Weedy1

It kind of looks like Bullshead only the fish are slightly larger. There's even supposed to be a herd of cows wondering around the lake. I bet there's even a stupid ass dog running around sucking lunch out of fisherman wearing Depends.

I think you suffer from introjected masturbatory anxiety .

So what kind of work do you do for the Government?

No.

You're joking right?

Where's the love people?

What the hell are you talking about? Gretzky was a force to deal with. I mean come on, watch how he nearly puts out Sykes then kicks the *hit out of Broten. The guy was dangerous. Learn your hockey history if you're going to spout off like that.

Here's the side by side comparison. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...0d&show=all Personally, I would go with the 450D for the following reasons. This is DpReview's conclusion (Phil Askey - like him or not.) Overall conclusion from http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page34.asp The EOS 450D represents Canon's response to the increasingly crowded and competitive nature of the entry-level DSLR market. Where the original 'people's DLSR', the EOS 300D, owed at least some of its success to the simple paucity of competitors, the market in 2008 is a very different place indeed, and one that's seen Nikon (with the D40/D40x/D60) carve a sizeable slice of the action, and where Olympus, Sony and Pentax have strong offerings at price points unthinkable just couple of years ago. It would appear that Canon decided the best way to avoid getting caught up in the melee was to aim just a little higher, giving the EOS 450D as much of a feature boost as it could without it treading on the 40D's toes. So although some of the upgrades are an entirely predictable box-ticking exercise (bigger screen, live view etc), there are some pleasant surprises too. The new sensor is superb, and from a resolution point of view puts the EOS 40D to shame without losing any of the high ISO performance that has been Canon's trump card for so long. Canon was never going to take any risks with its biggest breadwinner, and we feel the EOS 450D is a significant, albeit incremental step in the right direction. We're certainly happy to see the improved buffering, spot metering and ISO button / viewfinder display, as well as the improvement in the viewfinder itself. These performance improvements (not just in continuous shooting but across the board) and new features make the EOS 450D feel a lot less intentionally crippled than any of its predecessors, and put some clear blue water between it and cameras such as Nikon's D60 or Olympus's E-420 (with a small price premium to match). In fact you can't help thinking that there is now a space at the bottom of the EOS range for a true 'entry-level' model, something the internet's rumor mongers haven't failed to notice either. The EOS 450D feels like a mature product, it is capable of superb results (even if it's actually now good enough to reveal the limitations of the cheaper EF-S lenses) and it has a feature set that offers an excellent balance between beginner-friendly ease of use and the manual control / customization demanded by those wanting something a little more serious. The new stabilized 18-55mm lens is a distinct improvement on some of Canon's earlier kit zooms and the fact it only adds $100 to the body price is a real bonus. That said, you really need to be using primes and pro-level zoom lenses to really see what the sensor is capable of. Of course no camera is perfect and the EOS 450D isn't without its annoying foibles and weaknesses; the default JPEG output is very punchy but it's a bit 'over cooked' for my taste (too bright and contrasty) and I found myself using RAW even more often than normal. The metering occasionally gets it wrong and I'd recommend turning off the auto focus point selection as it can get jumpy and produce unpredictable results (if the focus is wrong the metering, which is linked to the AF point, gets it wrong too). But the overall hit rate is very high, and virtually all the things we found to complain about can be dealt with easily if you know your way around a camera, or by shooting RAW if you don't like Canon's processing. We're still not keen on the handling (the small grip means it doesn't sit as comfortably in the hand as, for example, the Nikon D60 or Olympus E-520) and we'd love to see a second control wheel - and like most current SLRs the live view feature is of limited use outside the studio - but we've moved far from 'deal breaking' territory here. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing Canon at the sales counter is that the EOS 450D costs too much to compete with the real entry-level DSLRs and and - on paper at least - cameras such as the Sony Alpha 350 that offer a lot more bang for your buck. But compared to many of its competitors the EOS 450D just feels like a more 'sorted' camera; in the half decade since the original 'Rebel' the line has matured to the point where we have to dig pretty deep to find anything serious to complain about. Canon may no longer be the automatic choice for the entry-level SLR user, and I possibly wouldn't recommend it over a Nikon D60 or Olympus E-420 for absolute beginners or anyone wanting 'point and shoot' access to well optimized JPEG ouput. But if you want to move to the next level of image quality and performance, and are prepared to take control of parameters (and ideally shoot raw) to get the best possible results, the EOS 450D is an easy recommendation.

Wes, Spend some time checking out the lens surveys at this site. It may give you a better idea of how to fill the void. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

I think it's about time you do Vegas.

