Did nobody on slashdot take part in the US presidential election? Geography matters more than you think. The people we interact with in person have a much greater affect on us than those we chat with. For example, my wife's parents used to be flaming liberals. All the friends they talk to on the phone are similarly inclined. Then they moved to rural Idaho to retire. The people they interact with on a daily basis are biggots. Last time we saw them they were going on about how the gays are degrading the idea of marriage and how George Bush is a great guy. Both of them voted against Bush in 2000. Idaho corrupted them.
all that this means is that talking no longer requires us to be geographically next to each other. Great, the phone did that 100 years ago. The UPS and FedEx example is interesting. It is almost as if a new class is being developed. The Business people of the world cannot be bothered to travel anymore, so they pay somebody to do it for them. You are still governed by geography though, you have simply outsourced the requirement.
Miami is geographically close to Cuba and many island nations of the sort. That has greatly affected Miami. There is show called Nip/Tuck, I think it is on FX. It takes place in Miami and during of the early episodes one of the main characters is constantly being made fun of for not speaking Spanish. The spanish speaking population has had a huge affect on Miami and that is due in part at least to its geography.
I'm all for clean water, and I never said I like the Kyoto Protocol. All I said is that there are more than just global warming concerns to think about. We can't always just turn our concerns completely to those who are worst off. If we did that than all would have to be put on hold until nobody was hungry, nobody was homeless, and nobody was sick. That isn't very practical.
Science be damned, it doesn't really matter. All that we need to know is the following: global warming is occuring, it doesn't matter why either. Maybe it is us, maybe it isn't. The point is, it could be us, and if we have a chance to save our asses, we should take the momentary inconvenience of buying vehicles that weigh less than 4 tons, on the off chance that we might not die. I know, it is hard choice to make. If that isn't good enough, think about the health problems associated with human activity. Asthma is at an all time high and is the number one cause of missed school days for children. People are getting sick, some are even dying, because they simply breath the air around them. So here is what we do, reduce emissions, clean up the air, breath easy. Maybe global warming will still go on, maybe it won't. If it doesn't, hey, we improved our quality of life for the amount of time we have left. That doesn't seem so bad to me. If it does stop global warming, aces, our species goes on.
the study was how it relates to cancer, not how it relates to viruses. the theory being that cancer comes from too many toxins in your body (like from cigarettes). If your body isn't rejecting them (causing you to sneeze and such), then they are still in there, which is probably a bad thing.
I remember something from a class I took about some researchers who found an initial link to allergies and cancer. Something about fewer allergies, or supressed allergies leading to higher cancer rates. I don't remember the exact nature of the study, but it was interesting. The theory being that an allergy is your bodies way of saying "this is some fucked up stuff that is getting into me". By supressing that, you are allowing toxins to run rampant through your body. The same line of thinking leads to the conclusion that people without allergies have improperly functioning immune systems. The research was in the very early phase, but sounded very intriguing.
yes, just like in the US where you pay for insurance and get nothing out of it. Seriously, insurance companies try as hard as they can to not cover your medical needs. It is almost like a game to them. Really though, it is a business to them. They make money, they don't make people feel better.
which is why the government should take care of it. The drug companies also complain about anti-biotics and how they can't make money off of them, which is why the number of anti-biotics in developement has dwindled. These are things that the government should take care of. If you can't do it right and do it profitable, then just do it right.
This would be different from the way it is now? Instead of one group of bureaucrats, we have hundreds of them! How many health insurance companies are there right now that need management? A single payer health care system would cut down on that drastically. We already pay sky high medical taxes, except that right now we pay them to private firms who give us nothing in return. I was paying over $300 a month for insurance that I thought was pretty good. When I went for a checkup, it turned out that the insurance didn't cover preventitive care. Oh, great. It also turns out that my wife's insurance will only cover certain drugs that they approve, despite the fact that she reacts badly to the one's they like. Don't even get me started on the people who lack proper coverage due to preexisting conditions. We couldn't get my school's health insurance because of a congential disease, and even had to pay a waver fee for not using it. In short, our system is fucked up! The only people that benefit from our system are those who can pay the premium prices. Yeah, we have some of the best doctors in the world, but how many people ever get to see them? I get stuck with some lousy HMO fucker who seems to only be able to dish out anti-biotics. I'm so glad that a rich guy can have an artificial heart, but I can't go see a doctor every year.
