Current Events

[M2]

Thank you all for your EMs PMs and posts conveying your condolences.

FYI - the 2+ years of BB discussion have been useful re. assembly matters, but the experiences of the discussion process have been beneficial in other aspects of life as well.

Marcia

[Recovering Saint]

FEMA has said they are suspending efforts for now in New Orleans because of violence. I really am heartbroken for these poor people. What is going to happen to all these poor people. I am praying for them it is just too sad.

Hugh

[vernecarty]

FEMA has said they are suspending efforts for now in New Orleans because of violence. I really am heartbroken for these poor people. What is going to happen to all these poor people. I am praying for them it is just too sad.

Hugh

The vast majority of those who stayed in the city did not do so by choice. There were many families without cars, and in some instances those who had vehicles were unable to secure enough gas to go any distance. I am struck by the fact that the leaders of the city did not take into consideration those who had few options for leaving the city...this was a long time coming and is unspeakably tragic....
Verne

[hopon]

"All this talk about equality. The only thing people really have in common is that they are all going to die."

Bob Dylan

[mmarple]

Lots of talk these days about celebrities "re-inventing" themselves. Anyone believe in "reincarnations"?

How about it Psalm51, Mercy4Me, Scruffy, and frankie? We've got some professionals here, so your opinions would be valuable. How do you look at the situation? Can we have some feedback on the issue?

[outdeep]

Lots of talk these days about celebrities "re-inventing" themselves. Anyone believe in "reincarnations"?

How about it Psalm51, Mercy4Me, Scruffy, and frankie? We've got some professionals here, so your opinions would be valuable. How do you look at the situation? Can we have some feedback on the issue?

I've always been taught that Hebrews 9:27 speak agains reincarnation.

[mmarple]

Lots of talk these days about celebrities "re-inventing" themselves. Anyone believe in "reincarnations"?

How about it Psalm51, Mercy4Me, Scruffy, and frankie? We've got some professionals here, so your opinions would be valuable. How do you look at the situation? Can we have some feedback on the issue?

The only reason I asked this question is because these posters, as professionals, have re-invented themselves. 

Sondrafrankie, why did you delete all your "Ruth" posts?

[2ram]

This may sound like a "how about them Patriots" type post.

The current event is that I am looking to buy a digital camera (for the first time).  Any advice??

Marcia

[al Hartman]

This may sound like a "how about them Patriots" type post.

The current event is that I am looking to buy a digital camera (for the first time).  Any advice??

Marcia

Marcia,

Your choice should depend upon several factors:
 
How familiar you are with cameras/photography;
 
What kinds of pictures you want to take (snapshots, portraits, landscapes, micro-closeups)-- the more technical or detailed your photos are to be, the more particular you must be in shopping;

How large an instrument you want to carry;
 
Do you want to process your own photos or drop them off to be done?

How much you want to spend.

You definitely want glass lenses, not plastic, for quality of reproduction.

I am particular about lining up my shots (the LCD screen is for seeing what you got, not what you're going to get), so I'm partial to an SLR (single lens reflex), which shows you through the lens itself what you're shooting, as opposed to a viewfinder which only approximates what the lens will capture.

But a good LCD screen (large, with lotsa pixels) is important for deciding whether you caught what you were after or need to shoot again.

As for the photo itself, the more pixels the better-- that's what gives you definition.  E.g. camaras in phones are cheesy & their photos don't bear enlargement.  The more pixels your camera promises, the better you can enlarge.

Also consider magnification: there are two kinds.  A telephoto (zoom) lens will give you, say, x3 magnification (the number varies, check the packaging info).  Then you have the capability for electronic zoom, which can add another x4, x5, or more.  Personally, I want as much of both kinds as I can afford.

All the major brands have a good product.  Olympus, Canon, Minolta, and several more who have been in the camera business for a long time.  Some of the electronics companies are making a lot of cameras these days: Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, etc.  I am not as familiar with their products, but haven't heard anything bad about any of them.

Consider checking "Consumer Reports" before you shop.

Good hunting,
al

P.S.-- How about them Bengals

[Oscar]

Marcia,

When I retired my kids gave me a Canon Powershot A70.  As I am merely a snapshot photographer, it is great.  They are currently making a development of this, the A75 I think.

Thomas Maddux

[2ram]

Article from Christianity Today:

Does Electrocution Happen for a Reason?

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/144/24.0.html

Marcia

P.S. thanks for the camera advice.  Looks like Canon is the winner.  I'm leaning toward the Canon A520 4MP with optical and digital zoom. The Canons are about Cdn$100 more than an Olympus.   Also, Al, I figured that I would not need an SLR if I use the LCD screen, because the display is actually WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).

Here's a neat site: www.steves-digicams.com

Marcia

[al Hartman]

Marcia,

Thanks for both sites.  I've bookmarked the camera site for future reference.

I'm sure you'll love the Canon.  I've used several Canons, and have never heard a bad word about their product.  With the dual zoom features you should be able to stand on your lawn and capture the Great Wall of China !

