Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 10:29 pm
From: "D-Mac"

Mr.T wrote:

>
> "D-Mac" <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote in message
> news:gma5p0$d7b$1@d-mac.motzarella.org...
> > SO I'll give you a different angle on RAW.
> > Compressed JEGs from nearly every camera have artifacts in them.
> > Olympus stand out as one of the few makers who allow uncompressed
> > JPEGs to be saved (at least in an E300) but they are unusual.
>
> So far no problem, shoot RAW. Even the Olympus loses dynamic range
> when storing to Jpeg.
>
> > All those P&S shooters who take halfway decent shots are crippled in
> > the image quality area. This is probably their major motivation to
> > "step up" to a DSLR, not beter photographic capabilities.
>
> Many of the better P&S have Raw capture. Many that don't would not
> benefit anyway.
>
> > Epson probably figure giving RAW printing capabilities will allow
> > those of us who do their photography with a camera and not
> > photoshop, to print the results without the need for a "workflow".
>
> Or like most manufacturers, think that providing a lot of useless
> software is what many people expect.
> I'm willing to bet Irfanview can do for nothing, with any printer,
> whatever the Epson software does. However I don't have an Epson so am
> willing to stand corrected.
>
> > For me it is excellent. I can shoot RAW at an event and sell prints
> > on the spot whilst still retaining high quality digital negatives
> > for when the opportunity to sell a poster comes along.
>
> Given the limitations of the printer, and the fact you are not
> correcting anything between Raw capture and print out, I'm puzzled
> what you actually gain by using Raw capture rather than Jpeg. If I
> was doing what you are, I'd probably shoot Raw+Jpeg, use the Jpegs
> for on the spot printing, and keep the Raw files for later editing.
> Or as I said, maybe use Irfanview to print the Raw pics if necessary,
> since I have a Canon printer, not Epson.
> But if your workflow suits you, well and good. I just can't see why
> you argue it being anything special?
>
> MrT.

I never said it was anything special. I did say "for me"... That means
it might not suit you which seemingly it doesn't . I just put a
different slant on the whole issue of RAW.

I shoot RAW and print little postcards from the files because later, as
I construct an album, I may need to use those files and want the
quality I can derive from a RAW file.

My cameras store a mere 40 RAW images per gigabyte of storage. Adding a
JPEG file to the system will slow down the saving process and reduce
the number of images I can store per card.

--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
4/02/2009 4:23:04 PM

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 1:41 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

"D-Mac" <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> "D-Mac" <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:
>> > RAW files don't have artifiact. They are for the most part just
>> > TIFF files but if you want a high quality image without artifacts,
>> > RAW is the only means of getting it for most people.
>>
>> Raw sensor data is virtually always saved in a file that
>> uses the TIFF file format, but do not mistake that
>> with a TIFF image format.
>
>I really don't know how you can get it wrong so often and keep
>expecting us to believe you Floyd.

You probably believe what you wrote too... Nobody else
does.

>A RAW file consists of a TIFF image.

Why would DCRAW have an option to output a TIFF image if
the RAW file were already a TIFF image? DCRAW by
default outputs a PPM image, and the -T option changes
it to TIFF format.

Here is a short article titled "RAW, JPEG and TIFF"
which explains it for you:

http://photo.net/learn/raw/

Even Wikipedia gets it approximately right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_image_format

>Along with that tiff image is the
>patented information the camera maker uses to describe how the image
>should be de-mosiaced from that data.

There is no such thing as "patented information"
regarding RAW files, much less is there any such
information in a RAW file. There is no information in
an NEF or CRW file describing how the image should be
de-mosiaced.

And if the image much be de-mosiaced, how can it be a
TIFF image??? The TIFF image format does not support
mosiaced images.

Here is the specification for TIFF images, see if you
can determine how Nikon can use it to store 12 bit or 14
bit data!

http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/tiff/TIFF6.pdf

In fact various raw formats virtually all use TIFF style
file headers, but none of them use the data formats
defined for a TIFF image.