Wow, I mean, you can't even accept that Wal-Mart abuses its employees. That is pretty much a proven fact in this country. I mean, they circulate memos detailing the ways in which their managers can and should resist unionizing efforts, including singling out "trouble makers". This isn't the behavior of a company that is doing right by its employees. I've worked both union, and non-union jobs, and I'll let you guess which one had happy employees with healthy families.
Schools are in need of help right now, and all the finger pointing in the world isn't going to help. Management of teachers is a big part of the problem. For one, good teachers are shipped off to good schools. Once a teacher has been teaching for a while, they are given the oppurtunity to move. They go where the money is and where they feel safe. This robs your so-called "ghetto" schools of good teachers. that is a problem.
How are vouchers going to help with problem children? The same way that private schools do, they kick them out. The best and worst part of public schools is that they have to take just about everybody, whereas private schools get to pick and choose. A fantastic way to artificially inflate your results. The same thing happens with private charities. "You don't accept Jesus as your personal savior? Well, we can't help you." And before you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, my wife is a pastor, she sees this all the time.
Private schools don't have to accept problem cases. When we have vouchers, where will those kids go? The ills of the world will be no closer to being solved.
I agree that we have real problems that require real change, but vouchers just won't do it for all the kids. They'll provide some great oppurtunities for the middle and lower-middle class, but will leave the poor behind. The changes that need to occur are ones that help the poor, not the rest of the people in this country. I come from a lower middle class family, and I got a fine education. We never had shootings, I never felt unsafe. I was in a public school in a far from rich area. Was it as good as the private school on the hill? Probably not. Was it as bad as in Compton? No. School reform should not be done for the wealthy, but instead for the poor. It's just easier to give the middle class some money so they can pull their kids out of failing schools than it is to actually fix those schools.
I know that our present situation is pretty bad. All I'm saying is that vouchers will do little except subsidize the education of the wealthy. The way it works is, rich people don't use public schools, yet they still pay for them. Vouchers give them their money back. It won't pay for their kid's entire schooling, but at least they aren't paying into a system that they don't use. Meanwhile, the private schools get more exclusive, and the children of poor parents have to go to crappy schools that their vouchers will cover the cost of. All schools should be good, and you shouldn't have less access to a good education, simply because your parents don't make as much money. By spreading school funding out equally, instead of rich areas get lots of money and poor areas get crap, the situation will get better.
By the way, Wal-Mart is destroying the middle class. They wouldn't be needed if we didn't have a constantly growing lower class. There used to be plenty of good retail jobs that would provide you with enough money to raise a family comfortably and send kids to good colleges. Now, they're all going away because Wal-Mart is undercutting them by paying low wages and not giving their employees benefits. This reduces average wages, and forces people to shop at Wal-Mart. I agree that capitalism can be good, but it needs checks and balances too. There should be a living wage in this country. Nobody should ever have a job and still be elligable for welfare. That isn't capitalism working, that is capitalism failing. That is where we are right now. By the way, our schools should never be left to the whims of the free market. Education is not something that should ever be a good value. It should be expensive and great, and open to everybody. All people are created equal, in the eyes of the government. Yet, almost from the beginning, they get segregated into different classes based on how well their parents are doing. That isn't right.
I have often thought about vouchers, and every time I do, I come to the same sad conclusion. They won't work. Here is why. You take something that should be equal across class lines and turn it over to the market. Now, tell me, how well has the market worked up untill now? What I see is rich people getting even more exclusive schools that vouchers won't fully pay for, but will help absorb the cost of, and poor people getting walmart like schools where they put as many kids into a room as possible. Yes, they can take their vouchers else where, but how well has that worked for the places that we buy products from? American's buy the shittiest products they possibly can to save a buck. Sometimes they have to.
