It's true that Canon's 100mm f/2.8 is considered a fine lens and one of Canon's best but the same is said for Nikon's 60mm and 105mm macros. My experience with macro photography is entirely underwater where additional factors come into play. First, it's all about power. Canon's 50mm can only do 1:2 and as a result Sigma's 50mm is preferable. Second, all Canon macros in my samples (I own one of each) fail to reach their rated 1:1 (by 5- 10 percent in each case) while every Nikon macro exceeds their rating (yes, I own one of each). Canon have no equivalent to Nikon's (discontinued but) fantastic 70-180 macro zoom. Finally, while people argue about the optical performance of macro lenses, the fact is that optical performance is consistently superb in macro lenses from all manufacturers and, when used underwater, there are always additional elements degrading ultimate performance anyway.
I agree on the Sigma 150mm. It's the lens I used underwater with my Canon 1D* rigs. It's a great performer and offers f/2.8 for focusing (which is a big plus underwater where you need focus assist lamps to do your work). I never used it with Nikon but probably will when I start shooting again.
If it weren't for the fact that I shot underwater I wouldn't concern myself with such differences as the optical performance of Canon's lenses are competitive. I've even shot macro with Canon's 70-200 f/4 using diopters and planned to do that until my housing manufacturer stood me up. The relative lack of macro options didn't change my decision to switch after all (though it would now).
I do not have my macro photography online so I can't provide links. Underwater photography wouldn't be too comparable anyway:-)
Nikon has its vocal fanbase just as PCs do, but there's no comparison between the irrationality of Canon fanboys and their Nikon counterparts. A Canon fan believes that anything Canon does is inherently superior to anything done by any other company. They believe that every Canon DSLR outperforms its competition. They believe that Canon L series lenses have no counterpart in any other manufacturer's line. They believe that Canon is the choice of every photographer unless he is a fool. Sound familiar? Sure, just like a rabid Mac fan.
That's not to say that I don't own Canon gear or macs. I own both. It's also not to say that all supporters of those platforms are that extreme.
As for your opinions on equipment, they are very subjective. For DSLRs I think most would say that the Canon 1Ds2 is better than anything Nikon makes. I think most would say that Nikon's wides are better than Canon's. Macro being of importance to me, I can say that all Nikon macro lenses are better than Canon counterparts IMO. Canon makes great telephotos, great IS, and their big lenses are more affordable too. Frankly I think that the two systems are very competitive and it only tires me to read countless posts consistently recommending Canon. You won't see Nikon users eager to post their biased slant on/. in spite of the fact that their equipment is every bit as good. In fact, for entry level DSLRs you'll find the D80 considered in very high regard.
Speech most certainly is an action. You are a fool to state otherwise.
"No matter how you cut it, insulting someone outrageously is not the same as acting like "self-appointed and unofficial policeman" "
It is if you make the claim that someone has broken laws in order to cause some penalty to happen, i.e. lying about child molestation and pornography in order to get a site removed that is in violation of no laws.
"In the case of the original article, there was no vigilantism involved."
You keep saying that and you are wrong. The problem is that you simply refuse to accept what vigilantism actually is. It's clear that you believe that the vigilantes did something you supported so you can't accept that it was wrong. For you, the ends justify the means.
"Before you go any further, you might want to look up the definitions of both "libel" and "slander" and notice the amazing lack of any sort of wording that connects either to the idea of "taking the law into your own hands"."
I've never suggested otherwise. Lies were simply the tool of the vigilante in this case.
"The idea that libel and slander (as a subset of free speech) is in any way connected to vigilantism is a "no show" no matter how you look at it."
No, just apparently how YOU look at it. A vigilante is defined by why he acts, not the manner in which he acts. A vigilante does not have to use physical force, he doesn't have to imprison, he doesn't have to execute justice. A vigilante may only take it upon himself to participate in a vigilante activity and speech may be his only tool.
"The definitions of vigilante have to do with acting like a policeman, or taking the law into your own hands, right?"
No, not particularly. Taking the law into your own hands, yes, but acting like a policeman isn't required.
"So much for your idea that "the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures" (definition of libel) or speaking with "falsity and malice" (definition of slander) makes someone a fake cop or judge."
That was never my idea. Once again you fail to understand entirely. You aren't even trying.
The group in question are vigilantes because they take it upon themselves (rather than leave it to the proper authorities) to punish persons and organizations they feel to be criminal. Libel/slander was the tool they used in the case of the ISP. The same group also conducts high profile vigilante entrapments that it televises (although those were not the subject of the article).
"you were referring to the subset of free speech known as "slander." "
Slander is not free speech.
"Would that matter to this?"
Yes, because the claimed violations of law formed the justification for their action. That's exactly why it was vigilantism.
"In fact, there is nothing those animal rights activists can possible say (short of threatening some sort of action, such as assault) that can remotely be called vigilantism."
I agree completely. That's how it's different. How foolish of you to choose such a stupid example.
