7 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans.
Unless you're suggesting that Karl Rove somehow also controls how quickly the justices age or how healthy they are, vacated seats (filled by a given administration's appointees) are pretty much a luck of the draw thing.
The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat.
Um... the three branches are the Executive (the president heads up this branch, and it includes the military, all of the various agencies headed up by his appointed cabinet memebers, etc), the Judicial (the courts, which are populated with career-long judges that are typically in office well past the duration of the administration that nominated them, which usually means a pretty mixed group, philosophically), and the Legislative (which happens to have the Congress and the Senate as its two main parts).
Come on, this is supposed to be a science/engineering summary of a science/engineering article. The term "renewable" should at least mean something. Bio-fuel crops are arguably "renewable." Waves simply are. Nobody needs to re-plant our gravitational interaction with the moon once we've harvested it. Swine waste methane is not the same as tidal activity. It's the article summary, for cryin' out loud. At least get the fundamental concepts behind the word choice straight. "Renewable" isn't the same as "something other than oil."
There is often as much difference between a pocket non-DSLR and a high-end, large-lensed/bodyied, full featured non-DSRL as there is between most DSLR's and non-DSLR's.
Absolutely. I'm pretty much focusing on the mid-to-higher-end DSLRs, which, as an alternative to a pocket-size camera, price-wise, is definitely an apples/oranges matter. A real enthusiast will have no trouble making the case to own at least two cameras, no question.
The phrase "I love boys" as I used it means precisely what it says... "Cultural" context is meaningless. The phrase is an unambiguous statement of fact.
Language is nothing but cultural context. You used the phrase "I am a boylover" along with the rest of your exposition. That's not even a term in the normal lexicon - it's a synthetic conflation of two terms, expressly intended to connote something that the reader is going to have to guess at, based on context. If you're going to suggest that context has no bearing on your defense of what any objective observer would say is an eyebrow-raising collection of phrases and overly defensive tone, then it's no wonder that you're mystified that people "won't let you near" their sons. You insist that we leave context out of the conversation because context (your behavior, taken in context) is obviously alarming to boys' parents.
before the Murdoch press began the beat up about paedophiles
Ah, I see. So when one news outlet, which has a small share of the media landscape, covers cases of predatory, sexual child abuse, that changes the entire culture's tone about paedophilia? How about: parents have never wanted their children to be abused? That's got nothing to do with which talking head on which cable channel gets particularly riled up about such cases - especially since, as people here so love to point out, channels like Fox aren't even watched by the vast majority of viewers. No, you've got to understand that your actions, your bearing, and your choice to synthesize phrases like "boylover" (do you even grasp what the term "lover" means to most people, in that context?) do have a context, and you can't cause people to hear those words in only the context in which you want them to be heard.
Being an "art lover" or a "cat lover" has an established context. Saying that one "loves to teach kids" has a known context. When you start separating it by the sex of the kid, as you do, you immediately set off people's radar, and pretending that you don't know why is the height of disengenuousness.
I was given to believe that slashdotters were more intelligent than the average drongo, but it seems I have been misled...
No, you've just discovered that the veneer you're putting on this, as presented, doesn't even come close to achieving what you're after. Your attempt at condescension is competely transparent, and the picture you're painting is exactly the opposite of what you'd like to think you're accomplishing. Although I don't think you can be objective about it in any way, carefully re-read your comments and imagine that you're someone else - someone who lives in a world where all words and actions are perceived within a context. It's up to all communicators - in fact it's almost the essence of rhetoric - to take context into account.
Not entirely sure I'm following your question, but:
With Nikon's recent DSLRS (certainly the D200, D80), the seemingly unimpressive built-in pop-up strobe (which actually works really well as a fill flash, and is really helpful when you don't feel like mounting a larger strobe) also serves as a "controller" for devices like their SB-600 and SB-800 strobes. You can have 20 of them, if you want, sitting in various places around your space, withe strobes assigned to three different groups, all providing through-the-lens metering for well-measured light, and with the menu on the camera telling the different strobe groups what to do. The communication is handled through some very fast pre-flashes from the built-in strobe, but you can actually tell the built-in strobe not to fire during the actual exposure.