>You do know what demosiac is
>don't you Floyd?

Go to Wikipedia or Google and do a search on "Bayer
interpolation" if you need a tutorial, because I sure
don't want to explain it to you.

>The file is basically a TIFF file.
>The image is in a TIFF container. How much of this do you want us to
>"not mistake" for a TIFF file?.

RAW files use TIFF style headers, but are *NOT* a "TIFF
image". TIFF is a standardized image format originally
intended scanner images, so that each and every
manufacturer would not have a different proprietary
image format. You may have noticed that DSLR raw data
files are all different, and proprietary! (It might be
argued that DNG files from Pentax are not, but...)

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 1:45 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <87ljsn9iyx.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> It is possible to interactively look at 500 different
>> images, individually reconfigure for each of them and
>> save that configuration, move to the next image and do
>> the same. The most time consuming part of that would
>> usually be the time spent waiting for the image file to
>> be saved before the next images is ready to configure.
>> Instead, only the configuration file is saved.
>
>that's exactly how lightroom works - it saves only the configuration.
>there is no time used to write out the image.

Not exactly unique, eh?

>> And once
>> there are *500* configuration files, the entire set of
>> raw files can be processed with one command, like this:
>>
>> ufraw-batch *.ufraw
>
>or a couple of clicks, as i explained before.

Actually, what you explained before was not precisely
the same thing, though it probably can be done. But the
point was that claiming Lightroom is unique is not valid.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack <-- Ray thake this elsewhere. This is a photo
group and you are off topic!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/75383ce6b288a1df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 12:18 am
From: Jim

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:44 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 04 Feb 2009 04:59:12 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>I have pointed out biased statements where they exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a lie. You have made wild accusations of bias INSTEAD of
>>>>>>pointing out actual, certifiable bias.
>>>>>
>>>>> He maintains that Israel has no right to exist. That is actual,
>>>>> certifiable bias. Where have you been?
>>>>
>>>>This is the essential part of the entire debate - namely that for
>>>>reasons really hard to fathom, much of the world and certainly almost
>>>>ALL of the Arab/Muslim countries and regions hate Israel so much as
>>>
>>>Neonazi bigotry and propaganda.
>>
>>How do you deny something that is so easily and openly verifiable?
>
>Then why don't you verify it, sleazebag? Instead of spewing your
>usual bigotry, let's see you provide some actual facts.

The bigot asks for facts while using his request as a platform to spew
bigoted opinions and false accusation. You've already demonstrated
that you have little regard for any facts that don't fit your bigoted
opinions.

The facts, open for all to see without even looking hard, are that
only two Arab nations recognize Israel as a nation. Interestingly,
those are the two countries who lost the most land to Israel in the
1967 Middle East war. The rest of them refer to Israel as a "Jewish
Entity," "Zionist Entity," or a "Terrorist Entity" while refusing to
acknowledge their right to exist.

But here is just one example for you:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/25/mideast.html

To quote from that news report:

"The proposal, originally presented in 2002 and rejected by the Jewish
state, extends an offer from all Arab countries to recognize Israel in
exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from land captured in the 1967
Middle East War.

"This serious offer constitutes a major opportunity of historical
levels," Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Ilah Khatib said. "It will
provide Israel with the security, recognition and acceptance in this
region which Israel has long aspired to."

Currently, Egypt and Jordan are the only two nations in the league
that recognize Israel. The Arab body refused to recognize Israel after
the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 and suspended Egypt in 1979
for a decade when it became the first Arab state to make peace."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3589f9dbd5f68fe9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 1:58 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 03 Feb 2009 19:16:48 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>>
>>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>>
>>All good conservative values.
>
>Liar.

You're the liar, Ray.