"Slander is something you say, vigilantism is something you do. It is very "ill-informed" to confuse the two. "
Then please stop. Vigilantism may be something you do but the action itself may be nothing more than speech. Not all speech is vigilantism but some speech is. While you are at it, please stop referring to slander as free speech.
"That is why I refuse to acknowledge the repeated false claim that free speech can be vigilantism."
If you would stop making it then you could stop arguing with it.
"Back on topic. Do I think Verizon should have blocked the rapists' gathering site?"
More inflamatory bullshit from you, krell? There was no "rapists gathering site" referred to in the article at all. When are you going to stop beating your wife?
"Actually, probably not, regardless of the anti-rapist group's proper exercise of its free speech to pressure Verizon to get rid of the pages."
You mean the vigilante group's slanderous accusations of unlawful activity aimed at denying the free speech rights of a documented lawful group? You must actually be a member of the vigilantes. That would explain things.
I think I was in qualified agreement with the part about wide angle. I've never liked my Canon wides and the Nikon DX wide zoom is not that good. For fisheye work, Nikon does have the DX 10.5 and the Canon full frames can use the film counterparts. I'm not sure what the problem there is exactly. No doubt that digital lacks the choices for wide work that film offers.
No doubt that sensor size is a limitation for digital while it isn't for film. Digital does not compete with large format film.
"free speech can't be vigilantism. (made in bold, because you keep forgetting it) "
No, krell, I've never forgotten it because I never claimed it. You'd like me to because you need something to not be wrong about. Slander is NOT free speech.
"I agree. Never said it did."
Yes you did in the opening post of this thread which I've quote and linked to before. How you'd like that to go away.
"Nor can the free exercise of free speech or the press in all of its varieties (whether or not you choose to label it as "hate speech" or "libel" or "slander") ever meet the definition of vigilantism."
Libel and slander are not protected forms of speech. How many times must that be said? Prove me wrong.
"None of which have anything to do with vigilantism. I've already grokked "Vigilantism" completely. Anyone who knows that the term means would not connect it to the original subject."
Wrong again, krell. Both the author and I associate vigilantism with the original subject. That's how this started, remember? Vigilantism can involve speech, particularly hate speech and libel/slander. You have never refuted that nor can you.
"Now, I'm going to say that I don't like your message. Some could interpret that as slander or hate speech"
That can't possibly be interpreted as slander or hate speech. Now the truth is really being exposed...
"There, I've completely met your imaginary definition of "vigilante"!"
Not at all. You have met none of the criteria that might qualify you as a vigilante. Further proof of your lack of understanding.
"You can't be a vigilante just by saying something, even if someone chooses to label your free exercise of free speech as "hate speech" or "slander"."
No, that's true. You can be a vigilante and only say something, however. You have already recognized that violence is not a requirement.
"Slander, while it may be real bad, is not an exercise in vigilantism."
No, but it may well be the tool of the vigilante as it was in the case of the article.
That's right, because I've never claimed that free speech is vigilantism. That's your consistent and deliberate distortion of the argument.
"The exercise of free speech is not vigilantism."
Never said it was.
"Animal rights activists who write to a newspaper to ask it to remove a sportsman column are doing the same sort of thing."
No they aren't because they aren't claiming that crimes are being committed in the column nor are they claiming that the existence of the column creates a haven for child molesters to hone their crafts.
"The original article used the word "vigilante" without any regard to its meaning. So are you. I don't care about who the "burden" is on, but it is clear that you are way out on a limb by choosing to use the vigilante/vigilante term for a subject to which it never applied."
You've made your ill-informed and entirely close-minded opinion abundantly clear. It's too bad you can't win that argument on technical merit. The original author has proven himself far more literate on the subject than you.
Sure they did. They declared that perfectly legal websites were havens for illegal activity without any evidence whatsoever and convinced a service provider, through lies and deceit, to deny their longtime paying customers access to the internet. Not only is that vigilantism, but the organization responsible has a high profile in performing, and profiting from, more conventional vigilante activities.
"In most instances, no one will notice the difference."
Depends on what you mean by most instances. In most instances of DSLR users, the difference will always be apparent. DSLR owners aren't tied to 4x6 prints they get at the supermarket. Furthermore, len performance is a huge advantage for DSLRs that has nothing directly to do with imager size.
"Noise shmoize. No one will notice."
Bullshit. You obviously have no experience in the matter. Go read a camera review at a legitamate site like dpreview.
CCD is a superior technology compared to CMOS, but that doesn't mean that CMOS imagers are as good. CMOS has the advantage that support circuitry can be integrated on the same die. Good engineering has produced CMOS imagers in DSLRs that are absolutely as good as CCD ones in competitive cameras. That should be the least of anyone's concerns.
If you are comparing DSLRs to film SLRs then I don't get point 8. Point 9 is meaningless since many DSLR's go an entire day or longer on a charge. If you can't recharge then digital isn't for you anyway since you won't be offloading your shots. Point 10 is simply romance.
