I, for one, still prefer the optical viewfinder of a DSLR to any electronic one. Plus, it doesn't suck juice from the battery, which means I can get a lot more shots per charge.

It's also related to the quality of the lens. The physically smaller the lenses are, the tighter the tolerances and harder it is to make them truly sharp and distortion-free.

I too use a D3100, and have found it to be a great camera. The absolutely most important technical factor in ANY camera is the quality of the glass, and even the "kit" 18-55mm lens that comes with them is sharp enough to capture pixel-level details on the 14.2 MP sensor, with no appreciable distortion at any zoom. Image quality is far in excess of what I ever got from my old film SLRs, including the venerable Nikon FA (which was close to top-of-the-line in its day).

I looked at the higer end models such as the D5100 and D7000, and didn't find the marginal improvements to be compelling enough to justify spending 200 - 500 dollars more than I did on the D3100, which just rocks.

Facebook posts are copyrighted by the poster, the same as any newspaper article or photograph is, and if they use those copyrighted works in their reports, they are infringing - and good luck trying to make a fair use exemption fly if sued over it.

No, college is about making the college money. That's really all there is to it.

Electrons always flow from negative to positive, not vice-versa. That's basic electronics 101 stuff.

Yet it still can't detect the low-tech truck bomb or suicide bomber that is the biggest current threat.

Windows itself may not be compelling, but a few of the apps sure are to a whole lot of people.

I'm OS-agnostic, but certain apps (IE: Access) keep me locked-in to at least a Windows terminal server. Many mission-critical apps are not easily ported to other platforms.

Likewise, qmail is a compelling reason to run Linux.

OR for just $7999 they can go to my competing on-line only rehab service...

Maybe the empire is close to a galactic core and not in the arms where star density is low?