Even if you use only one companion strobe, you can use this feature to move it off-camera for more natural-looking lighting, and not have to tether it to the camera at all. It's really, really refreshing. But since you can get a second or third strobe for pretty cheap, you'll quickly find yourself adding another one on top of a bookcase, or inside a window, or on a stand with a diffuser... and you've got very professional lighting control with just about none of the fuss. I really can't rave about Nikon's i-TTL system enough. The cameras are getting very, very smart these days.
In a lot of cases, there isn't anyone worth voting for.
*sigh*
True. The "good" guys/gals are usually too busy doing other, private sector, things. And most everybody who's had a busy, intellectually interesting life in a lot of pursuits is going to have some skeleton or two in their closet, making a modern campaign essentially impossible. So, you get political creatures instead.
5) No Shutter Lag: I find the "lag" on the 828 to be minimal. The DSLR's are faster at focusing, but from the time it is focused I see no difference in speed from pressing the button fully down and it taking the picture on the 828 vs. the DSLR's I have used.
Oh, there's a difference. The higher-end DSLRs are very, very fast on that first shot. And more importantly, can sustain that speed. I routinely shoot 30-frame bursts at 5 or 6 frames per second, with the camera continually refocusing throughout. That sort of stuff is strictly DSLR.
Viewfinder: Personally, I *like* using a live screen to shoot instead of a viewfinder. So I find the 828 superior to a DSLR in that case, but if you do WANT to use the viewfinder, the DSLR is better. This is probably the most important differentiating factor between the two.
It's certainly a key difference, and a matter of taste. But: if you shoot in really low light (strobes or not), staring at that backlit LCD will really wreck your night vision. Seeing things through the lens can be very helpful, that way.
It really does all come down to why you're carrying a camera around in the first place, and what sort of results you're looking for. Different tools for different jobs/tastes/experiences. The market certainly isn't letting us down on choices, that's for sure.
I'd say you're right (about not upgrading to the D80 from the D70) just for the resolution. The real upgrade (if the D2X price freaks you out, which it should!) is the D200. Very, very rugged body, and shoots at about twice the frame rate as the D80. The D80 is essentially the D200 in a slightly slower, slightly dumbed down, slightly less robust form... and without some of the dust/moisture protection. For me (doing a lot of action stuff), the 5fps is critical. Love the D200. Love it, love it. I AM thinking about a D80 as a backup body, though.
because it's a SLR, you can't preview the picture you're goint to take. This makes more difficult to color-balance the image on the spot and typically means that you have to take several shots to get the one that looks OK
Most decent prosumer DSLRs support some pretty good bracketing behavior (so that your oddly lit subject can benefit, on the fly, from a range of exposures if you're in a hurry). Also, with more or less immediate review on the camera's display, correcting exposure after you take the shot isn't much harder than correcting it while you look at the "live" display on the digicam. As long as you don't hose up the exposure too badly (usually, over-exposure) and lose detail, you can usually work the more subtle clean-up on the desktop later.
if you keep swapping the lenses, dust tends to accumulate on the sensor
I spend most of my time shooting in the field (um, literally - like, standing in farmers' fields). There's always some risk of dust, but I've never once had it be a problem. In fact, the only spec I've seen on a sensor was about three days into the use of the camera - probably something left over from the manufacturing process. I used the camera's mirror lock-up to expose the sensor, and used a gentle puff of room-temperature air to remove it. I suppose that people who are less thoughtful about when and how they change their lenses would eventually have more trouble - but most people who are sitting on the fence over DSLR vs. compact camera are probably going to be using the kit lens more or less indefinitely anyhow.
Better, though, to caution people as you have, just on principle. But the little cameras have their own problems, too, of course (ruggedness, or the lack of it, probably being the biggest thing).
DSLRs are great technology but only useful for the one-percenters who consider themselves photographers and not picture takers
I'd say there are a few other flavors of folks. Mostly, it's non-photographers who still have a pressing need for either speed or special glass. For example: someone whose kid is a very busy athlete will probably really appreciate the ability to use a quality long lens with serious stabilization - and will definitely appreciate being able to shoot several frames per second. Likewise, someone like an interior designer or landscape architect would really like being able to mount a lower-distortion, higher-quality $500 wide-angle lens. These folks don't have to be even serious amateur photographers to really benefit from what the higher-end equipment can do for them.