And the sleazy text clipper who hides his lies.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:52 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> Have you ever noticed how it is the conservatives who tend to
> give more to charities than the liberals do? The liberals love
> to give away *other people's money,* but they are QUITE tight
> with their own. Just look at the tax records of Joe Biden and
> Obama and see how little either of them gave of their own
> income.

This was fully exposed by Fox News. Rather than view Fox as a right
wing conspiracy, if people would only WATCH it and decide for
themselves, they MIGHT be better informed. But, you are Spot On
that our most (in)famous Democrats have truly dismal charitible
giving records in light of the millions they earn.

> And just look at all the nominees in Obama's new administration
> who are being busted for dodging their taxes? There is where
> the true hypocrisy is. The typical bigoted and biased "do as I
> say, not as I do" liberal left.
>
I think it is downright humorous for "change we can believe in"
with it's special questionaire and ultra-high bar for rooting out
corruption would get hoisted on it's own petard so quickly. Too bad
that Tim Geithner didn't also drop out.

Now, does anyone really believe that the president didn't know
about these tax indescretions WAY in advance? Come on! I think what
happened is that the Obama transition team, and likely the
president-elect as well, thought they could simply slip the ex-
lobbyists and tax dodgers past the American people, but it didn't
work.

--
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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632cc84438e1b7bf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:04 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 03 Feb 2009 19:17:45 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 03 Feb 2009 04:18:16 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 01 Feb 2009 22:53:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 01 Feb 2009 02:56:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 31 Jan 2009 20:52:04 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 30 Jan 2009 06:06:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:58:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't understand subtle meanings, so you shout "lies!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I understand how evil sleazebags try to claim that black is white,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>freedom is death, and outright lies are really just "subtle meanings".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have little understanding of the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I understand that you're a shameless liar. Proof is provided above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not proof at all, Ray.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Here it is again, liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again you ignore what I've said about that in your childish attempt at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"gotcha."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you say that the West Bank is part of Israel? Yes or no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The answer is both, dummy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>When somebody makes two statements that are mutually contradictory and
>>>>>>>>>claims that both of them are true, that people is insane or a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ray, did you know that water is a liquid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Invalid analogy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a perfectly valid analogy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>Again, clipping it away does not make it invalid.
>>>
>>>Again, you're dishonest whining doesn't make it valid. Chemistry is
>>>not logic. Water is chemistry and your statements are logically
>>>contradictory. And since your statements contain at least two lies
>>>you are still a liar.
>>
>>Your inability to put two and two together
>
>On the contrary. I have indeed long since figured out that you're a
>childish, lying rightard. And some of the proof is still above.

One of the characteristics of a dishonest self-righteous bigot like
yourself is that they actually believe that what they've figured out
for themselves actually has value.

"Some" of the proof? There's no evidence of what you say, let alone
proof.

Keep on beating that dead horse, Ray. Let me also remind you that you
lied about the Likud Party, just like you lied about Israel's latest
military action being in the West Bank.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now he went and did it....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/65ca924332e76a06?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:13 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:45:19 -0600, Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I feared this. Bringing high-end audio into a discussion about cameras.
>This opens up the flood gates for every scientifically-illiterate kook
>imaginable. Are we going to see "Shakti Stones" sitting on top of
>platforms mounted on hotshoes now? Or argue about the merits of using 6-
>nines copper in USB cables used for image file transfers? Or lament the
>lack of good quality polystyrene capacitors in the electronics of DSLRs??
>Just because some can't properly quantify what they are seeing is no reason
>to bring voodoo into photographic equipment realm.
>There is no subjectivity concerning image quality. Resolution, sharpness,
>colour rendition, noise control, tonality, dynamic range and control of
>aberrations, that is it.
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml

Actually, that article has merit, and isn't all about voodoo. The
basic premise is valid. Anyone who has shopped for or owned hi
fidelity audio gear learns very quickly that the technical
specifications of amps and speakers often have very little bearing on
how good they sound when playing actual music.