Not true. The best dynamic range films (color anyway) do not offer better dynamic range than digital. Modern digital SLRs, when shooting RAW, offer consistently over 10 stops. Color film cannot beat that.
"12 - no really wide-angle optics (of quality, anyway...)"
If you use a FF Canon you get the same wide angle that film offers (though I'd agree that Canon makes no wide angle of quality). Depends on how wide you need to go.
"13 - you can't change to "better film" - need to change to a better camera body when you need better."
Offsetting that is that fact that modern DSLR's outperform the best 35mm already.
You know, Canon cameras are like BMW's whereas a Nikon is like a Chevy...
The thing about Canon and Apple is they have similar fanboy communities.
Having owned both systems, the D1, the D100, the 1D2 and 1Ds2, and the 30D, I was shocked at how ergonomically bad all the Canon cameras were compared to my Nikon DSLR's. Image quality was better but then all the Canon's were newer. For my application (wide angle and macro) all my Nikon lenses were superior and the Nikon flash system was better. I switched because Nikon sensors fell behind Canon at the time. That's no longer the case and I would definitely switch back if were doing that sort of thing today. Canon nice great telephoto lenses though.
"You really cannot go wrong with some of the other manufacturers like Nikon with their D70/D80 and Sony, but Canon, like Apple tends to build the entire widget from the glass to the camera to the imaging chips."
Apple makes the entire widget? That's new news. Canon is like Apple in that it has a rabid fan base, but (like Apple) its products aren't as differentiated as they would have you believe. Canon had a head start on sensor technology because it developed its sensors in-house and had the funding to do it. Nikon was nearly bankrupt at the start of the digital SLR revolution and couldn't fund development on its own. Canon's digital technology lead has largely evaporated though they certainly don't take a back seat to anybody.
"Additionally, I tend to like the color representation from the Canon Digic imaging chips."
Digic is the branding of Canon's image processing processor, not it's imaging chips. Color superiority is another aspect of the Canon lore in spite of the fact that, properly calibrated, color rendition between current SLR's is not that great. Superior color quality is something more generally attributed to Canon's L lenses although I feel that's also overblown.
Anyone interested in investing in a DSLR needs to realize that they are investing in a system and, over time, will tie up more money in lenses than digital camera bodies. Since lens families actually differ more that the DSLR's themselves at this point, it would behoove new buyers to consider how they intend to use their systems and read up on the various brands at serious photography sites. The choice between Canon and Nikon (or any other brand) is more properly made by understanding the system rather than considering comparisions to Apple or dubious statements about color rendition.
Great, then stop referring to "law" and "law enforcement" as though they have to be involved. Also, recognize that not all of this process must be involved for there to be vigilantism. Anyone who actively participates in the process is a vigilante.
"Clearly, these are not involved in this issue."
Oh yes they are. These vigilantes are creating their own "law" by condemning lawful free speech and are actively pursuing punishment by working to deny the "perpetrators" with access to the internet. They are defining their own "law" and acting to enforce it. No doubt if they could do more they would do more.
"You really do not know what you are talking about. You have yet to connect..."
You seem to think the burden is on me to do so. You're the one who objected to the original usage. You've totally failed to make your case against it.
The article used the term "vigilante" correctly. You claimed that violence or force is a necessary component of vigilantism and it is not. If you have more arguments as to why "vigilante" doesn't apply, let's hear them.
"There is certainly no connection between deterring free speech and "and the deterrent of vigilantism". "
Bullshit, krell. Since you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of "vigilante" there is no point in arguing how speech might relate to it. Furthermore, your insistence on referring to slander as "free speech" is tiring. There is no constitutionally protected right to slander and there is no legal deterrent to "free speech".
"If that shot involved a gun and bullets, you might be able to argue vigilantism. If is just words, you can't. "
Of course I can. If I offer witness against you my words may well be vigilantism depending on circumstance. Your failure to understand how wrong you are has been demonstrated over and over. Vigilantism does not require violence.
"Typically, that is called "hate speech", yet another term unrelated to "vigilantism.""
If I were referring to "hate speech" I would have said so. I am referring to slander/libel however. I don't expect you to admit to the differences since you clearly don't want to. It doesn't really matter that you can't grok "vigilantism" nor differentiate between free speech and slander. It's your loss. Everyone else understood what the original article meant.
I never said that Foley was worthy of respect; only that he was not a pedophile.
There are several pages involved and I've also read that some were 16. It's my understanding that the age of consent in all locations involved was 16. The fact that the federal government has overridden state laws in this matter disgusts me.
You think Foley's opportunity as a lobbyist is compromised? I doubt it.
Frankly, I think that if pages aren't old enough to act like adults then they shouldn't be allowed as pages. Foley was guilty of abuse of authority but the claims that he is a child predator are ridiculous. Children shouldn't be working in Congress.
"Readily admitted: "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime." "
That is an example.