Sounds like the making of another Liberal scandal to me. I wonder if Miss May knows the law. From http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/E-...alse#codese:481 Canada Elections Act : Offering bribe 481. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who, during an election period, directly or indirectly offers a bribe to influence an elector to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate. Accepting bribe (2) Every elector is guilty of an offence who, during an election period, accepts or agrees to accept a bribe that is offered in the circumstances described in subsection (1).

Signed, sealed, and delivered.

Kimbo Slice could be the towel boy. Pay Per View would make a killing.

This is the story. Click on the video. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/05/...in4502454.shtml

A policeman pulls a man over for speeding and asks him to get out of the car. After looking the man over he says, "Sir, I couldn't help but notice your eyes are bloodshot. Have you been drinking?" The man gets really indignant and says, "Officer, I couldn't help but notice your eyes are glazed. Have you been eating doughnuts?"

From: http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradv...zly_hunted.html Published: October 06, 2008 12:22 PM (Before they found the Bear) "Ealey said the cubs are believed to be more than a year old and possibly 18 months old. Cubs generally stay with their mother for as long as two years." "He said it was too early to determine if the sow would be shot and what would happen with the cubs if they are captured or located." Published: Saturday, October 11, 2008 (After they found and shot the Bear) From: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/c...f2-16f2ed648cb6 "When there is a predatory attack that results in a (human) killing, policy is that bear is euthanized," said Duncan MacDonnell, spokesman for Sustainable Resource Development. "Once a bear considers humans as fair prey, that's a very dangerous situation." MacDonnell said they chose to destroy the bear rather than relocate it because evidence from the scene suggests it was a "predatory" attack. Officials are now searching for the animal's three cubs, believed to be 18 to 30 months old, MacDonnell said. They are considered old enough to survive on their own. So there you have it. The cubs are somewhere between possibly a year to 30 months old. My guess is they won't survive, but then again that's nature and whether you like it or not WE are part of it. As much as I would have liked to seen this group of Bears survive, if a Grizzly has to be put down due to a predatory attack that results in a human being maimed or killed then I have no problem with that. Better the Bear than our children or friends.

