Joe Miner

Lol. You're still trying to argue with me, when I pretty much agree. Learn to read. I only had an issue with one part of the article. No issue with whatever point you've been trying to make. Do you want to continue to try to make a point or argue with me about not caring for how 1 statistic is used in an article?

I would suggest that the interracial population of the US is a large driving force for many stupid laws that we have. Again, I dislike many of the laws in this country. I just think that making a blanket comparison between the US and many more homogeneously populated countries with a simple crime statistic isn't as telling as it suggests. I'm not arguing anything other than that. And I'm definitely not saying anything NewBills is reading into my posts. I actually agree with the premise that our prison population is way too high. I just didn't like the use of that 1 statistic to show it.

I apologize. I should have realized you can't read.

Violent crime is only 1 type of crime that results in incarceration. Taking that statistic and leaping to most prisoners having committed intraracial crimes is a bit fuzzy. I wonder whether violent crimes even make up the largest % of inmates in this country. But even if violent crimes are the largest percent, and even if most inmates committed intraracial crimes, I still say that the makeup of this interracial country plays a large part in those numbers, and that more homogeneous populations don't experience the same things we see here that help to cause higher incarceration %'s.

Cost Benefit Analysis

What didn't you understand? I am saying that comparing the crime statistics of a more heterogeneous population with a more homogeneous population isn't an apples to apples comparison. Not that it really makes a difference in my above opinion, but I would be curious to hear how you define most crime resulting in incarceration as being "intra-racial".

"Who does #2 work for?"

Interracial issues don't just result in crime. Crime statistics don't offer a good view of the ramifications of interracial issues. Especially something as narrow as % of incarcerated people per 100,000.

Nope. But what if coaches challenges were extended to penalties as well?

Not stating that I agree with all of the laws of the land or that we don't have a prison issue, but it always strikes me as odd that when comparing %'s of the US population with other countries the concept of homogeneous and heterogeneous rarely ever comes into consideration.

This story also applies to High School locker rooms.

MDP has to be Conner. Well played Conner, well played.

Did the carjacker have any skittles?

I keep hearing that N Dakota is actually looking to import women. Tons of horny roughnecks up there now and nothing to do.

Read it yes. Adhere to everything in it, no. Just seems like quite a jump to assume that Manny was obviously talking about a couple of versus in Leviticus, and was also advocating that we should be adhering to the punishment listed in those versus.

Why would you assume Manny (who isn't Jewish as far as I know) would be referencing ancient Jewish law in his comment?

FaceTV and then Faceinternet and then Faceface

The pessimist would say that this isn't an effort to praise the Bills, but an effort to increase attention from the NYC people. Step 1) Write a controversial statement blasting a large market team by telling them a small market team is better Step 2) Number of viewers and hits to your site increase from outrage of large fanbase Step 3) Profit

Definitely learn photography first. Spend money second or even third. Never buy equipment unless it's fulfilling a need. Not a want, a need. There's a good picture to be taken with whatever camera is in your hand. Once you learn to use your equipment in spite of its limitations, you'll better understand what you need next. But I would suggest going slow on equipment purchases. You'll take a ton of bad pictures with anything you buy when you start out. That's not the equipment's fault. More expensive stuff does not a better photographer make. Henri Cartier-Bresson: “Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.” IMO, true, and that's not shutter clicks, that's photographs. Those guys on NFL sidelines didn't just max out couple of credit cards with $20000+ worth of equipment and suddenly were able to get published photos and make a living at this. They learned the same stuff that any beginner needs to learn.

Well, for sports, either indoor or outdoor, IMO, you'll want a telephoto lens. Being confined to the sidelines just doesn't get you very close to the action. For something like a Canon, I would just stick with the 55-250 IS for now. You can jump up and get the 70-300 IS, but that's about $400 more. If you need a telephoto lens, I would advise getting the 55-250, and then saving up for something in the L category. I would give the same advice for Nikon or Sony. Get the entry level telephoto zoom. Once you learn to use it and outgrow it's limitations, I think you'll want to make a bigger jump in quality than $400 for the next step up. Chances are you'll want a 70-200 either in the "affordable" F4 ($1000) price range, or an F2.8 in the arm & leg price range of $2500. I'm just not $400 more impressed with the 70-300 over the 55-250. Also, if you go Canon, their refurbished equipment is sometimes a good deal: Camera Bodies: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_29252 Lenses: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_22751 Again, I'm not telling you to get a Canon. But all the big 3 companies have comparable camera bodies and lenses at every level. So if you take the Canon exmples I've given you, Nikon & Sony have an equivalent, and most likely all of the same advice applies.

Did you try looking at the pictures after about 12 beers?

Indoor or outdoor sports? Outdoor, just about anything is fine, as your lighting should be more than fine. Indoor, you'll want something that has a decent picture quality at a bit higher ISO. Probably something with good IQ up to ISO 800 at least. Chances are the kit lenses you get with it (like the ones in the craigslist ad) won't be fast lenses (F2.8 or lower aperture #), so that will mean that you have to raise your ISO. Frames per second, I rarely worry about, 3-4 fps should be fine. Unless you're getting paid to photograph professional sports, that should work just fine for kid's events. I'm not a big fan of spray and pray. Good technique and proper timing/anticipation should yield decent results at those fps speeds. Me personally, so take it with a grain of salt, if I were getting a beginner DSLR camera with a lens for kid's sports, I would look at something along the lines of: Canon T2i/T3i Nikon D5100 Sony A55/A57 I think the second step up from the base models are pretty decent. But in reality, any of them are good enough to get your feet wet, and learn the basics. Also all three of these brands should be easy to get your hands on at a local Best Buy or something. Some place you can hold it, play with it, and test the menus and user interface out without someone trying to sell you a bunch of stuff. Last bit of advice is to get the camera in your hands and test it out as best as you can before you buy it. They all feel similar, but there are enough differences that you should make sure you get something that feels and functions good for you. Ok, really last bit of advice. If you have friends or family that shoot a specific brand, it could be helpful early on to choose the same brand (as long as you like it), just because they could have accessories that you can borrow and test before you buy it. Also if they are more experienced with the camera than you, they can possibly give you advice that makes more sense if you're working off the same system that they have.

I agree with the part about cameras. One thing I might suggest is to pick something between Nikon, Canon, or Sony. Only because those three all have "professional" level models. If by chance you love photography, and want to get a high end camera, you can keep a lot of the lenses and accessories you buy early instead of having to try to sell old equipment or forking over cash for all brand new stuff. Something like a Pentax is a great camera, but if you ever wanted to move up to a professional grade body, they don't really have something in that range. But don't get too hung up on model #'s or specs. Get a good DSLR, and start taking pictures. Worry about all that crap when you've developed some skill, and know what type of photography you really enjoy.

http://www.phototips.biz/ Weekly podcast with lots of past episodes that can help out. Link to past podcasts: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoClassPro/videos?sort=da&view=0