If all you heard was "he's not Bush", I'm not sure you educated yourself. (Then again, there's the whole conversation on whether the voter should have to educate themselves.)
Kerry would repeal tax breaks for the rich, work to build international alliances, provide stem cell funding, seek gas alternatives, protect a woman's right to abortion, select supreme court justices that feel similarly, work to expand health care cover, and more.
Also, people who typically cite Kerry for not providing a reason to vote for him often do not fault Bush for what the Democrats see as his many faults. (poor economy, no bin laden, no WMDs and therefore no justification for war in Iraq, cheney's haliburton connections, silly stem cell stance, heavy handed foreign policy, prisoner abuse problems, tax cuts for the rich)
I believe we had plenty of reason to speak out against the actions of our president over the past four years.
I hope I'm not annoying you with this, but I believe in what is currently the Democrats cause. I don't think they need to change their goals, just educate people such as I am attempting to do here.
I do think Bush was more effective in communicating with people - his message is painfully simple. Kerry needed to take more of a stand and leave the nuance for later.
Hm, interesting. After six years of little change, you feel the right time to invade Iraq is while we were currently occupying another country! Not to mention the fact that those resouces could have been used to further persue bin Laden.
On "9/11" our nation was scared shitless because our heads were stuck up our asses (including the highest levels over government) and we couldn't understand why not everyone loves us. The goverment then used this fear to take away our rights and institute a destructively agressive foreign policy. This is how the terrorists have won - we have inflicted more damage on ourselves than they did. Before 9/11 I put my pants one leg at a time. Still works that way. Things didn't change as much as some people would like you to believe.
What are we going to define as UN goals? The argument for war was that Saddam had WMDs. HE DIDN'T! ZERO PROOF! You can argue with this, but you can't back it up. The UN didn't agree with the war in Iraq because we couldn't back it up.
You're also ignoring that he voted to give Bush power to decide to go into Iraq if it was found to be an imminent threat. I don't see the UN coming into play anywhere there.
Bush hasn't strengthened our military but weakened it - spreading it too thin and taking his eye off Bin Laden. Meanwhile the economy stagnates and our national debt skyrockets. I don't believe that Kerry is perfect - far from it - but someone has to be able to do better than this.
UNPROVOKED?? we let him shoot at our aircraft legally patrolling the UN mandated no-fly zones for 11 years. Somehow despite the sanctions he managed to acquire and deploy state of the art Anti-aircraft weapons. He and most of his senior leadership believed that they had WMDs available for deployment. where do you see unprovoked here??
These "state of the art Anti-aircraft weapons" never once shot down a manned US plane. Annoying, but not much of a threat.
THEY HAD NO WMDs!!!! NONE! NO PROOF! You can argue with this all you want, but you have no proof.
The argument isn't over whether Saddam is a good guy or not. He's not. Its a question of whether it was worth it for us to go in ALONE (opps! i forgot poland! no, they left...ok,ok, great britan) and take him out of power.
The fact is that we had no particular trigger for invading Iraq. They had been playing the same games for years and they hadn't been getting anywhere with them. We invaded because we have a president with a itchy trigger finger and no sense of foreign policy. 200 Billion dollars later we're no closer to democracy there, but it has become a breeding ground for terrorism.
You do realize that there's a real vagina and penis (assuming that's what you're into) on the other end of the camera right? STDs, conception, rape, and abuse go on in the porn industry, so by these ppls logic, stopping the immoral demand will stop the immoral side-effects as well.
Hm, if only they were limited to the porn industry...
a former prof of mine was being interviewed by wired and they wanted to take his pic. but....they wanted to put someone else's head on his shoulders. (had to do with his book)
at any rate, i thought they rasterbated over all their photos because they were too cheap to hire good photographers. turns out they do hire decent photographers but rasterbate over their images anyway.
does this camera contain software to immediately transfer photos via wifi at that rate? i.e., if it goes from buffer to wifi, then you're waiting for the buffer to empty.
also, jpegs might be good for you, but photographers out in the field really aren't going to like throwing out that information.
only if you count the lowest medium format size, 6x4.5cm. when most people talk about medium format, they mean 6x6 or 6x7. Still a long way to go, at least five years.
unfortunately the MP count on that camera was offset by the ridiculous amount of noise it produced. its basically been ignored in the photo community.still, i'd wait to see pics from this thing to make sure it doesn't have the same problem
as long as they're shooting in high res, snapping a bunch of pics with this and transmitting them over 802.11g isn't going to go very fast. most photographers aren't going to want to put up with a lag that poor.
The image sensor size is not 35mm except for the high end pro DSLRs. Lesser pro DSLRs have an image sensor size closer to the smaller APS format. This affects the viewing angle of your lenses. A smaller sensor size will give you a narrower viewing angle. This has resulted in the "lens multiplier" which tends to vary between 1.3 and 1.5 on most DSLRs. (take the length of your lens, 50mm, and muliply it by 1.5, 75 mm effective.) Typically, a larger sensor is better than a smaller one, resolution kept the same, as it will produce less noise.
