Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Surprised at Adorama!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0cfeb7007e0c100?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 11:31 pm
From: Paul Furman

tony cooper wrote:
> When on a trip to San Francisco, in a restaurant I sat three tables over from Robert Crumb. We did not speak, but I know he wanted to.

LOL

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:41 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-01-28 21:34:42 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:57:57 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-28 17:42:08 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:29:46 -0500, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:00:14 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Hey! I posted nice compliments first! What do *I* get? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> While it's a myth that he actually said it, Gen Nathan Bedford
>>>>> Forrest, a Confederate cavalry officer known for his quick strikes and
>>>>> successful forays, is quoted as saying "Git thar fustest with the
>>>>> mostest". I asked fust, so I should get the mostest.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong interpretation. If you follow Gen. Nathan Bedford's advice
>>>> you should ask fust and have the mostest questions. That won't
>>>> guarantee success but it'll git'cha a good chance t'win the mostest.
>>>
>>> If you ask too many questions, you may be saying what that great
>>> military genius of the Okefenokee swamp once said: "We have met the
>>> enemy and they is us".
>>
>> A Pogoist!!
>>
>> ...and in this NG we can also find the reincarnation of Simple J
>> Malarkey in our MOPAR pal.
>
> I can modestly (albeit, with false modesty) say that I have met
> several celebrities in my life. I once rode down six floors on an
> elevator in the Mayflower hotel in NYC with Al Capp.
>
> I also was given a personal tour of the Mad Magazine offices in NYC by
> Bill Gaines. It was arranged by an employee of mine who had gone to
> school with (cartoonist) Jack Davis at Georgia. I briefly met
> (cartoonist) Don Martin who autographed a book for me. When on a trip
> to San Francisco, in a restaurant I sat three tables over from Robert
> Crumb. We did not speak, but I know he wanted to.
>
> I also shook hands with a former (losing) Vice Presidential candidate
> in O'Hare Airport. I forget his name and wasn't even sure of it at
> the time.
>
> My wife, when on Psych affiliation at Cook County Hospital, met
> Liberace in a bar in Chicago. That was before I knew her. My
> celebrity meetings top hers and I often remind her of this.

...and where was Walt Kelly in all of this?
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 2:00 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:48:39 -0500, Sharp Dressed Man wrote:

> Went on their website to check an item I decided to buy and saw that
> their price was the same as another usually reliable online vendor I
> often buy from-- but Adorama was offering free shipping. So I put one in
> my cart and start to check out-- only to see shipping charges listed. I
> retried the order from the beginning and got the same result so I called
> them and explained the problem.
>
> I gave the guy the SKU number and he tells me-- no, that item doesn't
> have free shipping. No I said, I'm looking right at it and your web page
> says it's free. Well he says in his best New York way, maybe you're
> reading it wrong or maybe they just took free shipping off that item. No
> problem I say-- as long as you take the $6.95 shipping off my order.
>
> Then he says $6.95 wasn't all that much money and he wouldn't remove it
> and I said OK, if that's the way you do business now, goodbye. I hung up
> and did not complete the order.
>
> Is that just an uncooperative CSR-- or a new business model based on
> bait and switch? I've made many purchases from them and other than the
> occasional required "confirmation call" so they can try to sell me
> unwanted add-ons, I've never had any problems.

That is a very old business model - in the UK we call it FRAUD.

Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:01 am
From: measekite

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:31:11 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

> tony cooper wrote:
>> When on a trip to San Francisco, in a restaurant I sat three tables over from Robert Crumb. We did not speak, but I know he wanted to.
>
> LOL

Is he related to Bread Crumb?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Digital SLR recommendation please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/230b550afc71360b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:20 am
From: Bob Williams

measekite wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:00:53 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
>
>> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>>> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Most entry level DSLRs with Kit lenses cannot focus
>>>> close enough to fill the frame with objects smaller than 1.5 inches so
>>>> macro is not their strong suit.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> Also, most kit lenses do not have more
>>>> than about 5x zoom, so tele is not their strong suit either.
>>> A common misconception. The zoom factor (5x) has nothing to do with tele
>>> capabilities, e.g. the Nikkor 200-400mm has only a zoom factor of 2x,
>>> but it is certainly a long tele lens.
>>> With regards to kit lenses, well, they are "universal use" and that just
>>> doesn't include long tele capabilities.
>>>
>>> jue
>> But the 200-400mm Zoom is not the Kit lens that comes with an entry
>> level Nikon DSLR. Also you can forget about good Macro performance with
>> such a lens.
>
> Why?