"Nice way out. You strip the word "law" of meaning. Since the term "vigilante" depends on the word "law", you are now totally free to use "vigilante" to describe anything you want to, including the mere exercise of free speech. "
Wrong. "Vigilante" has the same root as "vigilant" and vigilantes are members of "vigilance committees". They do not depend on "law", they make it. When it is said that vigilantes "take the law into their hands", that doesn't mean they become enforcers of existing law, it means they determine what the law is. Vigilantes are the sheriffs, judges, juries, and executioners. They don't respect the rule of law, they ARE the rule of law.
Here on of the definitions: "One who decides to stop crime or punish criminals independently of the law."...and a bit of history:
"Sometimes the motives of vigilantes were honorable, but sometimes they merely dispensed their own version of Lynch Law (1780), also an American invention. Citizen initiative in maintaining order, if not always law, has persisted to the present day, but now it usually takes the milder form of a neighborhood watch (1972)."
See, krell, you really don't know what you're talking about.
"Yeah, you quoted it in an admitted fake quote."
I always made it clear that I was mocking you. You're just too stupid to realize it.
"Yes, because vigilantism involves taking the law into your own hands. Look up the definition. I object to the use of the word since this is not happening here."
"law" here is figurative. Stick your head in the sand because that's what you will do, but "vigilante" was chosen because that was the right word.
"Who are you talking about? No vigilante group has been discussed yet. You have not yet bothered to make a case that this group is vigilante at all. "
You're a moron, krell. "vigilante" was used in the first sentence of the article and it was the specific word you objected to in the start of this thread. Furthermore, it's entirely appropriate and i've explained so. Why don't you learn to read.
"The message you quoted did not contain the fabricated quote, which was "We're gonna have a first class trial followed by a first class hangin'." - krell ""
Of course it didn't. That was my parody of you that you deserved for judging people who didn't even exist in the article. Judgement of yours that I quoted. Too bad you're too dimwitted to get it. I'm sure everyone else did.
"And, your point is now???"
Sorry, that should have been "without". Doesn't matter. You'll never admit what "vigilante" means.
"f we view pedophilia as just another variant of human sexuality, we open the door to allowing the expression of that identity for those exact reasons."
You are wrong. In mixed-race and same-sex relationships no one is harmed. It's true that there exists the same revulsion in your examples and pedophilia, but no amount of acceptance of a pedophile's condition will convince anyone that a child won't be damaged through sexual contact. Pedophilia IS "just another variant of human sexuality", there is no reason to lie about it.
"Is it plausible to you that a pedophile could spend his whole life refusing to act on his basic sexual desires?"
Of course it is. Perhaps it's not plausible for you...
"There's a reason that sexual offenders have such high recidivism rates. The impulse we're talking about is basic to the psyche."
Are you calling all pedophiles "sexual offenders"? What the recidivism rate for non-offenders? The problem is that you view pedophiles as criminals.
"They may be cut off from help, but they're also cut off from the like minded, from fellow conspirators, from pedophilia encouraging groups, and from a political lobby that can push for expansion of their rights as pedophiles. Yes, they form underground networks as a result, but like terrorist networks, they're hampered and hounded and their organizational efforts are at least curtailed."
So you recognize that they form these networks anyway, so why do you fear them forming support networks in public? You know that pedophiles are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, right? Included in those rights is the freedom to pursue their happiness just as you are. Like you, they aren't free to injure others in the process. As for the damaging effects of support groups, we all know how AA contributes to rampant alcoholism, right?
"I don't pretend this is an easy issue to resolve."
It's funny since you advocate such a simple solution. Treat all pedophiles as criminals and give them no quarter. You say you're compassionate but you are not.
"...So why does the argument seem more plausible in the case of pedophilia?"
Because rapists are only rapists because they rape. Rape itself is a violent sexual crime. Pedophilic attraction is not.
The analogy you've chosen says it all. You view all pedophiles as inherently criminal and the mere attraction as proof that they molest children. Perhaps you have no control over your sexual urges, but don't project your weaknesses onto others.
I'm not sure why you've chosen to respond to me with this argument. I argue the same points you are making. If that's not clear to you then review my posting history.
"When you get past the hate and fear of pedophiles, you're still left with an exploitative and unhealthy sexual relationship that's unacceptable in its own terms."
And there you are wrong. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction. There is no requirement for sexual activity.
"I'm not saying that we have to continue to hate and fear pedophiles."
It sure sound like you are since you argue that every pedophile, by definition, is a child molester. Who wouldn't hate and fear them?
"we can and should deny the status of oppressed sexual minority to pedophiles that's inherent in terms like 'minor attracted adult'"
You mean that we should use the most hateful and inflammatory language possible even though you claim "I'm not saying that we have to continue to hate and fear pedophiles."?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm smoking technical reviews that don't support your arguments. Go read dpreview.
Nikon does not compete with the 1Ds2 for ultimately image quality but it does compete successfully with the 5D.