Blessings,
al

[brian]

i can't believe i almost missed this discussion. i am a digital camera freak  

i currently have 4, and they are all canon. my 35mm rebel 2000 is canon as well. they really have the edge over the competition in this market, imho. i jumped in years ago with the canon s200, which worked great and can still make some great shots, although the zoom has a kind of grindy tired sound to it. i replaced it with the s410. it was a nice upgrade but basically the same size and funtionality, just higher megapixels and a little better video. one week later a friend of mine accidentally dropped it in a glass of oj. *twitch* it was an awkward moment. it never worked quite the same again, tho it still functions. when my sister got married she wanted me to shoot her wedding, so i decided to take the plunge to an slr and got the canon digital rebel - about the cheapest slr out there. tragically this was only a few short months before the rebel xt was announced. but it worked beautifully, giving me much more control over my shots than the more compact cameras. then in january of this year i replaced my oj-soaked s410 with the incredibly sexy canon sd300. it was the tiniest ultra-compact camera on the market, yet offered superior specs to most of its larger cousins. 640x480 video, 30 fps, with sound - no size or time limit. so i could fill up my 1gb ultra II card with one long home video if i wished. i absolutely love this camera. if i were to buy a camera now its no question - i would go for its successor the canon sd550. for an excellent review of it, check out:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd550/
dpreview.com is loaded with great digital camera information. steves-digicams.com is also a great site that you have already found. even if you went for the sd400, you would have a much more powerful and significantly smaller camera for only a little more money. but again it depends on how you want to use it. i buy a compact camera for slipping into my pocket when i'm going out, and i keep my big ole slr for serious shooting. thus i am not interested in manual modes in my compact camera.

a great site for ccomparing camera prices (or prices of almost anything) is:
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search.php?form_keyword=canon&topcat_id=

note that canon has some rebates going on if you are also interested in buying a photo printer:
"Rebate Description: Bundle Rebate Offer: Buy a new Canon SELPHY DS810 Photo Printer TOGETHER WITH any new Powershot Digital Camera or new qualifying Canon Digital Camcorder with SD Memory Card feature or a new laptop or desktop computer and get a $50 rebate by mail."

one last note - digital zoom is worthless. it just crops the picture. if you take a picture using only the real zoom and download it to your computer and then crop it to a smaller size, its the exact same as taking the picture with real zoom plus digital zoom. i guess if you want to crop the picture as you take it then maybe its useful, but you are losing image quality then, so i always keep it turned off.

if you have any other questions i can ramble on endlessly about this topic.  

brian

[marden]

P.S. thanks for the camera advice.  Looks like Canon is the winner.  I'm leaning toward the Canon A520 4MP with optical and digital zoom. The Canons are about Cdn$100 more than an Olympus.   Also, Al, I figured that I would not need an SLR if I use the LCD screen, because the display is actually WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).

Here's a neat site: www.steves-digicams.com

Marcia

The Canon although more money are worth the extra $$

[al Hartman]

Getting back to more general current events, I received the following article in an e-mail today (I do not have the specific URL for it):

from the internet:

Starbucks: A habit
easily broken

Posted: August 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Meghan Kleppinger
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


It's been two weeks since my last Starbucks coffee.

Admittedly, I am one of those who don't think twice about dropping $4 for a cup of coffee that costs less than $.50 to make. I am a self-proclaimed coffee house junkie and need that wonderful yuppie, intellectual "atmosphere" and freshly brewed aroma as much as the caffeine.

When I moved to D.C. right out of college, I encountered my first Starbucks drink, or should I say "experience"? Growing up in a military family, I loved chain restaurants because of the sense of familiarity they offered in every new town we moved to. So, to be able to get the same type of specialty coffee – grande, iced, skim, sugar-free vanilla, latte – everywhere, was an addiction waiting to happen.

Fast forward four years, and about 800 lattes later – I'm a Starbucks addict!

When a report came out earlier this year showing that none of Starbucks' charitable contributions went to conservative causes, I didn't blink -- I bought a latte. When I walked by a liquor store in Northeast D.C. with a big advertisement for Starbucks liquor, I kept walking, stopped in at Starbucks and bought a latte! When I was at work a couple weeks ago, reading an e-alert from our California organization (yes, latte in hand), I finally had a wake-up call.

The alert described the annual "gay" pride events which are scheduled in San Diego each year:

San Diego's annual "Pride" events include dangerous "circuit" parties, a parade with sexual content and sponsors along the route, including one advertising anal lubricants, a festival with sexually oriented venues.

OK, yes, that is all pretty disturbing, but daily, I read, write about and edit papers dealing with the homosexual agenda, so I was not at all shocked that this was going on. I was a little upset when I read that Starbucks was a sponsor. I took a sip of my latte as I read on:

In addition, the "festival" includes a "Youth Hangout Space" and a "Children's Garden." Not only is there concern about young people being part of sexually oriented events and venues, but two members of San Diego's Gay Pride organization's volunteer staff have been exposed as registered sex offenders who committed sex crimes against children.

OK – STOP, WAIT A MINUTE AND PUT THAT CUP OF COFFEE DOWN!

Not only is Starbucks sponsoring "Pride" week, but an event that places innocent children in the middle of sexually explicit materials ... and registered child molesters will be there running the show? If Starbucks is doing this knowingly, it is blatant irresponsibility, and if they are doing it unknowingly, it is irresponsible of them not to have done their homework. I started pacing back-and-forth, and all I could think was "Starbucks hates children."

(continued in next post)