Much of your analysis is predicated on the existence of girlfriends, sometimes with hot friends. I'm afraid we'll have to take that bit of erroneous input into account as we mod your comment. Now, if you'd care to re-post your comment, substituting "mom" for "girlfriend," we'll all have a better baseline with which to work.
I don't get it. You're saying that your inability to bring your equipment is somehow your digital camera's fault?
I think his point is that his D70 with a half-decent lens on it means he's carrying a fairly large item. You're either going to want a shoulder bag for it, or a belt-hanging, nose-down style holster. Some social occasions just aren't a good fit for that sort of thing, or you just don't want the payload along when you're, say, dancing or something. One of each flavor camera is really the thing, I think.
With compact cameras being as small as ipods these days, I'd recommend that you start with one of those first, and when you want to take it to the next level, get a second camera as a dslr.
Yeah, sorta. Guess it depends on your camera heritage, as it were. People who've been shooting a film SLR already have the size thing ironed out, and will be in the best position to leverage all of the fantastic stuff that a modern DSLR can do for them. Once you've experienced a camera like a recent Nikon DSLR, the specific features, menu navigation, etc., will help you to evaluate the compact cameras all the better.
Of course, if youre entirely new to this, it's possible that going the other route will make more sense. Just depends on how serious you are about a specific flavor of photography. For normal social stuff, the compact units are almost impossible to beat, that's for sure.
Yes. I've been using film SLRs since the 1970s, and have burned through endless miles of film and paper. I became relatively conservative in my shooting because - never mind the cost - the sheer nuisance of getting the stuff processed was a hinderance (even if I let someone else digitize the negs). Yes, shooting film makes you a more thoughtful photographer. But...
Switching to a DSLR (in my case a Nikon D200) has completely altered my approach, entirely for the better. I'm still thoughtful about what I'm doing, but I experiment a lot more, and can adapt what I'm doing, based on the results, while my subject is still right in front me. I shoot gigabytes at a time and then trash the majority of it. The 6 fps and huge cache on the camera allow me to capture lots of things that a normal digicam or (not-insane) film SLR would never help me get, and I'm way ahead in productivity.
The added bonuses (like, Nikon's essentially miraculous, built-in remote strobe control stuff) still have me actually smiling everytime I contemplate a shoot.
But this stuff is NOT for the casual photographer - the digicams are just too good, and too reasonably priced, and too easy to use. A big ol' DSLR is not the right companion on a romantic hike or trip to a favorite restaurant. But I'm so happy to be able to put my collection of Nikon lenses to work on a new camera body, and to shoot stuff I simply never would have managed before. Seriously thinking about a D80 as a backup body (I tend to bang around in the field a lot).
I think there are far more - in practical terms - misinformed people (across the entire idealogical spectrum) than there are uninformed people. Meaning, even from many of those that are truly uninformed about most of the nuances of some subject or basket of local iniatives, there is still a ready answer about which candidate or party that they are absolutely sure hates them personally, wants their babies to die, etc. This is generally not true. This usually comes down to which media outlets get the most access to their brains, and which group of peers provide the immersion in one prevailing notion or another.
When it's socially comfortable to be non-critical in digesting and wearing a preference for one camp or the other, folks feel informed enough to make a vote one way or the other, no question - but would have a very hard time credibly defending their decision when actually having to sift through the facts. I think this is a basic pack-animal thing, and applies across the board for most people who don't spend too much time wonking their way into the depths of each candidate and topic. But that never stops a good argument, or vote.
OK, so that's a lot, but are we talking 50 quintillion North Korean bombs, or 50 quintillion Really Big Cold War Nation-State Smashers? The point is, analogies like that certainly convey the notion of "A Whole Lot Of Energy," but are really not very meaningful. Not like Libraries of Congress or end-to-end hanging chads that you can really get your head around.
Is anyone surprised that problems with voting machines happen to be reported in swing states?
Is anyone surprised that the only problems anyone is whining about is in states where the lawyers already have their hotel rooms booked? To me, it looks like most of the problems are in counties where the local election boards and volunteers simply don't know what they hell they're doing.