It's true that Canon's 100mm f/2.8 is considered a fine lens and one of Canon's best but the same is said for Nikon's 60mm and 105mm macros. My experience with macro photography is entirely underwater where additional factors come into play. First, it's all about power. Canon's 50mm can only do 1:2 and as a result Sigma's 50mm is preferable. Second, all Canon macros in my samples (I own one of each) fail to reach their rated 1:1 (by 5- 10 percent in each case) while every Nikon macro exceeds their rating (yes, I own one of each). Canon have no equivalent to Nikon's (discontinued but) fantastic 70-180 macro zoom. Finally, while people argue about the optical performance of macro lenses, the fact is that optical performance is consistently superb in macro lenses from all manufacturers and, when used underwater, there are always additional elements degrading ultimate performance anyway.
:-)
I agree on the Sigma 150mm. It's the lens I used underwater with my Canon 1D* rigs. It's a great performer and offers f/2.8 for focusing (which is a big plus underwater where you need focus assist lamps to do your work). I never used it with Nikon but probably will when I start shooting again.
If it weren't for the fact that I shot underwater I wouldn't concern myself with such differences as the optical performance of Canon's lenses are competitive. I've even shot macro with Canon's 70-200 f/4 using diopters and planned to do that until my housing manufacturer stood me up. The relative lack of macro options didn't change my decision to switch after all (though it would now).
I do not have my macro photography online so I can't provide links. Underwater photography wouldn't be too comparable anyway
Nikon has its vocal fanbase just as PCs do, but there's no comparison between the irrationality of Canon fanboys and their Nikon counterparts. A Canon fan believes that anything Canon does is inherently superior to anything done by any other company. They believe that every Canon DSLR outperforms its competition. They believe that Canon L series lenses have no counterpart in any other manufacturer's line. They believe that Canon is the choice of every photographer unless he is a fool. Sound familiar? Sure, just like a rabid Mac fan.
/. in spite of the fact that their equipment is every bit as good. In fact, for entry level DSLRs you'll find the D80 considered in very high regard.
That's not to say that I don't own Canon gear or macs. I own both. It's also not to say that all supporters of those platforms are that extreme.
As for your opinions on equipment, they are very subjective. For DSLRs I think most would say that the Canon 1Ds2 is better than anything Nikon makes. I think most would say that Nikon's wides are better than Canon's. Macro being of importance to me, I can say that all Nikon macro lenses are better than Canon counterparts IMO. Canon makes great telephotos, great IS, and their big lenses are more affordable too. Frankly I think that the two systems are very competitive and it only tires me to read countless posts consistently recommending Canon. You won't see Nikon users eager to post their biased slant on
"Either way, it is not an action."
Speech most certainly is an action. You are a fool to state otherwise.
"No matter how you cut it, insulting someone outrageously is not the same as acting like "self-appointed and unofficial policeman" "
It is if you make the claim that someone has broken laws in order to cause some penalty to happen, i.e. lying about child molestation and pornography in order to get a site removed that is in violation of no laws.
"In the case of the original article, there was no vigilantism involved."
You keep saying that and you are wrong. The problem is that you simply refuse to accept what vigilantism actually is. It's clear that you believe that the vigilantes did something you supported so you can't accept that it was wrong. For you, the ends justify the means.
"Before you go any further, you might want to look up the definitions of both "libel" and "slander" and notice the amazing lack of any sort of wording that connects either to the idea of "taking the law into your own hands"."
I've never suggested otherwise. Lies were simply the tool of the vigilante in this case.
"The idea that libel and slander (as a subset of free speech) is in any way connected to vigilantism is a "no show" no matter how you look at it."
No, just apparently how YOU look at it. A vigilante is defined by why he acts, not the manner in which he acts. A vigilante does not have to use physical force, he doesn't have to imprison, he doesn't have to execute justice. A vigilante may only take it upon himself to participate in a vigilante activity and speech may be his only tool.
"The definitions of vigilante have to do with acting like a policeman, or taking the law into your own hands, right?"
No, not particularly. Taking the law into your own hands, yes, but acting like a policeman isn't required.
"So much for your idea that "the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures" (definition of libel) or speaking with "falsity and malice" (definition of slander) makes someone a fake cop or judge."
That was never my idea. Once again you fail to understand entirely. You aren't even trying.
The group in question are vigilantes because they take it upon themselves (rather than leave it to the proper authorities) to punish persons and organizations they feel to be criminal. Libel/slander was the tool they used in the case of the ISP. The same group also conducts high profile vigilante entrapments that it televises (although those were not the subject of the article).
"you were referring to the subset of free speech known as "slander." "
Slander is not free speech.
"Would that matter to this?"
Yes, because the claimed violations of law formed the justification for their action. That's exactly why it was vigilantism.
"In fact, there is nothing those animal rights activists can possible say (short of threatening some sort of action, such as assault) that can remotely be called vigilantism."
I agree completely. That's how it's different. How foolish of you to choose such a stupid example.