Because the minimum focus distance is 6.2 FEET.
Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Got <140 bit DR Image?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00d043919be94bfd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:27 am
From: "Mr.T"

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:glqm9q02j0k@news4.newsguy.com...
> Then there's the "<". My old Coolpix 990 has considerably < 140 dB
> and why one would want a camera with < 140 bits is a mystery to me.

Gee even the best SLR's only do ~14 bits per channel, or 42 bits per pixel
atm.
But there still seem to be a lot of people who do want (or will happily
accept) "<140 bits DR".

MrT.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:39 am
From: "Mr.T"

"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24b72016-ea3c-4185-a79b-8a390c70e114@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> BTW the incorrect/ad-hoc transposition of "bits" and "DB" makes the OP
both
>> wrong and unreadable in any case!

>My dyslexic mind isn't what it used to be, so sue me. In spite of
>myself, you know exactly what I'd intended to convey.

Not so, or we wouldn't be arguing where you are technically wrong and/or
technically obtuse.

> The A/D bits of
>digital imaging was similar enough to the range of DR in db.

Not as an equivalent figure they are not, 1 bit =~6dB and therefore dB is
not the same as the number of stops either.

>Most
>scientific cameras are A/D limited as to creating 16 bit image data,
>although the 140 db worth of CMOS imager DR itself is simply pretty
>hard to ignore.

There are sample shifting techniques that can use 16 bit A/D's to provide 32
bit data, more than enough for 140dB sensors.

MrT.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:45 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:glqm9q02j0k@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Then there's the "<". My old Coolpix 990 has considerably < 140 dB
>> and why one would want a camera with < 140 bits is a mystery to me.
>
>Gee even the best SLR's only do ~14 bits per channel, or 42 bits per pixel
>atm.

That is *not* 14 bits per "channel", as there are no
channels. It's simply 14 bits per "pixel". (It isn't
really a pixel either, it's 14 bits per sensor
location.)

To actually capture a 140 dB dynamic range requires a
minimum of 23 bits per sensor data sample.

>But there still seem to be a lot of people who do want (or will happily
>accept) "<140 bits DR".

:-)

We don't want to hold our breath waiting for a 24 bit ADC?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 1:02 am
From: nospam

In article <877i4eo5z4.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> >Gee even the best SLR's only do ~14 bits per channel, or 42 bits per pixel
> >atm.
>
> That is *not* 14 bits per "channel", as there are no
> channels. It's simply 14 bits per "pixel". (It isn't
> really a pixel either, it's 14 bits per sensor
> location.)

i've seen it called sensel, for sensor element.

> We don't want to hold our breath waiting for a 24 bit ADC?

is 22 bit enough? :)
<http://www.pentax.jp/english/imaging/digital/slr/k10d/feature.html>

however, phil is a bit skeptical (as are many others):
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/>

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 1:04 am
From: "Mr.T"

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:877i4eo5z4.fld@apaflo.com...
> >Gee even the best SLR's only do ~14 bits per channel, or 42 bits per
pixel
> >atm.
>
> That is *not* 14 bits per "channel", as there are no
> channels. It's simply 14 bits per "pixel".

If it's just luminosity then it's often referred to as an "alpha channel",
and yes 14 bits per single channel pixel is..... 14 bits.

>(It isn't really a pixel either, it's 14 bits per sensor
> location.)

Can you explain this differentiation further, I'm not sure what you are
getting at, but have no experience with astronomical imaging. Doesn't a
sensor location map to a picture element location as with other cameras?

> >But there still seem to be a lot of people who do want (or will happily
> >accept) "<140 bits DR". :-)
>
> We don't want to hold our breath waiting for a 24 bit ADC?

Fortunately it's not necessary then.