Photography involves both science and art. Concentrating on only the
science all too often results in technically perfect pictures that are
sterile and lacking in meaning.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 8-Way Processing With Intel's New Superchip!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e50dafd5821524d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:34 am
From: "D-Mac"

DRS wrote:

> "D-Mac" <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote in message
> news:gma86r$eg6$1@d-mac.motzarella.org
>
> [...]
>
> > In Australia ...AMD CPU's have a long history of overheating and
> > dying from it. Intel have no such history.
>
> Utter bollocks. You have it completely the wrong way around. Until
> Intel released the Core Duos it was their CPUs that ran ridiculously
> hot while AMD's ran significantly cooler (a major reason
> over-clockers like myself preferred them).

What? Just because if you overclocked an Intel it would pop but the AMD
was underclocked in the first place so it gave you a false sense of
having achieved something when it "overclocked" and didn't pop, you
think AMD chips are terrific?

You're to one spouting unstainable 'bollocks' mate. Intel's warranty
claim rate on Pentium and Pentium 4 CPUs is under 2%. AMD's warranty
rate is over 12%. Argure all you like about the merits of your choice
but you can't buck the truth.

--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
4/02/2009 8:30:36 PM

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:54 am
From: "D-Mac"

Alan Browne wrote:

> Douglas Johnson wrote:
> > Meet mine. I haven't had an Intel chip in a desktop since 1997.
> > All 8 AMD systems worked flawlessly. Four are still running. My
> > current desktop just passed the three year mark.
>
> I've had two AMD machines (incl. current WinXP box - nearly 4 years
> old [dual core 2.2 GHz, more that I need on it]).
>
> Other machine (pre GHz days) ran like the wind for 4 years with no
> issues. Eventually replaced that board with an intel based 2 GHz
> board.
>
> My iMac is Intel of course, and 2.8 GHz dual core. The difference in
> processing in CS3 or scanning ICE over firewire bwrween either
> machine is,in practical terms, negligible despite the clock delta.
>
> People who beat up on AMD are just brand junkies. A marketing
> strategists dream. Give them kool-aid and they will come again and
> again.

Living in a frozen countrty like Canada, you'd never discover the
stresses of using a PC in 42C daily heat. AMD's could never handle
simply can't handle it now, Intel's can. Nothing "brand junkie" about
reality. Siemans CPUs couldn't handle it either... Nor could that God
awful Canadian excuse for a CPU. Thankfully gone from the scene now.

As far back as when AMD bought the next-gen chip technology and set
about calling it it's own, AMD CPUs have always been incapable of
handling operation in hot and rugged environments.

It was so bad with their answer to Pentiums, they started selling the
chips sans coolers and posted a recommendation for the ideal cooler for
their chips. They made having used one a requirement prior to accepting
the dead ones back for warranty replacement.

The situation was so bad in 1999, one of the Australian official agents
started legal proceedings against AMD when they refused warranty on
hundreds of dead from overheating chips...

AMD claiming they only died this way if they were overclocked when in
fact none were overclocked, they had all melted the plastic used to
retain the (recommended) cooling fans which had fallen off and caused
the chips to overheat and pop!

When I reported on this issue in Queensland Computer trade news, the
alternative AMD agent threatened to sue the magazine and when the
publisher told them to go ahead, all of a sudden the first distributor
had the dud chips replaced. Coincidence?

Perhaps but I have a long history of association with AMD and the
failure of their cpus. Don't try to tell me I don't know what I spent
many years working with and I won't try to tell you about how to fly.

--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
4/02/2009 8:35:16 PM

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/609bc34fba44e89d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:06 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 04 Feb 2009 05:04:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 03 Feb 2009 19:12:16 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>Again you justify the evil actions of one side by pointing fingers at
>>>>>>>>the other side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which is exactly what you have done again and again and again.
>>>>>>>You justifying killing hundreds of innocent people by claiming
>>>>>>>that Israel was justified because a few people fired rockets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Define "few people."
>>>>>
>>>>>Notice that everything that follows is YOU "pointing fingers at
>>>>>the other side" in order to justify the "evil actions" of Israel.
>>>>
>>>>Notice that you refuse to respond to a simple request but instead
>>>
>>>And again you're pointing the fnger at me for highlighting your
>>>hypocrisy.
>>
>>What a stupid and bigoted statement, Ray.
>
>LOL! What a pathetic little troll you are.