Incidentally, would you consider Maryland a "swing" state? Our primaries were a disaster, because the local election officials (mostly Democrats, btw) did a fabulous job of not providing the right materials (like key cards) on the trucks that distributed the polling equipment to the precincts. Of course, this had zero to do with Diebold, or hacking, and would have been just as bad if they hadn't provided the paper ballots on the trucks 20 years ago, but no... all we heard was "electronig voting machines are stealing the election!" BS. The refrain should be, "incompetence is hosing up the process, just like it does all processes."
God Bless the elderly, but please, keep them away from being a polling place volunteer. It's frustrating, every time I have voted in person
Listen here, sonny. Why, in MY day, we had to vote uphill both ways, in a snowstorm. Why we had voting in the way that potatoes were up to the... um... tennis was a man's game... and, um... hats! we all wore hats... um... what were we talking about? Hey, get off my lawn!
but a few days before the elections, a poll showed a republican progression
So you're saying that the polling companies are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, too? Or is it possible that the types of people that vote one way or the other are more inclined to focus, closer to the election, and polls measuring their sentiment may actually, as a result, show a change in the percentages?
No, what this is, is you saying this crap, with nothing to back you up, so that on the off chance that some of the people you want to elect in various offices don't get the job, you've got a convenient way to stop worrying about why you weren't able to be more persuasive on the merits in each race. I mean, it's just today that you're randomly bitching, right? Normally you're out educating other citizens on the nuances of policy, explaining the value of critical thinking, encouraging people to arrive at decisions based on actual facts, that sort of thing?
What part of the statement "I love boys" do you not understand? Especially when whatever ambiguity that may exist is pretty effectively removed by the additional statement that I am not a child molester.
No one who utters the phrase "I love boys" can do so without understanding the cultural context in which a phrase like that will be received. To further blur the topic, saying "I am not a child molester" seems preemptively defensive in the absence of any further discussion of what you are exactly. The tone is deliberately vague, and meant to diffuse hostility... but could only possibly do so with a the tiny bit of the waking adult population that wouldn't be immediately alarmed by anyone that says "I love boys" and "I'm not a child molester" in the same breath.
You don't say: "I love teaching kids rock climbing." Or, "Nothing makes me happier than helping young minds develop a love for music..." No, you state that you're a "boylover," immediately make sure we're all clear that you've taken the nuances of the term "pedophile" to heart and are willing to debate it, and then assure us all that you're not someone who would have a prurient interest in the boys you so love. If you can't step back for a moment and see how that recipe smells exactly like the output of the very people that tend to actually be the creepy guy we worry about having around kids, then you're far more tone deaf than you think you are.
Why does Microsoft feel theatened by certain markets? I don't understand why they feel they have to compete with everything, even "markets" where there is little or no money to be made. How much money could Microsoft ever make from Virtual Earth? Why does Microsoft feel it has to compete in the games and music world when it is already making huge amounts of money selling software to 90 - 95% of the computer world?
I don't know... why did Google feel the need to compete with AltaVista? Why did they start doing targeted ads when other companies already were? Why is Google making word processing, or paint software? More choices in the market is always a good thing. And information about where in the physical world things are, how to get to them, what they look like, and what's next door to them... there's a much bigger market for that out there than is going to be well handled by only one company (Google).
Slippery. Because you don't actually specify what being a "boylover" is. You refer to people who misuse the term "pedophile" as being lazy or stupid, but opt yourself out being a "molester" without actually giving your readers anything to go on (to form their own opinions on whether or not you are a molester of "your boys" based on what you've done to/with them).
Oh look, another moron who feels free to hate people because of how they -think-, rather than for anything they might have -done-.
Actually, I wasn't even talking about the people obsessed with the kids. I was talking about the Orwellian double-speak that seeks to obscure what we're actually talking about. It's beyond political correctness - it's just simple dishonesty. I'm far, far more prickly about the people who invent and use such terms than I am about the slightly (or very, depending) broken people they're describing. Not describing, really, but trying - through an oozy twist of language - to excuse or wish away.
Oh look, another moron
You mean, like someone who doesn't actually read the words in front of them, or take in any context, before calling someone a moron? You're a twit, and, as Shakespeare so brilliantly put it, doth protest too much.
Slashdot Mirror
7 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans.
Unless you're suggesting that Karl Rove somehow also controls how quickly the justices age or how healthy they are, vacated seats (filled by a given administration's appointees) are pretty much a luck of the draw thing.