If you think for a minute that vouchers will have a long term affect, I think you're mistaken. A much more effective reform would be to turn school funding over to the feds or at least the states. As it is, you have situations where you have fantastic schools in places like East Oakland (in the hills) and some of the worst schools in the country in the reast of Oakland. Not to mention one of the best districts in the nation in nearby Berkeley. Make school funding equal, that will do much more good than vouchers.
Lawyers, like government are entirely misunderstood these days. Granted, this may be of their own doing, but niether are inherently bad or evil, even as concepts. Lawyers are supposed to be the guardians of law, protectors of the people. Just as we have soldiers who dedicate their lives to protecting us, thus freeing us from the need to do so, we have lawyers dedicating their lives to the law, thus freeing us from the need to do so. It is society that has created the need for lawyers. Our need for laws created the need for lawyers. Otherwise, who would protect you from the cops or the masses taking the law into their own hands? What if we didn't have lawyers and you were instead at the mercy of your fellow man? Or some king? Not to be too idealistic, but go watch To Kill A Monkingbird. That movie sums up pretty well what lawyers should, and can, be. Same with the government. What went wrong? I'm not entirely sure, though I'd be willing to bet it had something to do withe Reagon.;)
Re:Google hacks a better option...
on
Web Search Garage
·
· Score: 1
If I could get google to not mangle my search requests I'd be pretty happy. It really doesn't like to let me use '.' in my query. this makes it very difficult to find specific files or information on camera lenses (a 35mm lens with an fstop of 1.4 for instance). I'd also like to be able to search for product reviews again. I'm really tired of general review sites making it so high up in the ratings. I really don't care about what some jackass from Nebraska thought about a given product in 200 words or less. I'd rather read something more in depth. I've gotten to the point where my bookmarks are so much more important than they used to be. When I find site with a lot of good information, that may not even be of use to me right now, I bookmark it for later use.
Yes, I'm quite sure that if we wer to lose the Mona Lisa, society would simply melt away. You are placing much too high of an importance on art. I love art. I go to the art museum at least once a month. In any new city the art museum is one of my first stops. No piece of art is so important that even one life should be traded for it. Yes, it would be a shame if the entirety of our society were lost, but that isn't very likely is it? Also, if something so catastrophic were to occur that all art were destroyed, I'm pretty sure all of use would be dead too. If we did survive, what would it really matter if we had the originals or some postcards of the Mona Lisa? People inevitably die, but so does art. Paintings won't last forever, they fade, they crack. Same with sculptures, same with photos. It's inevitable. Society's survival does not require art. New art will be created. That's what people do. I have a feeling that the pain of long dead artists will mean little to the few survivors of nuclear annihilation.
Yeah, I agree, screw putting people into shelters, let's save some art. I mean really, let's put this into perspective. We're talking about nuclear annihilation of an entire city, and you're worried about 'The Birth of Venus'? We should all be a little more concerned about the burning bodies, not the burning paintings. If you really want to preserve them, why not have high-res scans done of them so that we don't have to worry about pushing people out of the way in order to rush the priceless pieces of canvas into a bomb proof shelter. Generations of the future can enjoy the scans. It'll be fine.
Wow, defensive much? We cans it here and argue this all day, but you seem pretty set in your ways so I won't bother. You want to argue that digital both "blows film away" and that this is true for just most "actual working applications". These are two different things. Where did I say digital wasn't more cost effective? Where did I say digital wasn't adequate for most applications? You know, APS if adequate for people's snap shots, doesn't mean pro photographers should use it. You, instead of reading and responding to the thread have decided to pull out your business card and say "I know everything, if you aren't a pro who has to watch his expenses, then you know nothing." Talk about blowing hot air.
Yes, if you don't need to make large prints than digital is fine. Most people don't need medium format now, and probably never did. Digital just isn't there yet. You can claim that for your "real world" applications film is dead, but that doesn't hold true for every application or even most applications. Digital is killing 35mm, it has a long way to go before it overtakes medium format. I'm glad it's working out for you though.