Actually, the RAW file bears a fairly close resemblance to the negative in a digital workflow.
No, the RAW file is not inverted, but it does contain more visual information (dynamic range) than will be put into a jpeg or a print. If you allow the camera to make this conversion for you, occasionally it will do a poor job. Many people prefer not to worry about this which is why most cameras default to storing JPEGs. Which is the same as people getting prints made at Walmart.
The guy is unfortunately a loser, no one in their right mind actually likes him. Most of the people voting for him are voting against Bush and not for Kerry.
I think you've forgotten the politics electing the democratic nominee. We decided that we needed someone moderate because of how far right the country has shifted. So, we get rid of Dean and go with Kerry. Then again, "loser" isn't what I'd call a thoughtful critique.
You see, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Bush and Kerry on the stuff that matters, Iraq, the patriot act, homeland security, the war on islamic terrorism. They are both going to spend the U.S. in to bankruptcy and line the pockets of big corporations and their wealthy shareholders at the expense of working people.
Sounds like Bush's rhetoric to me. There is a significant difference. A leader that is intelligent, doesn't think god should run our country and doesn't constantly tell the world to fuck off would be a big change for our country. Oh yeah, protecting the rights of citizens would be nice too.
The next four years are going to be a dark period for the U.S. no matter what.
I'd say it a shadow from the last four years.
But then too I don't want to live in a country run by a party as pathetic as the Democratic party either.
Vague insults won't exactly help you with your goals. No, the Democratic party isn't perfect, but in your comparison between the wrongs the Republican Party has committed and the general insults you give to the Democrats, I think its clear that the Democrats win.
Slashdot Mirror
If all you heard was "he's not Bush", I'm not sure you educated yourself. (Then again, there's the whole conversation on whether the voter should have to educate themselves.)
Kerry would repeal tax breaks for the rich, work to build international alliances, provide stem cell funding, seek gas alternatives, protect a woman's right to abortion, select supreme court justices that feel similarly, work to expand health care cover, and more.
Also, people who typically cite Kerry for not providing a reason to vote for him often do not fault Bush for what the Democrats see as his many faults. (poor economy, no bin laden, no WMDs and therefore no justification for war in Iraq, cheney's haliburton connections, silly stem cell stance, heavy handed foreign policy, prisoner abuse problems, tax cuts for the rich)
I believe we had plenty of reason to speak out against the actions of our president over the past four years.
I hope I'm not annoying you with this, but I believe in what is currently the Democrats cause. I don't think they need to change their goals, just educate people such as I am attempting to do here.
I do think Bush was more effective in communicating with people - his message is painfully simple. Kerry needed to take more of a stand and leave the nuance for later.
maybe the thing that's missing is a highly charismatic leader for the open-source movement.
The movement known for bearded unix admins and lack of personal hygene needs a charismatic leader? You're doomed!
...wait...does Gates count as charismatic? You have a fighting chance!
Can someone explain to me what Feel the Magic XX/XY is like?
I have my own ideas about feeling the magic with an xx but i'm not sure anyone here will believe me.
Hm, interesting. After six years of little change, you feel the right time to invade Iraq is while we were currently occupying another country! Not to mention the fact that those resouces could have been used to further persue bin Laden.
On "9/11" our nation was scared shitless because our heads were stuck up our asses (including the highest levels over government) and we couldn't understand why not everyone loves us. The goverment then used this fear to take away our rights and institute a destructively agressive foreign policy. This is how the terrorists have won - we have inflicted more damage on ourselves than they did. Before 9/11 I put my pants one leg at a time. Still works that way. Things didn't change as much as some people would like you to believe.
What are we going to define as UN goals? The argument for war was that Saddam had WMDs. HE DIDN'T! ZERO PROOF! You can argue with this, but you can't back it up. The UN didn't agree with the war in Iraq because we couldn't back it up.
You're also ignoring that he voted to give Bush power to decide to go into Iraq if it was found to be an imminent threat. I don't see the UN coming into play anywhere there.
Bush hasn't strengthened our military but weakened it - spreading it too thin and taking his eye off Bin Laden. Meanwhile the economy stagnates and our national debt skyrockets. I don't believe that Kerry is perfect - far from it - but someone has to be able to do better than this.
UNPROVOKED?? we let him shoot at our aircraft legally patrolling the UN mandated no-fly zones for 11 years. Somehow despite the sanctions he managed to acquire and deploy state of the art Anti-aircraft weapons. He and most of his senior leadership believed that they had WMDs available for deployment. where do you see unprovoked here??
These "state of the art Anti-aircraft weapons" never once shot down a manned US plane. Annoying, but not much of a threat.
THEY HAD NO WMDs!!!! NONE! NO PROOF! You can argue with this all you want, but you have no proof.
