 8, or 1 gazillion frames per second- a slower camera is fine with me.
Someone working for, say, Sports Illustrated, still only needs 300 dots per inch (or less) in print. These people aren't so concerned with megapixels, but noise, crop factor, and frames per second are a very big deal to them.
I would be willing to bet that probably not even many wedding photographers would invest in this camera just yet... But who knows. Its a lot of money, and self employed photographers typically don't make very much. [Rupert Photo]
Despite the crazy high price of this camera, these developments and competition that is causing them, are driving down the prices of great DSLRs (and digicams in general).
You can buy a better 6mp DSLR today for about $800 than what was even available at $20,000 4 years ago. Pretty amazing. I suspect that within a year or two we will be able to buy a full frame DSLR for $1,000 or less. It used to be cameras didn't change that fast. Now with digital, things are changing as fast as with computers...
Slashdot Mirror
You're funny. I don't believe anything you wrote. And I am hardly a "new" Christian.
I was pointing out the flaw in your thinking. You said that the flood (Noah) is preposterous. That's not the thing that takes faith--- believing in God takes faith. If God created the Earth, the stars, the universe, and can easily make a big flood or a big fish to swallow up Jonah--these acts pale in comparison (I do happen to believe all this. Does that make me stupid? Low IQ? Not as educated as you?). http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
So, you think that we (Christians) believe in a God who created the Earth yet is incapable of flooding it?
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
What a time to be alive!
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
include pictures of some ladies cat or some family's newborn baby. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
I was looking at the blogs at MSN- they were ALL terrible. Everyone single one that I found. I couldn't believe it. So.... I wrote my own rules for blogging: http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/2004/12/blog.ht ml
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Seems to me that Blogger is already taking over the blog space. It seems that MS is a day late and a dollar short in this arena. MS seems doesn't seem to compete very well in the Internet arena (outside of Explorer, and people are now discovering the Firefox is a much better browser). Once you have a blog, its hard to switch blog providers. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
How about the Goatse guy?
http://rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
Over 50% of the US population is against abortion. We don't need to promote more abortions so that babies can be a consumable that is harvested. Why? We can get stem cells ethically from umbilical cords, so why kill babies?
[From The Morning]
So the federal gov't doesn't fund it. Whats the big deal? Does the federal government HAVE TO fund things that you like? Come on. And Bush is funding stem cell research, just not embryonic. Why do you have a problem with this?
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Uh... If you look back at the thread, someone else brought up education, not me, but since an issue was made of it...
Personally, I don't think formal education is that meaningful, but whatever. The point is, you don't have to resort to name calling based on politics.
I can almost guarantee I am more educated than you (you know nothing about me, kiddo). That being... oh well.
um... ok.
You sure are a kind, open minded, compassionate liberal.
Wow- I can't even make a comment without being attacked. FWIW- this country was formed by people who were probably considered Liberal thinkers at the time- in that they didn't want to come under the rule of a king and pay outrageously high taxes.
Nowadays Liberals think we should all pay outrageously high taxes and have our lives controlled by the government. Hmmm....
I am pretty sure George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin would vomit if they saw what the Liberals are trying to do to our constitution these days.
No-- I am not saying this at all. Just because you are an intellectual, that does not mean that you have to act as though you are above everyone. I am smart, but I don't talk down to those who are less intelligent than myself. Maybe I should talk down to you, since you didn't understand my post.
Kid, you have no idea what you are talking about... You think your posting some big numbers here? Grow up.
The pundits said Gore won. The public decided Bush won- there is a big difference. Gore didn't connect well with the average Joe- he came across as elite and condescending. I think Kerry might have the same problem. He will be long winded and too political sounding. Bush will talk to the people whereas Kerry will talk to the political elitists. Because of this, despite what the talking heads say about the debate afterward (on the 1,000 cable channels), Bush will win with the public. I don't say this as a partisan (I make no secrets, I am a staunch Bush supporter). I just think this is an area where Bush will excel and win big time.
http://rupertzone.net/
I think you're missing a certain other element- who won is really about how the public responds to a candidate. After a few days, it became clear that the public related more to Bush during the debates.
I don't say this as a partisan (I am, aren't you?), but when Gore talks he's not very engaging. Bush is- Bush seems like "one of us" when he talks. That's good. I think Kerry is going to have the same problem that Gore had in 2000- he comes across as condescending when he speaks. Bush doesn't. This isn't Repub or Dem- its just an observation.
http://rupertzone.net/
so anyone who supports Bush is uneducated? How elitist of you...
http://rupertzone.net/
The Kerry cheerleaders are worried that it could be "exploited." Coming from a techie (whoever posted the article), its safe to say its a lib (I am trying to be unbiased here, but bias is inherent in everyone).
Whatever you think, its pretty clear that Bush has more of a supportive presence on the internet (blogs for bush, powerline, etc) than Kerry. Not sure how this happened, but it is very interesting.
http://rupertzone.net/
Blogs are proving to provide very good checks and balances. The reader has at his disposal all the tools he needs to verify stats, facts, and accusations. This is why the media is so fearful of the blogosphere... It doesn't allow them to have any kind of bias. Big media is dead.
I think its cool that the candidates recognize the Internet as a battleground. I think the Internet is proving to be a more effective medium for getting out your message than television. Lib or Conservative, nothing wrong with that.
http://rupertzone.net/
Otherwise it doesn't matter if the CMOS is 37mm or 40mm or 32mm or whatever, as long as there's enough room for however many pixels you want to stuff into it.[Rupert Photo]
Anyone who can afford this camera can probably also affort L Glass, so it doesn't matter.
[Rupert Photo]
I am small time (very small time). A camera like this is for National Geography and ESPN photographers- not jokers like me. I really don't need this much power anyway, at least not for what I do. Heck, even to my eye, at 8x10 or even 11x14, I can't tell the difference between a 6mp and a 1,000,000,000 mp image. They both look great.
For portrait photography, I don't need to shoot 6, 8, or 1 gazillion frames per second- a slower camera is fine with me.
Someone working for, say, Sports Illustrated, still only needs 300 dots per inch (or less) in print. These people aren't so concerned with megapixels, but noise, crop factor, and frames per second are a very big deal to them.
I would be willing to bet that probably not even many wedding photographers would invest in this camera just yet... But who knows. Its a lot of money, and self employed photographers typically don't make very much.
[Rupert Photo]
Despite the crazy high price of this camera, these developments and competition that is causing them, are driving down the prices of great DSLRs (and digicams in general).
You can buy a better 6mp DSLR today for about $800 than what was even available at $20,000 4 years ago. Pretty amazing. I suspect that within a year or two we will be able to buy a full frame DSLR for $1,000 or less. It used to be cameras didn't change that fast. Now with digital, things are changing as fast as with computers...
[Rupert Photo]