Says the pathetic little troll who constantly dodges and evades
questions.

>
>>>>>>Those "few people" aren't just some crackpots setting off fireworks.
>>>>>>They are working for the elected government of Gaza and firing those
>>>>>>rockets under their direction, dunderhead.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or they're some extremist faction that is taking advantage of
>>>>>Israeli-imposed anarchy in order to vent at their oppressors.
>>>>
>>>>Hamas controls those rockets.
>>>
>>>According to you, but you're a bigoted liar.
>>
>>Says the bigoted liar.
>
>Oooo! The usual 4th-grade retort!

Which is several steps up from your usual kindergarten level retorts
and potty language.

>
>>>>>>Those "few people" have fired thousands of rockets for the sole
>>>>>>purpose of killing and maiming Israeli civilians.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you know their purpose because you've been a member of their
>>>>>organizations?
>>>>
>>>>Obviously for you to ask such a question, you must think you already
>>>
>>>Why are you dodging the question?
>>
>>Quite a bold question to come from a question dodger like yourself.
>
> "I know you are but what am I?"

You're still dodging questions, bigot.

>
>>Of course I'm not a member of that organization, it's a stupid
>>question.
>
>Then your claim is complete garbage. The usual hate and bigotry.

And in your usual hate and bigotry, you ignore questions and make
false accusations that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. How
would you know? Are you a member of the IDF?

What a transparent and sleazy liar you are.

>>>>OBTW, it was just reported on the news this morning that your militant
>>>>friends have yet again broken the cease-fire by launching a
>>>>longer-range rocket into Israel.
>>>
>>>What "cease fire", you lying asshole? Israel hasn't stopping killing
>>>people.
>>
>>You are truly ignorant in addition to being a rectally-obsessed bigot.
>
>I see that you don't even try to prove me wrong.

Interesting words from a sleazy lying bigot who constantly clips away
text and then claims it doesn't exist.

Here, again:

Even rival Palestinian terrorist group Fatah condemns Hamas for their
use of civilians:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramallah – Ma'an – A senior leader within Fatah slammed what he called
"Hamas crimes against patriotic people" in the Gaza Strip Monday.

The comments come after a string of reports of human rights violations
committed by Palestinians against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip
during the Israeli war on Gaza.

The Undersecretary of the caretaker government's Ministry of Prisoners
Affairs Ziyad Abu Ein spoke out against the rights violations and
accused Hamas of "terrorism," and said they were preventing media
outlets in Gaza report on their crimes.

"Our people badly need a free press capable of protecting the truth,"
he said, noting that the truth was all that could counter the
"terrorist procedures against patriotic Palestinians."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>>>>>>Those "few people" are supported by a well-organized supply line that
>>>>>>smuggles weapons and supplies through underground tunnels and stores
>>>>>>them in civilian areas.
>>>>>
>>>>>All of Gaza is "civilian areas".
>>>>
>>>>Then all of those civilian areas which are used for military purposes
>>>>are legitimate military targets.
>>>
>>>The neonazi justifies killing hundreds of inncoent people.
>>
>>Just as the self-righteous bigoted Ray does exactly the same.
>
>Which is a stupid lie for a number of reasons, not ther least of which
>is the fact that there haven't been hundreds of Israelis killed.
>Only Israel has killed people by the hundreds and thousands.

You think that numbers justify your open hatred and bigotry.

But in fact, 1,117 people have been killed by Palestinian terrorist
attacks since 2000, both in Israel and abroad. The number of
wounded is 8,341. Many of these have been IDF personnel, but the
majority has been civilians.

