Actually, in most cases you could duplicate the design to your heart's content. You can't sell new toasters with the existing design though, and/or especially not with the same brand as your original toaster.
That's only because you usually don't get caught unless you sell the copies of the toaster. Just like with music. Doesn't change the legality, just whether or not you get busted.
There is a moderately conservative majority there, but certainly not right wing.
Now, shift back 14 years. Clinton had control of the House and Senate and tried to pass national health care via his wife.
So what? How is national health care a "left wing" agenda? It's a moderate position. A lot more moderate than some of the positions being espoused by Supreme Court judges lately.
Government has no place in the marriage business. If you and your lover want legal protections, you already have that right.
If the government has no place in the marriage business, then why aren't conservatives or Republicans opposing legally-sanctioned heterosexual marriages? Why do most Christians take out a legal marriage contract, rather than just being informally married by the Church alone?
I have not heard any protest about the government being involved in opposite-sex marriages. In fact, many conservatives call for more government benefits to married families.
Because the Libertarians are the most successful, and most viable, 3rd party out there. Therefore, they are the biggest threat to the current 2-party system. Therefore, both parties would gladly help out the Greens & others, at the expense of the Libertarians, in order to ensure to keep the Libertarians down.
Congratulations! You have just demonstrated why Libertarianism is so unpopular. And no, it's not because there's some conspiracy to "keep the Libertarians down."
Most Libertarians just seem so egotistical and out of touch with reality, that they are not considered to be credible. They believe things like "the free market will fix everything," and "the two party system is keeping us down."
One question worth asking: Given how much success the Libertarians have had,
What success?
Why aren't there more 3-way debates?
Because third parties have been unable to successfully appeal to moderates.
Because the Libertarians are the biggest threat, ignoring them diminishes their power.
If they're such a big threat, then why are they so impotent?
Because Greens are at least somewhat in touch with reality. Libertarians are totally nuts, and want us all to be ruled by corporate monarchs. Pretty simple.
Yeah, but that's typical for slow zooms. For me, the speed of it is a deal-breaker. But for those who don't shoot in low light, does it outperform similar lenses in this category by a significant amount? It's not that hard to engineer a sharp lens if you restrict the maximum aperture like that.
It's a Nikkor lens. Link here. It has a few flaws, but the bokeh is unbelievably good. Great for artistic portraits and low-light theater photography. It's also built like a tank, with a very nice focus ring.
So, use a solar cell, then! Can you read? I did not present the car battery as the only option. You could also just take more camera batteries, or take a battery to recharge with. It's not hard, you know. How often are you "exploring the backcountry" and take more than 1,000 photos in a shoot, anyway? If you're using film, then you'd have to carry an awful lot of rolls, which would be more bulky than a spare lithium battery.
Photo.net has jokes about people who buy SLR with a basic zoom lens.
There are lots of wankers with equipment fetishes* on sites like that. Many of them have more money than sense, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Many SLRs with basic zoom lenses produce very good results.
And with the point and shoot digital LCD to review pictures immediately, looking thru the lens doesn't matter as much.
There's no comparison between an LCD preview and actually looking through the lens. It's a poor substitute.
* Hey, I have an equipment fetish myself, but I don't invest my ego in it, or begrudge people who use cheaper gear that suits their needs.
Well, buy a solar cell, or use your car's battery. The cost savings over film would quickly pay for the cost of a solar charger. Plus the digital is much more environmentally friendly than film, if you want to preserve the great outdoors.
You can use your old lens from a Nikon (say an FA) on the Nikon digital slrs?
Yes, except on the low-end models, you have to set exposure manually, no autmatic metering.
I've not played with these...i'd assumed the lenses were manual....are the new lens those irritating things that focus by pushing and holding the shoot button? ick....didn't know that was on the more pro cameras.
That doesn't have anything to do with the lens. Basically all autofocus cameras (film or digital) work by lightly pressing the shutter release to start focusing. Just like how on the Nikon FA you lightly press the shutter to activate light metering. If you are using manual focus, it works the same as your FA - focus manually and press the button to take the photo, or half-press the button to take a light reading.