The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat.
Um... the three branches are the Executive (the president heads up this branch, and it includes the military, all of the various agencies headed up by his appointed cabinet memebers, etc), the Judicial (the courts, which are populated with career-long judges that are typically in office well past the duration of the administration that nominated them, which usually means a pretty mixed group, philosophically), and the Legislative (which happens to have the Congress and the Senate as its two main parts).
the renewable energy of waves
Come on, this is supposed to be a science/engineering summary of a science/engineering article. The term "renewable" should at least mean something. Bio-fuel crops are arguably "renewable." Waves simply are. Nobody needs to re-plant our gravitational interaction with the moon once we've harvested it. Swine waste methane is not the same as tidal activity. It's the article summary, for cryin' out loud. At least get the fundamental concepts behind the word choice straight. "Renewable" isn't the same as "something other than oil."
There is often as much difference between a pocket non-DSLR and a high-end, large-lensed/bodyied, full featured non-DSRL as there is between most DSLR's and non-DSLR's.
Absolutely. I'm pretty much focusing on the mid-to-higher-end DSLRs, which, as an alternative to a pocket-size camera, price-wise, is definitely an apples/oranges matter. A real enthusiast will have no trouble making the case to own at least two cameras, no question.
The phrase "I love boys" as I used it means precisely what it says ... "Cultural" context is meaningless. The phrase is an unambiguous statement of fact.
Language is nothing but cultural context. You used the phrase "I am a boylover" along with the rest of your exposition. That's not even a term in the normal lexicon - it's a synthetic conflation of two terms, expressly intended to connote something that the reader is going to have to guess at, based on context. If you're going to suggest that context has no bearing on your defense of what any objective observer would say is an eyebrow-raising collection of phrases and overly defensive tone, then it's no wonder that you're mystified that people "won't let you near" their sons. You insist that we leave context out of the conversation because context (your behavior, taken in context) is obviously alarming to boys' parents.
before the Murdoch press began the beat up about paedophiles
Ah, I see. So when one news outlet, which has a small share of the media landscape, covers cases of predatory, sexual child abuse, that changes the entire culture's tone about paedophilia? How about: parents have never wanted their children to be abused? That's got nothing to do with which talking head on which cable channel gets particularly riled up about such cases - especially since, as people here so love to point out, channels like Fox aren't even watched by the vast majority of viewers. No, you've got to understand that your actions, your bearing, and your choice to synthesize phrases like "boylover" (do you even grasp what the term "lover" means to most people, in that context?) do have a context, and you can't cause people to hear those words in only the context in which you want them to be heard.
Being an "art lover" or a "cat lover" has an established context. Saying that one "loves to teach kids" has a known context. When you start separating it by the sex of the kid, as you do, you immediately set off people's radar, and pretending that you don't know why is the height of disengenuousness.
I was given to believe that slashdotters were more intelligent than the average drongo, but it seems I have been misled...
No, you've just discovered that the veneer you're putting on this, as presented, doesn't even come close to achieving what you're after. Your attempt at condescension is competely transparent, and the picture you're painting is exactly the opposite of what you'd like to think you're accomplishing. Although I don't think you can be objective about it in any way, carefully re-read your comments and imagine that you're someone else - someone who lives in a world where all words and actions are perceived within a context. It's up to all communicators - in fact it's almost the essence of rhetoric - to take context into account.
What's that when it's at home?
Not entirely sure I'm following your question, but:
With Nikon's recent DSLRS (certainly the D200, D80), the seemingly unimpressive built-in pop-up strobe (which actually works really well as a fill flash, and is really helpful when you don't feel like mounting a larger strobe) also serves as a "controller" for devices like their SB-600 and SB-800 strobes. You can have 20 of them, if you want, sitting in various places around your space, withe strobes assigned to three different groups, all providing through-the-lens metering for well-measured light, and with the menu on the camera telling the different strobe groups what to do. The communication is handled through some very fast pre-flashes from the built-in strobe, but you can actually tell the built-in strobe not to fire during the actual exposure.