The 1Ds, and this camera too, is nowhere near medium format. For one, the sensor is much smaller, and for two, the resolving power is about one quarter what it needs to be, if that. This is a fine camera, but it won't be displacing medium format. For a comparison, a 35mm frame is 24x36mm and a medium format frame (in square format) is 60mmx60mm, a ratio of about 4.1 times the area. Even if you consider 6 megapixels to be 35mm quality (which it isn't), then you still haven't even touched medium format. I'd probably wager that this camera makes any quality considerations obsolete when choosing between 35mm and digital. Medium format is a bit more dificult to achieve. Hell, even this camera has some major issues, most notably the incredible cost associated with making a "full-frame" sesor.
In my experience, Netflix is hands down a better service. They have a larger selection, with more copies (on blockbuster half my queue is "short waite", on netflix the entire thing is available now) and a much faster turn around time. I live in Philadelphia and there is a netflix distribution center not too far away. For blockbuster, my DVDs go all the way to North Carolina. I'm at the end of my two week trial for blockbusters and I've recieved 3 movies, all of which were returned more than 4 days ago. I have one on the way, that has been on the way for at least two days. With netflix, I've had about 6 movies in that same time period, and I was going at a much slower pace since I've had two services to going at the same time. Needless to say, I won't be keeping my blockbuster account.
The problem with sales tax of course is that it falls unevenly on the poor. There is no income tax in Washington state, just sales tax, and the poor end up paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy do. No, income tax is the only thing that makes sense. Income is the benefit you get from a regulated society. Income tax is the price you pay for that regulated society. People who get more benefit, should have to contribute more to the upkeep of society. If society falls, guess who will suffer...it ain't the poor. Just look at the riots in LA after the whole Rodney King thing. It wasn't their businesses they were looting. The business were in large part owned by outsiders. Anyway, income tax is the way to go, though a healthy tax on luxury items would be nice too. We shouldn't reward excess consumption.
Kill Rock Stars is a great indie label that is home to Sleater-Kinney, a band who could probably make it big (TIME magazine called them "the only band that matters"), but remains true to their roots.
Slashdot Mirror
Did nobody on slashdot take part in the US presidential election? Geography matters more than you think. The people we interact with in person have a much greater affect on us than those we chat with. For example, my wife's parents used to be flaming liberals. All the friends they talk to on the phone are similarly inclined. Then they moved to rural Idaho to retire. The people they interact with on a daily basis are biggots. Last time we saw them they were going on about how the gays are degrading the idea of marriage and how George Bush is a great guy. Both of them voted against Bush in 2000. Idaho corrupted them.
all that this means is that talking no longer requires us to be geographically next to each other. Great, the phone did that 100 years ago.
The UPS and FedEx example is interesting. It is almost as if a new class is being developed. The Business people of the world cannot be bothered to travel anymore, so they pay somebody to do it for them. You are still governed by geography though, you have simply outsourced the requirement.
Miami is geographically close to Cuba and many island nations of the sort. That has greatly affected Miami. There is show called Nip/Tuck, I think it is on FX. It takes place in Miami and during of the early episodes one of the main characters is constantly being made fun of for not speaking Spanish. The spanish speaking population has had a huge affect on Miami and that is due in part at least to its geography.
Oh no....you can't duck the blame on this one...he's all yours.
I'm all for clean water, and I never said I like the Kyoto Protocol. All I said is that there are more than just global warming concerns to think about. We can't always just turn our concerns completely to those who are worst off. If we did that than all would have to be put on hold until nobody was hungry, nobody was homeless, and nobody was sick. That isn't very practical.
Science be damned, it doesn't really matter. All that we need to know is the following: global warming is occuring, it doesn't matter why either. Maybe it is us, maybe it isn't. The point is, it could be us, and if we have a chance to save our asses, we should take the momentary inconvenience of buying vehicles that weigh less than 4 tons, on the off chance that we might not die. I know, it is hard choice to make.