More Sins: From: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...cessary_reforms Seven Deadly Sins Sin One: Allowing Mortgage Lending to Become a Casino. Until 1969, Fannie Mae was part of the government. Mortgage lenders were tightly regulated. Homeownership rates soared throughout the postwar era, from about 44 percent on the eve of World War II to 64 percent by the mid-1960s. Nobody in the mortgage business got filthy rich, and hardly anyone lost money. Fannie's job was to buy mortgages from banks and thrift institutions, to replenish their money to make mortgages, and along the way to set standards. Fannie financed its operations by selling bonds. In the late 1970s, private Wall Street firms started emulating Fannie. They packaged mortgages, and converted them into bonds. Over time, their standards deteriorated, because they could make more money creating riskier products. In order to avoid losing market share, Fannie emulated some of the same abuses. Government did not step in to regulate the affair -- which was a time bomb waiting for the creation of the sub-prime mortgage business. Sin Two: Allowing Unregulated Bond Rating Agencies to Decide What was Safe. Sub-prime is only the best known of a widespread fad known as "securitization." The idea is to turn loans into bonds. Bonds are given ratings by private companies that have official government recognition, such as Moody's and Standard and Poors, but no government regulation. These rating agencies have become thoroughly corrupted by conflicts of interest. If you want to package and sell bonds backed by risky loans, you go to a bond-rating agency and pay it a hefty fee. In return, the agency helps you manipulate the bond so that it qualifies for a triple-A rating, even if the underlying loans include many that are high-risk. Without the collusion of the bond-rating agencies, sub-prime lending never would have gotten off the ground, because it would not have found a mass market. Had regulators looked inside this black box, they would have shut it down. They might have needed new legislation, but they never asked for it. And public-minded regulators might have done a lot under existing law, since banks (which are regulated) were heavily implicated in the financing of sub-prime. Sin Three: Failing to Police Sub-prime. The core idea of bank regulation is that government inspectors periodically examine the quality of bank assets. If too large a portion of a bank's loan portfolio is behind in its interest payments, the bank is made to raise more capital as a cushion against losses. Problems are nipped in the bud. But complex securities require more sophisticated regulation than simple loans. Regulators basically waived the rule on adequate capital for the new wave of mortgage lenders who created sub-prime. Many mortgage companies were not banks. They made loans only to sell them off to the Wall Street sinners of Deadly Sin No. 1 (see above). So there was no loan portfolio to examine, and no real capital. The Democratic Congress anticipated this problem in 1994, when it passed the Homeownership Opportunity and Equity Protection Act. This prescient law required the Federal Reserve to regulate the loan-origination standards of mortgage companies that were not otherwise government-regulated. But Alan Greenspan, a free-market zealot, never implemented the law. And when Republicans took over Congress in 1995, they never called him on the carpet. Sin Four: Failure to Stop Excess Leverage. The financial economy is crashing today because so much speculation was done with borrowed money. A typical leverage ratio of a hedge fund or private equity company is 30 to one. That means $30 of debt for $1 of actual capital. If you make one serious miscalculation, you are out of business. And in the case of sub-prime mortgage companies, the leverage ratio was infinite, because they had no capital. The game was entirely based on creating debt. As long as times were good, financial firms could keep borrowing to finance their deals. But once investors looked down, they panicked. Some parts of the system are unregulated, such as hedge funds and private-equity companies. But they all ultimately get a lot of their funding from banks. And regulators do retain the power to look closely at banks' books (see Sin No.3 above). Had they used that power to police the kind of highly risky stuff banks were underwriting, they could have shut it down. Sin Five: Failure to Police Conflicts of Interest. Remember the accounting scandals of the 1990s? In those scandals, accounting firms were paid once to audit corporate books and then again to help clients cook the books and still pass muster with the audit. That was a sheer conflict of interest. Though accountants were (loosely) regulated, Congress did not crack down until cooked books caused the stock market to crash. A second conflict of interest was the corruption of stock analysts, who were telling customers to buy dubious stocks because their bosses were profiting from underwriting the same stocks. In the aftermath of the dot-com bust, Congress narrowly cracked down on these two abuses with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act but simply ignored others -- such as the role of bond-rating agencies and the habit of basing executive bonuses on stock prices that could easily be manipulated by the same executives. Sin Six: Failing to Regulate Hedge Funds and Private Equity. When Roosevelt's New Deal acted to rein in the abuses in financial markets, it regulated the major players -- commercial banks, investment banks, stock brokers, holding companies, and stock exchanges. But two of the biggest purveyors of risk today -- hedge funds and private-equity firms -- simply did not exist. Today, private-equity firms and hedge funds do most of the things banks and investment banks do. They basically create credit by making markets in exotic securities. They buy and sell firms. They speculate in financial markets with borrowed money, taking much bigger risks than regulated banks. According to House Banking Committee Chair Barney Frank, more than half the credit created in recent years has been created by essentially unregulated institutions. The people in charge of the government -- conservative Republicans -- took the view that these new-wave financial players offered transactions between consenting adults who needed no special consumer protection. But they were oblivious to the risks to the larger system. Sin Seven: Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. This action, in 1999, was one of two major cases when a cornerstone of New Deal regulation was explicitly repealed. (The other was the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, and if your utility rates are sky-high, you can thank Congress for that, too.) Glass-Steagall provided that if you wanted to speculate as an investment bank, good luck to you. But commercial banks were part of the banking system. They created credit. They were regulated, supervised, usually enjoyed FDIC insurance, and had access to advances from the Fed in emergencies. So commercial banks and investment banks were two different creatures that should stay out of each other's knitting. But beginning in the 1980s, regulators who didn't believe in regulation either allowed explicit waivers of some aspects of Glass-Steagall or looked the other way as commercial banks and investment banks became more alike. By 1999, when Citigroup had jumped the gun and assembled a supermarket that included a commercial bank, investment bank, stock brokerage, and insurance company, Glass Steagall was so hollowed out that it was effectively dead. The coup de grace was its official repeal, in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. That's Gramm as in former Sen. Phil Gramm, a deregulation zealot and top adviser to John McCain.

6-0 6什么 zes -niets six-rien شيئا-ستة sechs -nichts sei -nulla шість -нема чого sześć -nic There, I said it. Now can anyone explain what happened?

:happybd: Happy B'day man. You don't look a day over,....ah.....er.......73. :happybd:

Tough bear ass kicking dude. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...k-survivor.html Video Link: http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bc/ondemand/vi...t-INTERVIEW.wmv

The regulations state: Releasing Prohibited Fish You must immediately release every fish that cannot be legally kept because of species, catch limit, size limit or other regulation, without exception, even if the fish is injured or dead. When the fish is alive, you must release it in a manner that causes the least harm to the fish. The definition of Immediately is "without interval of time ". I would guess that for a large number of the pictures taken of Prohibited Fish and posted on this site, an "interval of time" was required after catching the fish in order to get the picture. I would then say that is breaking the law. Careful what you wish for. Some people can be real sticklers.

You should have demanded she "cease and desist." http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...002151-sun.html

Chuck Norris came to my BBQ last summer, ate all the red hot charcoal out of the grill and then proceeded to fart out large diamonds for the ladies in the awe-struck crowd.