"Slander is something you say, vigilantism is something you do. It is very "ill-informed" to confuse the two. "
Then please stop. Vigilantism may be something you do but the action itself may be nothing more than speech. Not all speech is vigilantism but some speech is. While you are at it, please stop referring to slander as free speech.
"That is why I refuse to acknowledge the repeated false claim that free speech can be vigilantism."
If you would stop making it then you could stop arguing with it.
"Back on topic. Do I think Verizon should have blocked the rapists' gathering site?"
More inflamatory bullshit from you, krell? There was no "rapists gathering site" referred to in the article at all. When are you going to stop beating your wife?
"Actually, probably not, regardless of the anti-rapist group's proper exercise of its free speech to pressure Verizon to get rid of the pages."
You mean the vigilante group's slanderous accusations of unlawful activity aimed at denying the free speech rights of a documented lawful group? You must actually be a member of the vigilantes. That would explain things.
I think I was in qualified agreement with the part about wide angle. I've never liked my Canon wides and the Nikon DX wide zoom is not that good. For fisheye work, Nikon does have the DX 10.5 and the Canon full frames can use the film counterparts. I'm not sure what the problem there is exactly. No doubt that digital lacks the choices for wide work that film offers.
No doubt that sensor size is a limitation for digital while it isn't for film. Digital does not compete with large format film.
"free speech can't be vigilantism. (made in bold, because you keep forgetting it) "
No, krell, I've never forgotten it because I never claimed it. You'd like me to because you need something to not be wrong about. Slander is NOT free speech.
"I agree. Never said it did."
Yes you did in the opening post of this thread which I've quote and linked to before. How you'd like that to go away.
"Nor can the free exercise of free speech or the press in all of its varieties (whether or not you choose to label it as "hate speech" or "libel" or "slander") ever meet the definition of vigilantism."
Libel and slander are not protected forms of speech. How many times must that be said? Prove me wrong.
"None of which have anything to do with vigilantism. I've already grokked "Vigilantism" completely. Anyone who knows that the term means would not connect it to the original subject."
Wrong again, krell. Both the author and I associate vigilantism with the original subject. That's how this started, remember? Vigilantism can involve speech, particularly hate speech and libel/slander. You have never refuted that nor can you.
"Now, I'm going to say that I don't like your message. Some could interpret that as slander or hate speech"
That can't possibly be interpreted as slander or hate speech. Now the truth is really being exposed...
"There, I've completely met your imaginary definition of "vigilante"!"
Not at all. You have met none of the criteria that might qualify you as a vigilante. Further proof of your lack of understanding.
"You can't be a vigilante just by saying something, even if someone chooses to label your free exercise of free speech as "hate speech" or "slander"."
No, that's true. You can be a vigilante and only say something, however. You have already recognized that violence is not a requirement.
"Slander, while it may be real bad, is not an exercise in vigilantism."
No, but it may well be the tool of the vigilante as it was in the case of the article.
"You have entirely failed to make a case: "
That's right, because I've never claimed that free speech is vigilantism. That's your consistent and deliberate distortion of the argument.
"The exercise of free speech is not vigilantism."
Never said it was.
"Animal rights activists who write to a newspaper to ask it to remove a sportsman column are doing the same sort of thing."
No they aren't because they aren't claiming that crimes are being committed in the column nor are they claiming that the existence of the column creates a haven for child molesters to hone their crafts.
"The original article used the word "vigilante" without any regard to its meaning. So are you. I don't care about who the "burden" is on, but it is clear that you are way out on a limb by choosing to use the vigilante/vigilante term for a subject to which it never applied."
You've made your ill-informed and entirely close-minded opinion abundantly clear. It's too bad you can't win that argument on technical merit. The original author has proven himself far more literate on the subject than you.
Sure they did. They declared that perfectly legal websites were havens for illegal activity without any evidence whatsoever and convinced a service provider, through lies and deceit, to deny their longtime paying customers access to the internet. Not only is that vigilantism, but the organization responsible has a high profile in performing, and profiting from, more conventional vigilante activities.
"In most instances, no one will notice the difference."
Depends on what you mean by most instances. In most instances of DSLR users, the difference will always be apparent. DSLR owners aren't tied to 4x6 prints they get at the supermarket. Furthermore, len performance is a huge advantage for DSLRs that has nothing directly to do with imager size.
"Noise shmoize. No one will notice."
Bullshit. You obviously have no experience in the matter. Go read a camera review at a legitamate site like dpreview.
CCD is a superior technology compared to CMOS, but that doesn't mean that CMOS imagers are as good. CMOS has the advantage that support circuitry can be integrated on the same die. Good engineering has produced CMOS imagers in DSLRs that are absolutely as good as CCD ones in competitive cameras. That should be the least of anyone's concerns.
If you are comparing DSLRs to film SLRs then I don't get point 8. Point 9 is meaningless since many DSLR's go an entire day or longer on a charge. If you can't recharge then digital isn't for you anyway since you won't be offloading your shots. Point 10 is simply romance.
