i like my camera. yes i do. even though the nikon D90 in school is quite poisonous, but Sony is still the best in this price range. heh.
Kendrick "booming voice" Tay
Xuqin!
Yu Jie!
Pearlyn!
Fang Yuan(without hair)!
"those at the top of the totem pole never really see whats beneath"
does the answer really matter?The ancient war between science and religion is over. You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind takes thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests-all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology. Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species . . . moving down a path of destruction. Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea. To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning. And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. But who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? This church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God!well there isnt any God
"Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation . . . these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede. A rustle of confusion and bewilderment sweeps through the chapel. But science's victory has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply. Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident. Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning . . . and all it finds is more questions."
"Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves."
"You see, when you open new doors, there is a price to pay"
- Walter Bishop in Fringe
2nd hand Canon and Nikon lenses are more expensive than 2nd hand Sony Alpha mount lenses generally, especially if u take into consideration that 2nd hand Minolta lenses are very very cheap. Btw Minolta is NOT a 3rd party brand. Minolta = Sony's DSLR division (long story, u can google for more info). Infact Minolta invented the 1st autofocus lens and camera body.
Take for example the Minolta 70-210mm f4, it cost $300 only 2nd hand. Which other brand gives u a 70-210mm constant f4 autofocus lens for this price? Or Minolta 50mm f1.4 for $300 as well (Canon ones cost around $500)
Unless u r talking about Sony's Carl Zeiss lenses, than thats a different issue. As mentioned, Carl Zeiss is a PREMIUM brand, and that is why they can command a high price due to their quality. If you compare only Sony lenses, then they're equal or lesser than similar Canon/Nikon lenses.
the only lenses that I know of that Sony price higher than Canon and Minolta is the 50mm f1.8. But then again, Sony's 50mm is stabalised whereas Canon and Nikon ones arent.
You also need to consider the fact that Nikon and Canon lenses comes with image stabalised and non image stabalised versions. On the other hand, all alpha lenses mounted onto a Sony DSLR is image stabalised. As such when comparing lenses, U should compare Sony lenses against Nikon and Canon's stabalised version of the lenses, not the unstabalised version. And in this comparison, u will know that most Sony Alpha mount lenses are cheaper than Nikon and Canon's stabalised lenses of similar grade.
That brings about to 3rd party lenses.
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, one of the most popular 3rd party lenses used by Sony, Canon and Nikon DSLR owners.
Nikon and Canon owners need to pay $900 for the Tamron 17-50 VC (stabalised), whereas Sony users need to pay $600 only cos we dont need the lens VC, as the non VC version becomes stabalised when mounted onto Sony Alpha.
Add to the fact that Canon and Nikon dont hv much stabalised primes, whereas all Sony primes are stabalised, that is already a bonus advantage that u get without paying a cent more.
-android17
Craig Venter has created the first synthetic cell controlled by a synthetic genome. "This is the first synthetic cell that's been made," said lead researcher Craig Venter. "We call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesiser, starting with information in a computer."no doubt it is an amazing feat, maybe the start of the third revolution in Man's history, the first being agriculture, then industrial. sooner or later we can all rely on genetic engineering to heal all the problems. think about it, a cell without a parent cell has been born. this means life was created by just putting the right chemicals in the right order. there was no magical ‘life force’, no special ‘touch’ from above. it was human designed computer and just chemicals to start with. with this we can produce cures for terminal illnesses, vaccines for devastating diseases, create life that can reverse the harm we have done to the enviroment. the possibilities are endless. maybe this way, humans can also live forever, using cells to manufacture body parts to replace the old ones.
then again, if we had self restrain, we wouldn't be telling our species to stop wasting and start recycling.
Naked science is amoral, and hence potentially dangerous. However science conducted within proper ethical parameters provides tremendous benefit. Part of being human is the power of self restraint. That is certainly necessary considering the safety and ethical implications of this new emerging science.
-firstthings.com