If that isn't good enough, think about the health problems associated with human activity. Asthma is at an all time high and is the number one cause of missed school days for children. People are getting sick, some are even dying, because they simply breath the air around them. So here is what we do, reduce emissions, clean up the air, breath easy. Maybe global warming will still go on, maybe it won't. If it doesn't, hey, we improved our quality of life for the amount of time we have left. That doesn't seem so bad to me. If it does stop global warming, aces, our species goes on.
the study was how it relates to cancer, not how it relates to viruses. the theory being that cancer comes from too many toxins in your body (like from cigarettes). If your body isn't rejecting them (causing you to sneeze and such), then they are still in there, which is probably a bad thing.
I remember something from a class I took about some researchers who found an initial link to allergies and cancer. Something about fewer allergies, or supressed allergies leading to higher cancer rates. I don't remember the exact nature of the study, but it was interesting. The theory being that an allergy is your bodies way of saying "this is some fucked up stuff that is getting into me". By supressing that, you are allowing toxins to run rampant through your body. The same line of thinking leads to the conclusion that people without allergies have improperly functioning immune systems. The research was in the very early phase, but sounded very intriguing.
yes, just like in the US where you pay for insurance and get nothing out of it. Seriously, insurance companies try as hard as they can to not cover your medical needs. It is almost like a game to them. Really though, it is a business to them. They make money, they don't make people feel better.
which is why the government should take care of it. The drug companies also complain about anti-biotics and how they can't make money off of them, which is why the number of anti-biotics in developement has dwindled. These are things that the government should take care of. If you can't do it right and do it profitable, then just do it right.
This would be different from the way it is now? Instead of one group of bureaucrats, we have hundreds of them! How many health insurance companies are there right now that need management? A single payer health care system would cut down on that drastically. We already pay sky high medical taxes, except that right now we pay them to private firms who give us nothing in return. I was paying over $300 a month for insurance that I thought was pretty good. When I went for a checkup, it turned out that the insurance didn't cover preventitive care. Oh, great.
It also turns out that my wife's insurance will only cover certain drugs that they approve, despite the fact that she reacts badly to the one's they like. Don't even get me started on the people who lack proper coverage due to preexisting conditions. We couldn't get my school's health insurance because of a congential disease, and even had to pay a waver fee for not using it.
In short, our system is fucked up! The only people that benefit from our system are those who can pay the premium prices. Yeah, we have some of the best doctors in the world, but how many people ever get to see them? I get stuck with some lousy HMO fucker who seems to only be able to dish out anti-biotics. I'm so glad that a rich guy can have an artificial heart, but I can't go see a doctor every year.
Wow, I mean, you can't even accept that Wal-Mart abuses its employees. That is pretty much a proven fact in this country. I mean, they circulate memos detailing the ways in which their managers can and should resist unionizing efforts, including singling out "trouble makers". This isn't the behavior of a company that is doing right by its employees. I've worked both union, and non-union jobs, and I'll let you guess which one had happy employees with healthy families.
Schools are in need of help right now, and all the finger pointing in the world isn't going to help. Management of teachers is a big part of the problem. For one, good teachers are shipped off to good schools. Once a teacher has been teaching for a while, they are given the oppurtunity to move. They go where the money is and where they feel safe. This robs your so-called "ghetto" schools of good teachers. that is a problem.
How are vouchers going to help with problem children? The same way that private schools do, they kick them out. The best and worst part of public schools is that they have to take just about everybody, whereas private schools get to pick and choose. A fantastic way to artificially inflate your results. The same thing happens with private charities. "You don't accept Jesus as your personal savior? Well, we can't help you."
And before you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, my wife is a pastor, she sees this all the time.
Private schools don't have to accept problem cases. When we have vouchers, where will those kids go? The ills of the world will be no closer to being solved.
I agree that we have real problems that require real change, but vouchers just won't do it for all the kids. They'll provide some great oppurtunities for the middle and lower-middle class, but will leave the poor behind. The changes that need to occur are ones that help the poor, not the rest of the people in this country. I come from a lower middle class family, and I got a fine education. We never had shootings, I never felt unsafe. I was in a public school in a far from rich area. Was it as good as the private school on the hill? Probably not. Was it as bad as in Compton? No. School reform should not be done for the wealthy, but instead for the poor. It's just easier to give the middle class some money so they can pull their kids out of failing schools than it is to actually fix those schools.