"11 - lower dynamic range than any film camera"
Not true. The best dynamic range films (color anyway) do not offer better dynamic range than digital. Modern digital SLRs, when shooting RAW, offer consistently over 10 stops. Color film cannot beat that.
"12 - no really wide-angle optics (of quality, anyway...)"
If you use a FF Canon you get the same wide angle that film offers (though I'd agree that Canon makes no wide angle of quality). Depends on how wide you need to go.
"13 - you can't change to "better film" - need to change to a better camera body when you need better."
Offsetting that is that fact that modern DSLR's outperform the best 35mm already.
You know, Canon cameras are like BMW's whereas a Nikon is like a Chevy...
The thing about Canon and Apple is they have similar fanboy communities.
Having owned both systems, the D1, the D100, the 1D2 and 1Ds2, and the 30D, I was shocked at how ergonomically bad all the Canon cameras were compared to my Nikon DSLR's. Image quality was better but then all the Canon's were newer. For my application (wide angle and macro) all my Nikon lenses were superior and the Nikon flash system was better. I switched because Nikon sensors fell behind Canon at the time. That's no longer the case and I would definitely switch back if were doing that sort of thing today. Canon nice great telephoto lenses though.
"You really cannot go wrong with some of the other manufacturers like Nikon with their D70/D80 and Sony, but Canon, like Apple tends to build the entire widget from the glass to the camera to the imaging chips."
Apple makes the entire widget? That's new news. Canon is like Apple in that it has a rabid fan base, but (like Apple) its products aren't as differentiated as they would have you believe. Canon had a head start on sensor technology because it developed its sensors in-house and had the funding to do it. Nikon was nearly bankrupt at the start of the digital SLR revolution and couldn't fund development on its own. Canon's digital technology lead has largely evaporated though they certainly don't take a back seat to anybody.
"Additionally, I tend to like the color representation from the Canon Digic imaging chips."
Digic is the branding of Canon's image processing processor, not it's imaging chips. Color superiority is another aspect of the Canon lore in spite of the fact that, properly calibrated, color rendition between current SLR's is not that great. Superior color quality is something more generally attributed to Canon's L lenses although I feel that's also overblown.
Anyone interested in investing in a DSLR needs to realize that they are investing in a system and, over time, will tie up more money in lenses than digital camera bodies. Since lens families actually differ more that the DSLR's themselves at this point, it would behoove new buyers to consider how they intend to use their systems and read up on the various brands at serious photography sites. The choice between Canon and Nikon (or any other brand) is more properly made by understanding the system rather than considering comparisions to Apple or dubious statements about color rendition.
That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Way to get into the head of the uninformed voter.
"That's the definition I go by."
Great, then stop referring to "law" and "law enforcement" as though they have to be involved. Also, recognize that not all of this process must be involved for there to be vigilantism. Anyone who actively participates in the process is a vigilante.
"Clearly, these are not involved in this issue."
Oh yes they are. These vigilantes are creating their own "law" by condemning lawful free speech and are actively pursuing punishment by working to deny the "perpetrators" with access to the internet. They are defining their own "law" and acting to enforce it. No doubt if they could do more they would do more.
"You really do not know what you are talking about. You have yet to connect..."
You seem to think the burden is on me to do so. You're the one who objected to the original usage. You've totally failed to make your case against it.
The article used the term "vigilante" correctly. You claimed that violence or force is a necessary component of vigilantism and it is not. If you have more arguments as to why "vigilante" doesn't apply, let's hear them.
"There is certainly no connection between deterring free speech and "and the deterrent of vigilantism". "
Bullshit, krell. Since you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of "vigilante" there is no point in arguing how speech might relate to it. Furthermore, your insistence on referring to slander as "free speech" is tiring. There is no constitutionally protected right to slander and there is no legal deterrent to "free speech".
"If that shot involved a gun and bullets, you might be able to argue vigilantism. If is just words, you can't. "
Of course I can. If I offer witness against you my words may well be vigilantism depending on circumstance. Your failure to understand how wrong you are has been demonstrated over and over. Vigilantism does not require violence.
"Typically, that is called "hate speech", yet another term unrelated to "vigilantism.""
If I were referring to "hate speech" I would have said so. I am referring to slander/libel however. I don't expect you to admit to the differences since you clearly don't want to. It doesn't really matter that you can't grok "vigilantism" nor differentiate between free speech and slander. It's your loss. Everyone else understood what the original article meant.
I never said that Foley was worthy of respect; only that he was not a pedophile.
There are several pages involved and I've also read that some were 16. It's my understanding that the age of consent in all locations involved was 16. The fact that the federal government has overridden state laws in this matter disgusts me.
You think Foley's opportunity as a lobbyist is compromised? I doubt it.
Frankly, I think that if pages aren't old enough to act like adults then they shouldn't be allowed as pages. Foley was guilty of abuse of authority but the claims that he is a child predator are ridiculous. Children shouldn't be working in Congress.
"Readily admitted: "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime." "
...and a bit of history:
That is an example.