MrT.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More questions from...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3688265b4e5b7bfa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:12 am
From: "J. Clarke"

ray wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:34:34 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:45:20 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:59:37 -0800, Mikie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I own a A470. The manual included is a minor waste of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can READ the PDF manual using Adobe Acrobat 9. Hassle!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can PRINT the PDF, but all186 pages is too expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there anyway I can convert it to a TEXT FILE so I can save
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> to my USB Drive??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever try CANON for technical Help...? LOL here means Lots OF
>>>>>> LUCK, not lots of laughs!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A million thanx!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikie
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure:
>>>>>
>>>>> pdftotext (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) to
>>>>> text
>>>>> converter (version 3.00)
>>>>
>>>> Try it on a Canon manual, see what happens. The Windows text
>>>> print
>>>> driver does more or less the same. The Windows Office Document
>>>> Image Writer (included with the most recent versions of MS
>>>> Office)
>>>> will print the manual to black and white TIFF with "Copy"
>>>> watermarked on each page--Photoshop can then make JPGs ouf ot the
>>>> TIFFs.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Did that. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.
>>
>> What did you do that worked fine, absolutely no sweat?
>>
>> --
>
> I did:
>
> pdftotext manualname.pdf output.txt
>
> worked fine - absolutely no sweat - just as you suggested "Try it on
> a
> Canon manual, see what happens." I downloaded a canon manual and did
> so. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.

Which manual? With the 30D and A470 manuals the result is "Error:
Copying of text from this document is not allowed.".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Science Disproves Evolution
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/768b954b24fa4c9a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:25 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>> actually bad science.
>
> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
> because
> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>
>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.

Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law regarding
an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the Federal
government would not interfere with the state religions in Connecticut
and several other states.

The founders would have been fine with, say, Utah establishing
Mormonism as a state religion. It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme
Court decided to interpret that wording as a limitation on the powers
of state and local government. I suspect that if the authors of the
Fourteenth Amendment had been able to anticipate the manner in which
it would be interpreted by the Supreme Court they would have worded it
differently.

> Can't argue with that.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 2:10 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:23:56 +0000, measekite wrote:

> And the devil wears Pravda

That would be hazardous for him - newspaper is very inflammable.

Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 2:58 am
From: measekite

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:52:01 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:

> Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>actually bad science.

There are actually two kinds of religion. The first is actual belief.
There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is not extreme and the
belief is something close to rational.

The second is organized religion. That usually is corrupt by power and
money hungry evil doers and has historically been responsible for most of
the killing and thieving in the world.

>
> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion, because
> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>
>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>>particular religious viewpoint into the American public school system,
>>in violation of the American Constitution.
>
> Can't argue with that.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon's Quarterly Profit Down 81.5% Due To The Failure Of The 5D Mk II
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7be2935c480fe6fd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:41 am
From: "Mr.T"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pc2dnUggnIgSQR3UnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Surprised the Japanese don't do what the Chinese have done for the last 20
> years. Artificially devalue their currency.

Probably because they have gotten used to a higher standard of living than
most Chinese.

MrT.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe gone crazy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:43 am
From: Ron Hunter

nospam wrote:
> In article <wMadnd7J4rYKmhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Any you can't 'just get' a Windows virus, either. Something has to be
>> downloaded (loaded), and RUN.
>
> yet that happens automatically to a *lot* of people.
Since a computer is pretty much useless unless you have data to input,
and programs to run, this represents a problem. Any user who runs
programs without really knowing what they are, and what they do, or
allows a website to install something on their computer, runs a risk of
loading malware. There is no better AV or firewall than an educated,
and experienced, and skeptical user.

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 12:45 am
From: Ron Hunter

nospam wrote:
> In article <wMadnd_J4raimhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The real difference is that there are about 2 million KNOWN virus
>>>> infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to damage a
>>>> Mac. However, I disagree with your assessment of software firewalls,
>>>> completely. Yes, some are much better than others, but there are some
>>>> good ones, even free versions of them.
>>> Ah, uh, Ron, please name the viruses in the wild that have been "shown"
>>> to damage a Mac. Leaving out hypotheticals.
>>>
>> Are you going to maintain that there are NO such viruses?
>
> none that propagate on their own in the wild. there's a few proof of
> concepts but they're actually fairly crude.
>
>> The funny
>> thing is that ANY computer can host malware. It doesn't HAVE to be
>> self-perpetuating in order to cause you great damage. The malware
>> writer only has to somehow get the user to load, and run, the software.
>
> that can happen with anything and it doesn't even need to be a personal
> computer. people get tricked into giving out their banking information
> to phone solicitors or they fall for various scams all the time. not
> much you can do about that.
>
>> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a very
>> small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
>
> no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
> propagates on its own.

Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible WILL
be done, sooner or later. The key is the user, and getting him/her to
install the program in the first place. Should someone ever get a
self-propagating virus working on a Mac, and put it on the internet, the
effect will be devastating.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 1:04 am
From: nospam

In article <rNSdnS5ApuiH8RzUnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Since a computer is pretty much useless unless you have data to input,
> and programs to run, this represents a problem. Any user who runs
> programs without really knowing what they are, and what they do, or
> allows a website to install something on their computer, runs a risk of
> loading malware. There is no better AV or firewall than an educated,
> and experienced, and skeptical user.

agreed, but unfortunately, there are very few such people.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 1:05 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-01-28 18:25:38 -0800, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> said:

> nospam wrote:
>> In article <wMadnd_J4raimhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron
>> Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The real difference is that there are about 2 million KNOWN virus
>>>>> infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to
>>>>> damage a Mac. However, I disagree with your assessment of
>>>>> software firewalls, completely. Yes, some are much better than
>>>>> others, but there are some good ones, even free versions of them.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, uh, Ron, please name the viruses in the wild that have been
>>>> "shown" to damage a Mac. Leaving out hypotheticals.
>>>>
>>> Are you going to maintain that there are NO such viruses?
>>
>> none that propagate on their own in the wild. there's a few proof
>> of
>> concepts but they're actually fairly crude.
>>
>>> The funny
>>> thing is that ANY computer can host malware. It doesn't HAVE to be
>>> self-perpetuating in order to cause you great damage. The malware
>>> writer only has to somehow get the user to load, and run, the
>>> software.
>>
>> that can happen with anything and it doesn't even need to be a
>> personal computer. people get tricked into giving out their banking
>> information to phone solicitors or they fall for various scams all
>> the time. not much you can do about that.
>>
>>> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a
>>> very small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
>>
>> no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
>> propagates on its own.
>
> Believe what you want to. Your real defense is that nobody but
> MacNerds really give a damn about Macs. Boring little machines for
> boring little people who have nothing more interesting to do in their
> lives than brag about their computers.
>
> --

For the most part the last real "viri" to actually infect a Mac was
back with OS 7.x. The current FUD for Macs over the last few years
running OS X have been "proof of concept" Trojan horses which exploited
vulnerabilities in QuickTime and were never distributed. These had to
be actively run to perform the damage they were designed to do, and
were never true viruses.
Apple has provided fixes for these "holes" promptly. The real concern
with Intel Macs in particular, is the possibility of being an unwitting
e-mail vector infecting the PC users they contact when PC e-mail bombs
are circulated.
So for the most part virus protection SW for Macs is there to provide
protection for PCs they communicate with.
One might say an act of civic responsibility. :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 1:06 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-01-29 00:43:03 -0800, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> said:

> nospam wrote:
>> In article <wMadnd7J4rYKmhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Any you can't 'just get' a Windows virus, either. Something has to be
>>> downloaded (loaded), and RUN.
>>
>> yet that happens automatically to a *lot* of people.
> Since a computer is pretty much useless unless you have data to input,
> and programs to run, this represents a problem. Any user who runs
> programs without really knowing what they are, and what they do, or
> allows a website to install something on their computer, runs a risk of
> loading malware. There is no better AV or firewall than an educated,
> and experienced, and skeptical user.

Agreed.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 1:10 am
From: nospam

In article <rNSdnSlApuhd8RzUnZ2dnUVZ_ggAAAAA@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> >> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a very
> >> small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
> >
> > no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
> > propagates on its own.
>
> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible WILL
> be done, sooner or later.

and despite all that hacker expertise, os x has been out for 8 years
(and unix for *much* longer) and there's still nothing more than a few
lame attempts. where are these so called expert hackers? the first
one to successfully do it will gain instant fame among his hacker
peers.