The argument isn't over whether Saddam is a good guy or not. He's not. Its a question of whether it was worth it for us to go in ALONE (opps! i forgot poland! no, they left...ok,ok, great britan) and take him out of power.
The fact is that we had no particular trigger for invading Iraq. They had been playing the same games for years and they hadn't been getting anywhere with them. We invaded because we have a president with a itchy trigger finger and no sense of foreign policy. 200 Billion dollars later we're no closer to democracy there, but it has become a breeding ground for terrorism.
based on what?
based on the his stance on iraq? the country that had neither WMDs or terrorists?
where were our allies when we went into afghanistan? firmly with us.
stop trying to use the iraq boondoggle as proof we someone thinks we don't have the right to defend ourselves.
due to the natural features that women have
BOOBS!
I picked up one of those off the curb. Its a bit slow but its the best printer I've ever owned - no more flaky inkjets for me!
You do realize that there's a real vagina and penis (assuming that's what you're into) on the other end of the camera right? STDs, conception, rape, and abuse go on in the porn industry, so by these ppls logic, stopping the immoral demand will stop the immoral side-effects as well.
Hm, if only they were limited to the porn industry...
oh god, i so agree with that...
a former prof of mine was being interviewed by wired and they wanted to take his pic. but....they wanted to put someone else's head on his shoulders. (had to do with his book)
at any rate, i thought they rasterbated over all their photos because they were too cheap to hire good photographers. turns out they do hire decent photographers but rasterbate over their images anyway.
1 gram of antimatter would equal 23 space shuttle fuel tanks of energy
Yes, but how many Libraries of Congress is that?
A "none of the above" choice would draw more voters.
Nonsense. Few people would have even bothered to choose that!
it doesn't run an OS, it runs a TOS
it doesn't calculate, it takes away your rights (before you use it) and denies all responsibility - in great detail
Its "Record" I believe. No, I didn't read the article. I didn't even read the blurb. Just the title. Apparently the editors didn't even do that.
the majority, if not all DSLRs can do that. Nowadays that feature is expected
does this camera contain software to immediately transfer photos via wifi at that rate? i.e., if it goes from buffer to wifi, then you're waiting for the buffer to empty.
also, jpegs might be good for you, but photographers out in the field really aren't going to like throwing out that information.
only if you count the lowest medium format size, 6x4.5cm. when most people talk about medium format, they mean 6x6 or 6x7. Still a long way to go, at least five years.
yes, that is true.
unfortunately the MP count on that camera was offset by the ridiculous amount of noise it produced. its basically been ignored in the photo community.still, i'd wait to see pics from this thing to make sure it doesn't have the same problem
as long as they're shooting in high res, snapping a bunch of pics with this and transmitting them over 802.11g isn't going to go very fast. most photographers aren't going to want to put up with a lag that poor.
The image sensor size is not 35mm except for the high end pro DSLRs. Lesser pro DSLRs have an image sensor size closer to the smaller APS format. This affects the viewing angle of your lenses. A smaller sensor size will give you a narrower viewing angle. This has resulted in the "lens multiplier" which tends to vary between 1.3 and 1.5 on most DSLRs. (take the length of your lens, 50mm, and muliply it by 1.5, 75 mm effective.) Typically, a larger sensor is better than a smaller one, resolution kept the same, as it will produce less noise.
Actually, the RAW file bears a fairly close resemblance to the negative in a digital workflow.
No, the RAW file is not inverted, but it does contain more visual information (dynamic range) than will be put into a jpeg or a print. If you allow the camera to make this conversion for you, occasionally it will do a poor job. Many people prefer not to worry about this which is why most cameras default to storing JPEGs. Which is the same as people getting prints made at Walmart.
The guy is unfortunately a loser, no one in their right mind actually likes him. Most of the people voting for him are voting against Bush and not for Kerry.
I think you've forgotten the politics electing the democratic nominee. We decided that we needed someone moderate because of how far right the country has shifted. So, we get rid of Dean and go with Kerry. Then again, "loser" isn't what I'd call a thoughtful critique.
You see, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Bush and Kerry on the stuff that matters, Iraq, the patriot act, homeland security, the war on islamic terrorism. They are both going to spend the U.S. in to bankruptcy and line the pockets of big corporations and their wealthy shareholders at the expense of working people.
Sounds like Bush's rhetoric to me. There is a significant difference. A leader that is intelligent, doesn't think god should run our country and doesn't constantly tell the world to fuck off would be a big change for our country. Oh yeah, protecting the rights of citizens would be nice too.
The next four years are going to be a dark period for the U.S. no matter what.
I'd say it a shadow from the last four years.
But then too I don't want to live in a country run by a party as pathetic as the Democratic party either.
Vague insults won't exactly help you with your goals. No, the Democratic party isn't perfect, but in your comparison between the wrongs the Republican Party has committed and the general insults you give to the Democrats, I think its clear that the Democrats win.
peanut farmer and naval nuclear engineer
those two jobs are not as dissimilar as one would think...
point to a president that has had a "regular" job.