NY Times On The End of Film and The End of the Megapixel Race

William Graham wrote:
"no_name" wrote in message
...
Joseph Kewfi wrote:

That's what they want you to think; that's what they're trying to
change the term to mean.


The vast majority of the American public never understood what
socialist meant anyway, Americans equate socialism with communism,
they aren't the same thing by the way. France for example is a
socialist country to a certain degree, and I don't think anyone can
claim it's a communist country.

Communism wasn't even communism.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American people.

Hitler did.

Yep.
And when Germany, and much of Europe went utterly broke...who spent Billions
to rebuild the very nations who tried to destroy the Allies???

Us nasty Americans spent Billions to rebuild the very countries that tried
to destroy us in battle.

We also greatly sacrificed to save much of Australia's interests in that
war...and then we left them to prosper afterward. Gratitude from
hem? -Only from those with a memory.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in
news:G1BGf.57067$V.56837@fed1read04:

William Graham wrote:
"no_name" wrote in message
...
Joseph Kewfi wrote:

That's what they want you to think; that's what they're trying to
change the term to mean.


The vast majority of the American public never understood what
socialist meant anyway, Americans equate socialism with communism,
they aren't the same thing by the way. France for example is a
socialist country to a certain degree, and I don't think anyone can
claim it's a communist country.

Communism wasn't even communism.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American people.

Hitler did.

Yep.
And when Germany, and much of Europe went utterly broke...who spent
Billions to rebuild the very nations who tried to destroy the
Allies???

Us nasty Americans spent Billions to rebuild the very countries that
tried to destroy us in battle.

We also greatly sacrificed to save much of Australia's interests in
that war...and then we left them to prosper afterward. Gratitude from
hem? -Only from those with a memory.

Those are the only ones who really count, anyway. And there are many more
of them than one might guess.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:G1BGf.57067$V.56837@fed1read04...
William Graham wrote:
"no_name" wrote in message
...
Joseph Kewfi wrote:

That's what they want you to think; that's what they're trying to
change the term to mean.


The vast majority of the American public never understood what
socialist meant anyway, Americans equate socialism with communism,
they aren't the same thing by the way. France for example is a
socialist country to a certain degree, and I don't think anyone can
claim it's a communist country.

Communism wasn't even communism.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American people.

Hitler did.

Yep.
And when Germany, and much of Europe went utterly broke...who spent
Billions to rebuild the very nations who tried to destroy the Allies???

Us nasty Americans spent Billions to rebuild the very countries that tried
to destroy us in battle.

We also greatly sacrificed to save much of Australia's interests in that
war...and then we left them to prosper afterward. Gratitude from
em? -Only from those with a memory.


Yes. And they almost universally hate us for it....That's why I believe that
giving our money to the poor and needy in welfare and social security
programs is generally a loser. It doesn't help them, because they don't
learn to take care of themselves, and it doesn't make them friends
either.....They just resent you for it. This is especially true of the
Arabian countries. Does anyone really believe that they thank us for giving
them anything? They just lose any respect they could possible have had for
us. They laugh at us and hate us for every cent we give them. The only thing
those people respect is force and a willingness to kill them before they can
kill us. That, they respect. They interpret kindness as weakness, and
weakness is something they are taught to disrespect almost from birth......

In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Just as I suspected....Another accident....War contains a lot of them,
unfortunately....and besides, there might have been some terrorists killed,

Yeah. That is really the way to do it. Dropping a bomb in a random
innocent country is just an accident. Strange that the bomb just
happened to hit one of the few houses in a large area without any buildings.

Or you are saying that bombing civilians in Afghnistan is alright.

And then of course you make sure that to redefine criminal law such that
the government can kill suspects of certain crimes without trial.

Well, this is exactly the kind of reasoning the terrorists are using as
well. Except that they claim that they want to defend their religion and
the US has some oil interests but claims the desire to spread democracy.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Just as I suspected....Another accident....War contains a lot of them,
unfortunately....and besides, there might have been some terrorists
killed,

Yeah. That is really the way to do it. Dropping a bomb in a random
innocent country is just an accident. Strange that the bomb just
happened to hit one of the few houses in a large area without any
buildings.

Or you are saying that bombing civilians in Afghnistan is alright.

And then of course you make sure that to redefine criminal law such that
the government can kill suspects of certain crimes without trial.

Well, this is exactly the kind of reasoning the terrorists are using as
well. Except that they claim that they want to defend their religion and
the US has some oil interests but claims the desire to spread democracy.

Not at all. What I am saying is that the house didn't (apparently) contain
the Al Qeada people we thought it contained. Bombing the house was perfectly
OK. If you house your soldiers in schools and churches, you'd better be
prepared to have your schools and churches bombed. If the civilian
population of Afghanistan keeps Al Qeada terrorists in and among their
population, then they better expect to get an occasional house bombed.
If the government puts a missile launcher next door to me, and starts a
war by launching a missile from it, then I am not going to be surprised when
an enemy missile comes a crashin' through my roof....

Not at all. What I am saying is that the house didn't (apparently) contain
the Al Qeada people we thought it contained. Bombing the house was
perfectly
OK.

The house contained women and children who were annihilated without warning,
yet you complain when Al Qaeda does this to yours and yet you see no
contradiction.

"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Just as I suspected....Another accident....War contains a lot of them,
unfortunately....and besides, there might have been some terrorists
killed,

Yeah. That is really the way to do it. Dropping a bomb in a random
innocent country is just an accident. Strange that the bomb just
happened to hit one of the few houses in a large area without any
buildings.

Or you are saying that bombing civilians in Afghnistan is alright.

And then of course you make sure that to redefine criminal law such that
the government can kill suspects of certain crimes without trial.

Well, this is exactly the kind of reasoning the terrorists are using as
well. Except that they claim that they want to defend their religion and
the US has some oil interests but claims the desire to spread democracy.

Not at all. What I am saying is that the house didn't (apparently) contain
the Al Qeada people we thought it contained. Bombing the house was
perfectly
OK. If you house your soldiers in schools and churches, you'd better be
prepared to have your schools and churches bombed. If the civilian
population of Afghanistan keeps Al Qeada terrorists in and among their
population, then they better expect to get an occasional house bombed.
If the government puts a missile launcher next door to me, and starts
a
war by launching a missile from it, then I am not going to be surprised
when
an enemy missile comes a crashin' through my roof....

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
Not at all. What I am saying is that the house didn't (apparently)
contain
the Al Qeada people we thought it contained. Bombing the house was
perfectly
OK.

The house contained women and children who were annihilated without
warning,
yet you complain when Al Qaeda does this to yours and yet you see no
contradiction.

Nope.....None whatsoever....We didn't house terrorists in the World Trade
Center towers in NYC. If you don't see the difference, then I am really
sorry for you....Your bias has clouded your ability to think logically. When
you mix your soldiers with your civilians, then you should expect to lose
civilians in the event of a war. - That's common sense. What do you expect
your enemies to do? Say, "Oh! Well, since your soldiers are carrying
children, we will lay down our arms and surrender to you." Well, sorry,
Kewfi, but it doesn't work that way......At least not to this
Republican......

The house contained women and children who were annihilated without
warning,
yet you complain when Al Qaeda does this to yours and yet you see no
contradiction.


Yes, but the real question remains! What type of camera equipment were they
using, and did they find the lens sharp and contrasty, or soft on the edges?
I
found that the 24-70 2.8 L zoom from Canon to be very very sharp.