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 1:23 am
From: nospam

In article <2009012901054297157-savageduck@savagenet>, Savageduck
<savageduck@savage.net> wrote:

> The real concern with Intel Macs in particular,

that makes no difference. an intel mac running os x is as safe as a
powerpc mac running os x. the vulnerability is not the cpu, but the
operating system.

> is the possibility of being an unwitting
> e-mail vector infecting the PC users they contact when PC e-mail bombs
> are circulated.

only if they run windows, and that will basically only affect their
windows installation.

> So for the most part virus protection SW for Macs is there to provide
> protection for PCs they communicate with.
> One might say an act of civic responsibility. :-)

yep. and that 'protection' can also cause problems. one anti-virus
utility on the mac had a root exploit, so users were actually *more* at
risk with it installed.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 2:13 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:48:32 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> The real difference is that there are about 2 million KNOWN virus
> infections out there, and only a few that have been shown to damage a
> Mac. However, I disagree with your assessment of software firewalls,
> completely. Yes, some are much better than others, but there are some
> good ones, even free versions of them.

For anyone using linux the firewall is basically built in - just needs a
script to select and run.

Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:06 am
From: blackmanblues@gmail.com

On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
> This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
> does work!!
>
> First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
>
> Important Note: You must block APCS4 with your firewall. If you don't
> it will reject your serial number eventually!!
>
> 1- Add the following line (using Notepad) to your hosts file located:
>
> C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts:
>
> 127.0.0.1 activate.adobe.com
>
> 2- Install and select Custom Install
> Uncheck everything but Adobe Photoshop , Adobe Bridge, Supporting
> Components
>
> 3- When asked use one of the serial numbers
>
> 1330-1102-4806-6896-7634-8166
> 1330-1600-9280-5954-9369-6546
> 1330-1847-4625-1871-2226-7170
> 1330-1233-6855-8945-0814-9160
> 1330-1901-9047-6665-4747-9720
> 1330-1299-7283-4574-0858-5347
> 1330-1682-3373-1316-1759-5651
> 1330-1101-2956-8934-9272-9358
> 1330-1799-0460-5679-1715-2487
> 1330-1219-1782-2141-2280-8785
> 1330-1376-0491-4472-8497-0497
> 1330-1164-2070-1179-2673-9998
>
> Note: If you experience a rejected serial number try this test: unplug
> router from the net and put in a new serial. Use Photoshop. It will be
> fine now. This test means that you did not block APCS4 with your
> firewall as instructed!
>
> Now with the money you just saved go buy a new lens!!
>
> If Adobe used better protection you would not see this post!
>
> Note:
> all you ubber honest guys should not read this post let alone try it!
>
> This is just information I do not advocte that you actually do this. I
> recommend that you take the $700 out of your meagre paycheck and buy
> the program. (Muahahahahahaha!)
>
> Robin Hood

Well I'll be damned--it actually works!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Your camera takes really nice pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c1f1ab7c703e40b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:12 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:09:16 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2009-01-28 05:43:33 -0800, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>
>>
>> }"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>> news:be2aebfd-9326-4533-8a89-f045aee6a86e@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 24, 12:24 am, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>>
>>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Waddling Eagle
>>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>>
>> }Isn't this really the same question as poised in the cartoon. Is it
>> }the camera that produces good pictures or the photographer? Will a
>> }sh*tty photographer with a good camera out-perform a good photographer
>> }with a sh*tty camera?
>
>You know, I have seen some good photographers take some very nice
>pictures with cell phones. But a bad photographer will actually do
>worse if given a good camera.
>
>>
>> another good question is if there's a "good picture" in the offering
>> and there's no photographer to record it then does the "good picture" exist
>> ;-)
>
>I am of the opinion that there are an infinite number of good pictures
>out there. They just haven't been taken yet.

I would refine that a bit to say that there are no pictures to be
taken anywhere. Good pictures are created from visual chaos, not
stolen.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:17 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
> No, that's another lie. The Palestinians have already accepted
> Israel's right to exist. Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian
> state.

Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel, so how do you
figure that this type of xenophobia constitutes an acceptance of
Israel's right to exist? You need a major course in remedial reading
comprehension and world history, my friend.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en