The big difference with the modern lenses is that most don't have a traditional aperture ring, they use a dial on the camera body to set the aperture. For me, this is the biggest annoyance. Of course, if you are using an older manual-focus or AF lens on your modern camera, you can still use the aperture ring normally.
Can you not use manual or older Cannon lenses with the newer Cannon dslr's?
You can use newer Canon autofocus lenses on the modern bodies, but the range is much more restricted. The Nikon and Pentax will accept lenses going back decades.
The "mass appeal" product is usually not the best. That Canon is making high profits is not a good reason to buy them. I like not having to buy all my lenses all over again. Makes for a much better investment. Skill is the most important factor anyway, not what is "cool."
But you don't need to spend a lot to get great results from a DSLR. The cheapest DSLR with a single stock-standard lens and a cheap tripod is all you need to shit all over a point-and -shoot. You just have to learn how to work with the camera you have. There's really no competition, except for size, between the cheapest DSLRs, and P&S cameras.
It's not any different. When you buy a CD, you own the physical CD, not the music on it. Just like when you buy a toaster, you own the toaster, not the design of the toaster, or any rights to duplicate the design.
I wish we could stop talking about this term "music" that we do or don't own and start talking about what we're really getting when we buy this "music". What we own when we buy a CD and should own when we buy a compressed audio file from the Internet is a imperfect reproduction of the original music played live
Yes, that was one of my points. But you don't hear slashdotters saying they own a reproduction of the music. They say they own the music.
This reproduction, be it transferred to LP, CD, MP3, or AAC format is or should be ours to play, copy, backup, share, or transfer to other formats as we like.
Maybe it should be, but that's not really how it works. Buying the disc doesn't actually buy you any rights under the law.
No, you are NOT just paying for the shiny plastic disk. If so it would be somewhere around $0.20-$0.50 max or less in packs of 100.
Why? Don't you think the companies want to make as much profit as possible?
Again, if you are not just buying a plastic disc, then why don't they replace the music when the disc gets damaged? Just because you got ripped off, does not mean you are buying any rights over the music.
Sure, it's appealing. But you have to remember that moving to Enterprise means you must maintain a constant supply of Dilithium crystals, and the Warp Drive is notoriously difficult to maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
Was Eric cartman in the line, or is he still waiting for Wii?
That's only because you usually don't get caught unless you sell the copies of the toaster. Just like with music. Doesn't change the legality, just whether or not you get busted.
So what? How is national health care a "left wing" agenda? It's a moderate position. A lot more moderate than some of the positions being espoused by Supreme Court judges lately.
If the government has no place in the marriage business, then why aren't conservatives or Republicans opposing legally-sanctioned heterosexual marriages? Why do most Christians take out a legal marriage contract, rather than just being informally married by the Church alone?
I have not heard any protest about the government being involved in opposite-sex marriages. In fact, many conservatives call for more government benefits to married families.
They also had DRM. If you listened to a second-hand copy of a song, you got the plague.
Congratulations! You have just demonstrated why Libertarianism is so unpopular. And no, it's not because there's some conspiracy to "keep the Libertarians down."
Most Libertarians just seem so egotistical and out of touch with reality, that they are not considered to be credible. They believe things like "the free market will fix everything," and "the two party system is keeping us down."
One question worth asking: Given how much success the Libertarians have had,
What success?
Why aren't there more 3-way debates?
Because third parties have been unable to successfully appeal to moderates.
Because the Libertarians are the biggest threat, ignoring them diminishes their power.
If they're such a big threat, then why are they so impotent?
Because Greens are at least somewhat in touch with reality. Libertarians are totally nuts, and want us all to be ruled by corporate monarchs. Pretty simple.
Yeah, but that's typical for slow zooms. For me, the speed of it is a deal-breaker. But for those who don't shoot in low light, does it outperform similar lenses in this category by a significant amount? It's not that hard to engineer a sharp lens if you restrict the maximum aperture like that.
It's a Nikkor lens. Link here. It has a few flaws, but the bokeh is unbelievably good. Great for artistic portraits and low-light theater photography. It's also built like a tank, with a very nice focus ring.
