Personally I think a picture can be described as objective if it depicts what the photographer saw or feel he saw.

Cameras do not lie. Photographers take pictures to pass on a message. This is not a lie nor a truth. It's what the photographers message and should be treated no differently than a written article. The photo journalist's task is not to truthfully document what he sees, it is to provide illustrations to an article.

I see several scenarios for this guy and they all change what kind of bags he need. Personally I do work mostly with people and urban scenery, which is my perspective.

Anyway, according to his story has experience of traveling, which means that he knows about the hazzle of carrying equipment. But I agree, travelling with a 17" does not seem wise if a netbook would do (which it would in most circumstances).

If the guy is doing professional work and he needs to send pics during work, I certainly understand his request for this kind of bag.

Otherwise I would just recommend getting a big bag for clothes accessories and laptop + small bag for day trips. Carrying less equipment improves your pictures a lot! Unless of course you are doing nature photography, when you are better of with a mule to carry the 50 pound tripod needed for shooting panther's in the dark with your 200mm f2 (possible with 2x extender).

Hey, people in the land of freedom. How do you consider regulation such as this? It certainly is regulation, but it also certainly promotes freedom. I know there people who cannot fathom that freedom and regulation are not xor, infact I think you have minimum freedom in both the the minimum and the maximum end of the how-much-regulation-scale.
Maximum freedom is achieved some amount of regulation. How much regulation is dependent on the society, and I think it is an unstable maximum, which is why we need to update regulations continuously.
Or something.

Dont know why you are modded down but yes. I kind of agree. It is an important part of mind control. If you control your followers sex life, you can also control them.

This however only a part of the answer. I think before condoms sex should certainly be mostly between two lovers. A lot of random unprotected sex leads to a lot random sex diseases and relatively unwanted children. I would think.

I think the sex-regulation by religions might also have a third reason. Jealous males killing their neighbors. No seriously. Some people have always been killed because they had sex with someone they shouldnt have.
Whether you like it or not, religions have usually striven to lessen the impact of random violence in society. At least the founders of the religions have usually been quite against violence. It is usually the followers that are the problem ;)

Beg all you want, but this is were you and a lot of others dont get it!
After buying and eating the big mac it does not cost the customer a dime to change provider of food. If you want to change your provider of ebooks (or phone apps) you have to buy new equipment + you can not always bring with you old ebooks to your new reader.
As a consumer you feel effectively locked in. In this way the whole ebook market will be fragmented and will infact be many different markets. So there can infact be many monopolies on the same market, while this might at first seem strange, I think everybody must be capable of realizing why this is the wet dream of many companies.

All right. Then it's just me that so used to the dark side of the apple I think everybody else is evil too :)

This is not the only question to ask. I am really surprised at Americans (I am not sure you are, but I see this argument a lot) who say 'well if you dont like apple/amazon/evil-megacrop restricting what content they are distributing you can always get it some other way, it's not like they have a monopoly'. In fact, they DO have a monopoly and I am going to explain why:

A monopoly is when you have 100 % control of the market. While amazon do not control all electronic distribution. They do control the distribution to all Kindles. Basically you can take everybody who owns a kindle and consider them a separate market. And this market they control. To a 100 %. This is the same thing apple does, google and everybody else wants to do this.

This is really the new black. Do not be a monopoly. Create a market (for e.g. stupid apps). Do not conquer the whole market because then you will be regulated. When someone complains about you locking up your market you can always say they can go buy a nokia or whatever.

I think it is really important to realize that these companies are trying to create monopolies that do not look like traditional monopolies. This is no conspiration theory. It's just nobody likes the free market and if you want it free, it must be regulated.

A system like this basically opens up a lot of interfaces to share information with. Which sounds good. The shit part is that it takes up a shitload of resources to do this. The guys who are supposed to do something instead ends up reading and writing responses to a lot of shitty ideas without any real insight into the problems.

So please, what is your take on fashion and clothes? People use the same clothes forever?
No, I think it's more about following the people one see as authoritarian in a field. If you are a regular Joe you might get interested in bing if your nerd friends started using it. And they are probably more likely to change even if there's only a small benefit. I'm always impressed how little people like you think people will change their habits.

Awesome tool! These two are quite cool:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=doctor%2Clawyer%2Carchitect%2Csoldier%2Cpoliceman%2Cdog+walker&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=peace%2Cwar%2Cmoney&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3

I think the problem with IT these days is that they don't understand their role.
While a lot of their role is to technically make things work, there is no point in good IT-infrastructure unless it makes people accomplish their work.

While I agree that for now Wikileaks is a very important information distributor, I think it would be a mistake to start depending on them. I think it would be too easy for someone with malicious intentions to publish false documents through them and get them taken seriously.
I hope their ideals spread back to the 'real' press.

But for now:
Go wikileaks!

Yeah, sorry for that. I've been working on my thesis presentation (powerpoint) so long that I thought the normal way of writing means writing things really simple and presenting all their using bullet points...
Anyway, I'm not a native English speaker. So you don't have to get depressed. (You're welcome!)

I will start by declaring my reason for my previous post.
I want to read good articles about interesting topics. I want the journalist to write exhaustively on a subject and present it with his analysis, where it is clearly stated what he has found and what are his analysis of the topic. I also want to be a good writer so it is interesting to read.

My point here is that we need to look at what kind of news/articles can we expect from a news paper with different kinds of rewarding systems.
As far as I know, ad-revenue is generated on per-click basis. So the incentive here is that a news paper would want to appeal to a 'furious clicker'.
Basically, a news paper can earn more if they dilute all the good articles with a lot of shitty contents about paris hilton. You have to click through ten articles before you find something you want to read, instead of directly understanding what a story is about. Without clicking on it.
click-click-click vs. click is 3x profit vs 1x profit

I am prepared to pay to read interesting news not diluted with shit because to some extent I value my time.
Basically I think the ad system sucks, because you want to make content that attracts visitors to click, instead of articles that interest people.
Think of a big boobed blonde attention whore vs. a cute smart girl that's interesting to talk to (and also sleep with!).

Paywalling is good!
Also for customers. Because
You get more:
People will not pay for sites that have a bullshit contents.
Alas, the content providers have an incentive to make good content.
Less:
Let's just fucking make some big headline about paris hilton that we just made up to increase hits and revenue!!!!!

Ads sucks!