Even if you use only one companion strobe, you can use this feature to move it off-camera for more natural-looking lighting, and not have to tether it to the camera at all. It's really, really refreshing. But since you can get a second or third strobe for pretty cheap, you'll quickly find yourself adding another one on top of a bookcase, or inside a window, or on a stand with a diffuser... and you've got very professional lighting control with just about none of the fuss. I really can't rave about Nikon's i-TTL system enough. The cameras are getting very, very smart these days.
In a lot of cases, there isn't anyone worth voting for.
*sigh*
True. The "good" guys/gals are usually too busy doing other, private sector, things. And most everybody who's had a busy, intellectually interesting life in a lot of pursuits is going to have some skeleton or two in their closet, making a modern campaign essentially impossible. So, you get political creatures instead.
5) No Shutter Lag: I find the "lag" on the 828 to be minimal. The DSLR's are faster at focusing, but from the time it is focused I see no difference in speed from pressing the button fully down and it taking the picture on the 828 vs. the DSLR's I have used.
Oh, there's a difference. The higher-end DSLRs are very, very fast on that first shot. And more importantly, can sustain that speed. I routinely shoot 30-frame bursts at 5 or 6 frames per second, with the camera continually refocusing throughout. That sort of stuff is strictly DSLR.
Viewfinder: Personally, I *like* using a live screen to shoot instead of a viewfinder. So I find the 828 superior to a DSLR in that case, but if you do WANT to use the viewfinder, the DSLR is better. This is probably the most important differentiating factor between the two.
It's certainly a key difference, and a matter of taste. But: if you shoot in really low light (strobes or not), staring at that backlit LCD will really wreck your night vision. Seeing things through the lens can be very helpful, that way.
It really does all come down to why you're carrying a camera around in the first place, and what sort of results you're looking for. Different tools for different jobs/tastes/experiences. The market certainly isn't letting us down on choices, that's for sure.
I'd say you're right (about not upgrading to the D80 from the D70) just for the resolution. The real upgrade (if the D2X price freaks you out, which it should!) is the D200. Very, very rugged body, and shoots at about twice the frame rate as the D80. The D80 is essentially the D200 in a slightly slower, slightly dumbed down, slightly less robust form... and without some of the dust/moisture protection. For me (doing a lot of action stuff), the 5fps is critical. Love the D200. Love it, love it. I AM thinking about a D80 as a backup body, though.
because it's a SLR, you can't preview the picture you're goint to take. This makes more difficult to color-balance the image on the spot and typically means that you have to take several shots to get the one that looks OK
Most decent prosumer DSLRs support some pretty good bracketing behavior (so that your oddly lit subject can benefit, on the fly, from a range of exposures if you're in a hurry). Also, with more or less immediate review on the camera's display, correcting exposure after you take the shot isn't much harder than correcting it while you look at the "live" display on the digicam. As long as you don't hose up the exposure too badly (usually, over-exposure) and lose detail, you can usually work the more subtle clean-up on the desktop later.
if you keep swapping the lenses, dust tends to accumulate on the sensor
I spend most of my time shooting in the field (um, literally - like, standing in farmers' fields). There's always some risk of dust, but I've never once had it be a problem. In fact, the only spec I've seen on a sensor was about three days into the use of the camera - probably something left over from the manufacturing process. I used the camera's mirror lock-up to expose the sensor, and used a gentle puff of room-temperature air to remove it. I suppose that people who are less thoughtful about when and how they change their lenses would eventually have more trouble - but most people who are sitting on the fence over DSLR vs. compact camera are probably going to be using the kit lens more or less indefinitely anyhow.
Better, though, to caution people as you have, just on principle. But the little cameras have their own problems, too, of course (ruggedness, or the lack of it, probably being the biggest thing).
DSLRs are great technology but only useful for the one-percenters who consider themselves photographers and not picture takers
I'd say there are a few other flavors of folks. Mostly, it's non-photographers who still have a pressing need for either speed or special glass. For example: someone whose kid is a very busy athlete will probably really appreciate the ability to use a quality long lens with serious stabilization - and will definitely appreciate being able to shoot several frames per second. Likewise, someone like an interior designer or landscape architect would really like being able to mount a lower-distortion, higher-quality $500 wide-angle lens. These folks don't have to be even serious amateur photographers to really benefit from what the higher-end equipment can do for them.