"Nice way out. You strip the word "law" of meaning. Since the term "vigilante" depends on the word "law", you are now totally free to use "vigilante" to describe anything you want to, including the mere exercise of free speech. "
Wrong. "Vigilante" has the same root as "vigilant" and vigilantes are members of "vigilance committees". They do not depend on "law", they make it. When it is said that vigilantes "take the law into their hands", that doesn't mean they become enforcers of existing law, it means they determine what the law is. Vigilantes are the sheriffs, judges, juries, and executioners. They don't respect the rule of law, they ARE the rule of law.
Why don't you brush up on what a vigilante really is: http://www.answers.com/vigilante&r=6
Here on of the definitions: "One who decides to stop crime or punish criminals independently of the law."
"Sometimes the motives of vigilantes were honorable, but sometimes they merely dispensed their own version of Lynch Law (1780), also an American invention. Citizen initiative in maintaining order, if not always law, has persisted to the present day, but now it usually takes the milder form of a neighborhood watch (1972)."
See, krell, you really don't know what you're talking about.
"Yeah, you quoted it in an admitted fake quote."
I always made it clear that I was mocking you. You're just too stupid to realize it.
"Yes, because vigilantism involves taking the law into your own hands. Look up the definition. I object to the use of the word since this is not happening here."
"law" here is figurative. Stick your head in the sand because that's what you will do, but "vigilante" was chosen because that was the right word.
"Who are you talking about? No vigilante group has been discussed yet. You have not yet bothered to make a case that this group is vigilante at all. "
You're a moron, krell. "vigilante" was used in the first sentence of the article and it was the specific word you objected to in the start of this thread. Furthermore, it's entirely appropriate and i've explained so. Why don't you learn to read.
"The message you quoted did not contain the fabricated quote, which was "We're gonna have a first class trial followed by a first class hangin'." - krell ""
Of course it didn't. That was my parody of you that you deserved for judging people who didn't even exist in the article. Judgement of yours that I quoted. Too bad you're too dimwitted to get it. I'm sure everyone else did.
"And, your point is now???"
Sorry, that should have been "without". Doesn't matter. You'll never admit what "vigilante" means.
"f we view pedophilia as just another variant of human sexuality, we open the door to allowing the expression of that identity for those exact reasons."
You are wrong. In mixed-race and same-sex relationships no one is harmed. It's true that there exists the same revulsion in your examples and pedophilia, but no amount of acceptance of a pedophile's condition will convince anyone that a child won't be damaged through sexual contact. Pedophilia IS "just another variant of human sexuality", there is no reason to lie about it.
"Is it plausible to you that a pedophile could spend his whole life refusing to act on his basic sexual desires?"
Of course it is. Perhaps it's not plausible for you...
"There's a reason that sexual offenders have such high recidivism rates. The impulse we're talking about is basic to the psyche."
Are you calling all pedophiles "sexual offenders"? What the recidivism rate for non-offenders? The problem is that you view pedophiles as criminals.
"They may be cut off from help, but they're also cut off from the like minded, from fellow conspirators, from pedophilia encouraging groups, and from a political lobby that can push for expansion of their rights as pedophiles. Yes, they form underground networks as a result, but like terrorist networks, they're hampered and hounded and their organizational efforts are at least curtailed."
So you recognize that they form these networks anyway, so why do you fear them forming support networks in public? You know that pedophiles are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, right? Included in those rights is the freedom to pursue their happiness just as you are. Like you, they aren't free to injure others in the process. As for the damaging effects of support groups, we all know how AA contributes to rampant alcoholism, right?
"I don't pretend this is an easy issue to resolve."
It's funny since you advocate such a simple solution. Treat all pedophiles as criminals and give them no quarter. You say you're compassionate but you are not.
"...So why does the argument seem more plausible in the case of pedophilia?"
Because rapists are only rapists because they rape. Rape itself is a violent sexual crime. Pedophilic attraction is not.
The analogy you've chosen says it all. You view all pedophiles as inherently criminal and the mere attraction as proof that they molest children. Perhaps you have no control over your sexual urges, but don't project your weaknesses onto others.
I'm not sure why you've chosen to respond to me with this argument. I argue the same points you are making. If that's not clear to you then review my posting history.
"When you get past the hate and fear of pedophiles, you're still left with an exploitative and unhealthy sexual relationship that's unacceptable in its own terms."
And there you are wrong. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction. There is no requirement for sexual activity.
"I'm not saying that we have to continue to hate and fear pedophiles."
It sure sound like you are since you argue that every pedophile, by definition, is a child molester. Who wouldn't hate and fear them?
"we can and should deny the status of oppressed sexual minority to pedophiles that's inherent in terms like 'minor attracted adult'"
You mean that we should use the most hateful and inflammatory language possible even though you claim "I'm not saying that we have to continue to hate and fear pedophiles."?
The fact that no one makes unauthorized copies of DRM-laden files is a testament to DRM's effectiveness, not an example of its uselessness. Try again.