I think it was Gizze who said earlier, you can reduce the number of photos you take, yet increase the percentage of keepers, and in principle that's definitely true. I have owned a digital SLR for a few years, and I definitely have ambivalent feelings about it. On one hand it's great and - the other side of teh coin from Gizze's point here - I have lots of digital photos that would never have been taken if I was conserving film (or watching my RAW count). ANd I've had wildly mixed results, which means some good ones and loads of cr*ppy ones.
But a lot of people are 'getting into photography' now from the digital side and they get way, way too into the technology - the megapixel wars and frames-per-second one-upmanship and photography magazines with useless, stupid, misleading performance charts. Get on ebay, buy yourself a nice old film SLR, for very little outlay you can get a camera like, say, a Nikon F3which, 20 years or so ago, was too expensive for all but the richest amateurs. It will still function perfectly today, it's a design classic, and you will also be able to buy a range of cheap lenses for it which will blow away the plastic rubbish that gets bundled with digital SLR kits.
And it will outperform, resolution-wise, all but the most expensive digitals, not that that matters. Bung in a roll of proper quality slide film, Fuji Velvia is great for example, and you will get rich colours that you will struggle to replicate in Photoshop.
That's my 2 cents, just an opinion, no flames please. I enjoy aspects of both digital and film photography, I just get sad sometimes when people forget about the latter.