Much of your analysis is predicated on the existence of girlfriends, sometimes with hot friends. I'm afraid we'll have to take that bit of erroneous input into account as we mod your comment. Now, if you'd care to re-post your comment, substituting "mom" for "girlfriend," we'll all have a better baseline with which to work.
I don't get it. You're saying that your inability to bring your equipment is somehow your digital camera's fault?
I think his point is that his D70 with a half-decent lens on it means he's carrying a fairly large item. You're either going to want a shoulder bag for it, or a belt-hanging, nose-down style holster. Some social occasions just aren't a good fit for that sort of thing, or you just don't want the payload along when you're, say, dancing or something. One of each flavor camera is really the thing, I think.
With compact cameras being as small as ipods these days, I'd recommend that you start with one of those first, and when you want to take it to the next level, get a second camera as a dslr.
Yeah, sorta. Guess it depends on your camera heritage, as it were. People who've been shooting a film SLR already have the size thing ironed out, and will be in the best position to leverage all of the fantastic stuff that a modern DSLR can do for them. Once you've experienced a camera like a recent Nikon DSLR, the specific features, menu navigation, etc., will help you to evaluate the compact cameras all the better.
Of course, if youre entirely new to this, it's possible that going the other route will make more sense. Just depends on how serious you are about a specific flavor of photography. For normal social stuff, the compact units are almost impossible to beat, that's for sure.
Yes. I've been using film SLRs since the 1970s, and have burned through endless miles of film and paper. I became relatively conservative in my shooting because - never mind the cost - the sheer nuisance of getting the stuff processed was a hinderance (even if I let someone else digitize the negs). Yes, shooting film makes you a more thoughtful photographer. But...
Switching to a DSLR (in my case a Nikon D200) has completely altered my approach, entirely for the better. I'm still thoughtful about what I'm doing, but I experiment a lot more, and can adapt what I'm doing, based on the results, while my subject is still right in front me. I shoot gigabytes at a time and then trash the majority of it. The 6 fps and huge cache on the camera allow me to capture lots of things that a normal digicam or (not-insane) film SLR would never help me get, and I'm way ahead in productivity.
The added bonuses (like, Nikon's essentially miraculous, built-in remote strobe control stuff) still have me actually smiling everytime I contemplate a shoot.
But this stuff is NOT for the casual photographer - the digicams are just too good, and too reasonably priced, and too easy to use. A big ol' DSLR is not the right companion on a romantic hike or trip to a favorite restaurant. But I'm so happy to be able to put my collection of Nikon lenses to work on a new camera body, and to shoot stuff I simply never would have managed before. Seriously thinking about a D80 as a backup body (I tend to bang around in the field a lot).
I think there are far more - in practical terms - misinformed people (across the entire idealogical spectrum) than there are uninformed people. Meaning, even from many of those that are truly uninformed about most of the nuances of some subject or basket of local iniatives, there is still a ready answer about which candidate or party that they are absolutely sure hates them personally, wants their babies to die, etc. This is generally not true. This usually comes down to which media outlets get the most access to their brains, and which group of peers provide the immersion in one prevailing notion or another.
When it's socially comfortable to be non-critical in digesting and wearing a preference for one camp or the other, folks feel informed enough to make a vote one way or the other, no question - but would have a very hard time credibly defending their decision when actually having to sift through the facts. I think this is a basic pack-animal thing, and applies across the board for most people who don't spend too much time wonking their way into the depths of each candidate and topic. But that never stops a good argument, or vote.
50 quintillion atomic bombs
OK, so that's a lot, but are we talking 50 quintillion North Korean bombs, or 50 quintillion Really Big Cold War Nation-State Smashers? The point is, analogies like that certainly convey the notion of "A Whole Lot Of Energy," but are really not very meaningful. Not like Libraries of Congress or end-to-end hanging chads that you can really get your head around.
Is anyone surprised that problems with voting machines happen to be reported in swing states?
Is anyone surprised that the only problems anyone is whining about is in states where the lawyers already have their hotel rooms booked? To me, it looks like most of the problems are in counties where the local election boards and volunteers simply don't know what they hell they're doing.