I know that our present situation is pretty bad. All I'm saying is that vouchers will do little except subsidize the education of the wealthy. The way it works is, rich people don't use public schools, yet they still pay for them. Vouchers give them their money back. It won't pay for their kid's entire schooling, but at least they aren't paying into a system that they don't use.
Meanwhile, the private schools get more exclusive, and the children of poor parents have to go to crappy schools that their vouchers will cover the cost of. All schools should be good, and you shouldn't have less access to a good education, simply because your parents don't make as much money. By spreading school funding out equally, instead of rich areas get lots of money and poor areas get crap, the situation will get better.
By the way, Wal-Mart is destroying the middle class. They wouldn't be needed if we didn't have a constantly growing lower class. There used to be plenty of good retail jobs that would provide you with enough money to raise a family comfortably and send kids to good colleges. Now, they're all going away because Wal-Mart is undercutting them by paying low wages and not giving their employees benefits. This reduces average wages, and forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.
I agree that capitalism can be good, but it needs checks and balances too. There should be a living wage in this country. Nobody should ever have a job and still be elligable for welfare. That isn't capitalism working, that is capitalism failing. That is where we are right now.
By the way, our schools should never be left to the whims of the free market. Education is not something that should ever be a good value. It should be expensive and great, and open to everybody. All people are created equal, in the eyes of the government. Yet, almost from the beginning, they get segregated into different classes based on how well their parents are doing. That isn't right.
I have often thought about vouchers, and every time I do, I come to the same sad conclusion. They won't work. Here is why. You take something that should be equal across class lines and turn it over to the market. Now, tell me, how well has the market worked up untill now? What I see is rich people getting even more exclusive schools that vouchers won't fully pay for, but will help absorb the cost of, and poor people getting walmart like schools where they put as many kids into a room as possible. Yes, they can take their vouchers else where, but how well has that worked for the places that we buy products from? American's buy the shittiest products they possibly can to save a buck. Sometimes they have to.
If you think for a minute that vouchers will have a long term affect, I think you're mistaken. A much more effective reform would be to turn school funding over to the feds or at least the states. As it is, you have situations where you have fantastic schools in places like East Oakland (in the hills) and some of the worst schools in the country in the reast of Oakland. Not to mention one of the best districts in the nation in nearby Berkeley. Make school funding equal, that will do much more good than vouchers.
Lawyers, like government are entirely misunderstood these days. Granted, this may be of their own doing, but niether are inherently bad or evil, even as concepts. Lawyers are supposed to be the guardians of law, protectors of the people. Just as we have soldiers who dedicate their lives to protecting us, thus freeing us from the need to do so, we have lawyers dedicating their lives to the law, thus freeing us from the need to do so. It is society that has created the need for lawyers. Our need for laws created the need for lawyers. Otherwise, who would protect you from the cops or the masses taking the law into their own hands? What if we didn't have lawyers and you were instead at the mercy of your fellow man? Or some king? ;)
Not to be too idealistic, but go watch To Kill A Monkingbird. That movie sums up pretty well what lawyers should, and can, be. Same with the government. What went wrong? I'm not entirely sure, though I'd be willing to bet it had something to do withe Reagon.
If I could get google to not mangle my search requests I'd be pretty happy. It really doesn't like to let me use '.' in my query. this makes it very difficult to find specific files or information on camera lenses (a 35mm lens with an fstop of 1.4 for instance). I'd also like to be able to search for product reviews again. I'm really tired of general review sites making it so high up in the ratings. I really don't care about what some jackass from Nebraska thought about a given product in 200 words or less. I'd rather read something more in depth.
I've gotten to the point where my bookmarks are so much more important than they used to be. When I find site with a lot of good information, that may not even be of use to me right now, I bookmark it for later use.