So, use a solar cell, then! Can you read? I did not present the car battery as the only option. You could also just take more camera batteries, or take a battery to recharge with. It's not hard, you know. How often are you "exploring the backcountry" and take more than 1,000 photos in a shoot, anyway? If you're using film, then you'd have to carry an awful lot of rolls, which would be more bulky than a spare lithium battery.
There are lots of wankers with equipment fetishes* on sites like that. Many of them have more money than sense, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Many SLRs with basic zoom lenses produce very good results.
And with the point and shoot digital LCD to review pictures immediately, looking thru the lens doesn't matter as much.
There's no comparison between an LCD preview and actually looking through the lens. It's a poor substitute.
* Hey, I have an equipment fetish myself, but I don't invest my ego in it, or begrudge people who use cheaper gear that suits their needs.
Yes, that other guy is full of shit, but why wouldn't Nikon guys know about lenses wider than f1.4? I have a 55mm f1.2 lens that I use all the time.
2. If you turn off the screen on the point-and-shoot, you have to use the lousy viewfinder, which does not show you what the lens is seeing.
Well, buy a solar cell, or use your car's battery. The cost savings over film would quickly pay for the cost of a solar charger. Plus the digital is much more environmentally friendly than film, if you want to preserve the great outdoors.
Given the market it is aiming for, I would think that $500 includes the body and lens.
Yes, except on the low-end models, you have to set exposure manually, no autmatic metering.
I've not played with these...i'd assumed the lenses were manual....are the new lens those irritating things that focus by pushing and holding the shoot button? ick....didn't know that was on the more pro cameras.
That doesn't have anything to do with the lens. Basically all autofocus cameras (film or digital) work by lightly pressing the shutter release to start focusing. Just like how on the Nikon FA you lightly press the shutter to activate light metering. If you are using manual focus, it works the same as your FA - focus manually and press the button to take the photo, or half-press the button to take a light reading.
The big difference with the modern lenses is that most don't have a traditional aperture ring, they use a dial on the camera body to set the aperture. For me, this is the biggest annoyance. Of course, if you are using an older manual-focus or AF lens on your modern camera, you can still use the aperture ring normally.
Can you not use manual or older Cannon lenses with the newer Cannon dslr's?
You can use newer Canon autofocus lenses on the modern bodies, but the range is much more restricted. The Nikon and Pentax will accept lenses going back decades.
The "mass appeal" product is usually not the best. That Canon is making high profits is not a good reason to buy them. I like not having to buy all my lenses all over again. Makes for a much better investment. Skill is the most important factor anyway, not what is "cool."
But you don't need to spend a lot to get great results from a DSLR. The cheapest DSLR with a single stock-standard lens and a cheap tripod is all you need to shit all over a point-and -shoot. You just have to learn how to work with the camera you have. There's really no competition, except for size, between the cheapest DSLRs, and P&S cameras.
Not true. I've used AI lenses, and modified F lenses from as far back as 1968 on D50s and D70s .
What makes it such a nice lens? It seems very slow for the money. f4 at 100mm? I don't think I could bear that.
I guess it's a long way to the top if you wanna polka roll.
It's not any different. When you buy a CD, you own the physical CD, not the music on it. Just like when you buy a toaster, you own the toaster, not the design of the toaster, or any rights to duplicate the design.
Yes, that was one of my points. But you don't hear slashdotters saying they own a reproduction of the music. They say they own the music.
This reproduction, be it transferred to LP, CD, MP3, or AAC format is or should be ours to play, copy, backup, share, or transfer to other formats as we like.
Maybe it should be, but that's not really how it works. Buying the disc doesn't actually buy you any rights under the law.
Why? Don't you think the companies want to make as much profit as possible?
Again, if you are not just buying a plastic disc, then why don't they replace the music when the disc gets damaged? Just because you got ripped off, does not mean you are buying any rights over the music.
Sure, it's appealing. But you have to remember that moving to Enterprise means you must maintain a constant supply of Dilithium crystals, and the Warp Drive is notoriously difficult to maintain.