Incidentally, would you consider Maryland a "swing" state? Our primaries were a disaster, because the local election officials (mostly Democrats, btw) did a fabulous job of not providing the right materials (like key cards) on the trucks that distributed the polling equipment to the precincts. Of course, this had zero to do with Diebold, or hacking, and would have been just as bad if they hadn't provided the paper ballots on the trucks 20 years ago, but no... all we heard was "electronig voting machines are stealing the election!" BS. The refrain should be, "incompetence is hosing up the process, just like it does all processes."
God Bless the elderly, but please, keep them away from being a polling place volunteer. It's frustrating, every time I have voted in person
... um ... tennis was a man's game ... and, um ... hats! we all wore hats ... um... what were we talking about? Hey, get off my lawn!
Listen here, sonny. Why, in MY day, we had to vote uphill both ways, in a snowstorm. Why we had voting in the way that potatoes were up to the
but a few days before the elections, a poll showed a republican progression
So you're saying that the polling companies are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, too? Or is it possible that the types of people that vote one way or the other are more inclined to focus, closer to the election, and polls measuring their sentiment may actually, as a result, show a change in the percentages?
No, what this is, is you saying this crap, with nothing to back you up, so that on the off chance that some of the people you want to elect in various offices don't get the job, you've got a convenient way to stop worrying about why you weren't able to be more persuasive on the merits in each race. I mean, it's just today that you're randomly bitching, right? Normally you're out educating other citizens on the nuances of policy, explaining the value of critical thinking, encouraging people to arrive at decisions based on actual facts, that sort of thing?
What part of the statement "I love boys" do you not understand? Especially when whatever ambiguity that may exist is pretty effectively removed by the additional statement that I am not a child molester.
No one who utters the phrase "I love boys" can do so without understanding the cultural context in which a phrase like that will be received. To further blur the topic, saying "I am not a child molester" seems preemptively defensive in the absence of any further discussion of what you are exactly. The tone is deliberately vague, and meant to diffuse hostility... but could only possibly do so with a the tiny bit of the waking adult population that wouldn't be immediately alarmed by anyone that says "I love boys" and "I'm not a child molester" in the same breath.
You don't say: "I love teaching kids rock climbing." Or, "Nothing makes me happier than helping young minds develop a love for music..." No, you state that you're a "boylover," immediately make sure we're all clear that you've taken the nuances of the term "pedophile" to heart and are willing to debate it, and then assure us all that you're not someone who would have a prurient interest in the boys you so love. If you can't step back for a moment and see how that recipe smells exactly like the output of the very people that tend to actually be the creepy guy we worry about having around kids, then you're far more tone deaf than you think you are.
Why does Microsoft feel theatened by certain markets? I don't understand why they feel they have to compete with everything, even "markets" where there is little or no money to be made. How much money could Microsoft ever make from Virtual Earth? Why does Microsoft feel it has to compete in the games and music world when it is already making huge amounts of money selling software to 90 - 95% of the computer world?
I don't know... why did Google feel the need to compete with AltaVista? Why did they start doing targeted ads when other companies already were? Why is Google making word processing, or paint software? More choices in the market is always a good thing. And information about where in the physical world things are, how to get to them, what they look like, and what's next door to them... there's a much bigger market for that out there than is going to be well handled by only one company (Google).
Shakespeare would have used "thou dost" not "you doth", methinks.
Dude, Shakespeare would have been like totally "u r 2 much teh asshat"
How's that for calling a spade a bloody shovel?
Slippery. Because you don't actually specify what being a "boylover" is. You refer to people who misuse the term "pedophile" as being lazy or stupid, but opt yourself out being a "molester" without actually giving your readers anything to go on (to form their own opinions on whether or not you are a molester of "your boys" based on what you've done to/with them).
Oh look, another moron who feels free to hate people because of how they -think-, rather than for anything they might have -done-.
Actually, I wasn't even talking about the people obsessed with the kids. I was talking about the Orwellian double-speak that seeks to obscure what we're actually talking about. It's beyond political correctness - it's just simple dishonesty. I'm far, far more prickly about the people who invent and use such terms than I am about the slightly (or very, depending) broken people they're describing. Not describing, really, but trying - through an oozy twist of language - to excuse or wish away.
Oh look, another moron
You mean, like someone who doesn't actually read the words in front of them, or take in any context, before calling someone a moron? You're a twit, and, as Shakespeare so brilliantly put it, doth protest too much.