Yes, I'm quite sure that if we wer to lose the Mona Lisa, society would simply melt away. You are placing much too high of an importance on art. I love art. I go to the art museum at least once a month. In any new city the art museum is one of my first stops. No piece of art is so important that even one life should be traded for it. Yes, it would be a shame if the entirety of our society were lost, but that isn't very likely is it? Also, if something so catastrophic were to occur that all art were destroyed, I'm pretty sure all of use would be dead too. If we did survive, what would it really matter if we had the originals or some postcards of the Mona Lisa? People inevitably die, but so does art. Paintings won't last forever, they fade, they crack. Same with sculptures, same with photos. It's inevitable. Society's survival does not require art. New art will be created. That's what people do. I have a feeling that the pain of long dead artists will mean little to the few survivors of nuclear annihilation.
Yeah, I agree, screw putting people into shelters, let's save some art. I mean really, let's put this into perspective. We're talking about nuclear annihilation of an entire city, and you're worried about 'The Birth of Venus'? We should all be a little more concerned about the burning bodies, not the burning paintings. If you really want to preserve them, why not have high-res scans done of them so that we don't have to worry about pushing people out of the way in order to rush the priceless pieces of canvas into a bomb proof shelter. Generations of the future can enjoy the scans. It'll be fine.
Wow, defensive much? We cans it here and argue this all day, but you seem pretty set in your ways so I won't bother. You want to argue that digital both "blows film away" and that this is true for just most "actual working applications". These are two different things. Where did I say digital wasn't more cost effective? Where did I say digital wasn't adequate for most applications? You know, APS if adequate for people's snap shots, doesn't mean pro photographers should use it. You, instead of reading and responding to the thread have decided to pull out your business card and say "I know everything, if you aren't a pro who has to watch his expenses, then you know nothing." Talk about blowing hot air.
Yes, if you don't need to make large prints than digital is fine. Most people don't need medium format now, and probably never did. Digital just isn't there yet. You can claim that for your "real world" applications film is dead, but that doesn't hold true for every application or even most applications. Digital is killing 35mm, it has a long way to go before it overtakes medium format. I'm glad it's working out for you though.
The 1Ds, and this camera too, is nowhere near medium format. For one, the sensor is much smaller, and for two, the resolving power is about one quarter what it needs to be, if that. This is a fine camera, but it won't be displacing medium format.
For a comparison, a 35mm frame is 24x36mm and a medium format frame (in square format) is 60mmx60mm, a ratio of about 4.1 times the area. Even if you consider 6 megapixels to be 35mm quality (which it isn't), then you still haven't even touched medium format. I'd probably wager that this camera makes any quality considerations obsolete when choosing between 35mm and digital.
Medium format is a bit more dificult to achieve. Hell, even this camera has some major issues, most notably the incredible cost associated with making a "full-frame" sesor.
In my experience, Netflix is hands down a better service. They have a larger selection, with more copies (on blockbuster half my queue is "short waite", on netflix the entire thing is available now) and a much faster turn around time. I live in Philadelphia and there is a netflix distribution center not too far away. For blockbuster, my DVDs go all the way to North Carolina. I'm at the end of my two week trial for blockbusters and I've recieved 3 movies, all of which were returned more than 4 days ago. I have one on the way, that has been on the way for at least two days. With netflix, I've had about 6 movies in that same time period, and I was going at a much slower pace since I've had two services to going at the same time. Needless to say, I won't be keeping my blockbuster account.
The problem with sales tax of course is that it falls unevenly on the poor. There is no income tax in Washington state, just sales tax, and the poor end up paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy do.
No, income tax is the only thing that makes sense. Income is the benefit you get from a regulated society. Income tax is the price you pay for that regulated society. People who get more benefit, should have to contribute more to the upkeep of society. If society falls, guess who will suffer...it ain't the poor. Just look at the riots in LA after the whole Rodney King thing. It wasn't their businesses they were looting. The business were in large part owned by outsiders.
Anyway, income tax is the way to go, though a healthy tax on luxury items would be nice too. We shouldn't reward excess consumption.
http://www.killrockstars.com/
Kill Rock Stars is a great indie label that is home to Sleater-Kinney, a band who could probably make it big (TIME magazine called them "the only band that matters"), but remains true to their roots.
Mercedes didn't intend for my car to run of bio-diesel. Yet, if I choose to, I can go out and get a kit to convert my car. How is this any different?