Where is your outrage at all these deaths, Ray? Here is a list of
names:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm

But to you those people deserved to die because they were targets of
your terrorist friends who are mererly "fighting back against Israeli
oppression."

Patiently awaiting your reply where you either dismiss the evidence as
"lies" or again clip it away so you don't have to deal with it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can you see this Flash site?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/445c408900fc3a17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:09 am
From: Bigguy

Focus wrote:
> A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing happened.
> It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it.
> Can you tell me what happens and what web program you use?
> Thanks:
>
> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/
>
>
>
Can't see it - don't want Flash or Shockwave on my PC thanks... they can
both run malicious scripting.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:58 am
From: Noons

Troy Piggins wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2009 10:36 AM:
> * tnom@mucks.net wrote :
>> * D-Mac wrote:
>>> * Focus wrote:
>>>
>>>> A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing
>>>> happened. It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it. Can you tell me
>>>> what happens and what web program you use? Thanks:
>>>>
>>>> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/
>>> Not without shockwave and I ain't installing it!
>> What is the difference between the Adobe Flash player and the
>> Adobe Shockwave Flash player?
>
> Shockwave is slower and more complex, used for online games etc.
> See how the link above looks like 3D game graphics?
>
> Flash is faster to load and simpler, more for 2D type stuff.
>
> And both of them are horribly slow and bloated for loading and
> viewing web galleries. The example posted above might be mildly
> clever in concept, but the novelty wears off because it takes so
> long to load, and in the end the thumbnails are too small and
> slow to get to for any real appreciation. Kudos for the original
> idea, though.
>

You know what really gets me?
All these IT expert folks who run heaps of AV stuff in their computers,
supposedly in an informed manner, so that their systems are free from malware,
and who promptly click on a link that installs unknown plugins on a site never
seen before, AND they merrily do it!

Like HECK, I'll ever click a link from an unknown site saying: "click here to
install <whatever>"!
Sure, it's gonna happen.
Dream on...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pinging Stephen Bishop: Photography questions for you, ON-topic for a
change
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7f04a0b3ecd2b9b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:33 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:52:15 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn>
wrote:

>Good morning again, Stephen.
>
>Say, in all of the political crap we've engaged in I've lost track
>of what you said your current digital camera was. Maybe you never
>did and we just started talking in the Palestinian attack thread,
>can't really remember.

Yes, it is very refreshing to actually talk about photography instead
of constantly trying to swat down the insults of the loons at the
extreme ends of the political spectrum.

>I've got a Canon Rebel XSi which I really love. I previously used a
>Rebel XT but decided to upgrade to the XSi even though it was only
>an incremental change because it has a much larger LCD on the back,
>finally adopted a noise reduction feature, and I could learn to
>quickly use it because the ergonomics are almost identical.

I use Nikon gear, having switched over from Canon when the D200 was
introduced. I recently got a D300, but haven't had much opportunity
to use it. Prior to digital I used Canon 35mm cameras along with a
Pentax 6x7. I still have all of that, but don't shoot film any more.

However, I am in the process of scanning my archive of film, mostly
b&w negatives. It's interesting going into that time machine!

>My primary photographic interest is cars. I particularly enjoy the
>major Mopar outdoor shows in my area, as well as the annual
>Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise. And, we've got two great museums near
>me for cars, the Walter P. Chrysler Museum and the Henry Ford
>Museum.

I mostly do landscape / nature / outdoor kind of stuff. I also like
to do airshows and other aviation-related pictures.

>
>If you're at all familiar with what is properly called The Henry
>Ford, it is comprised of a really large museum with cars, trains,
>steam engines, farm implements, guns, furniture, electrical
>devices, airplanes, and a wide variety of general exhibits. I enjoy
>all that stuff.
>
>I've summarized my work background in the past but in case you
>missed it, I worked my entire 33 year career at Chrysler, beginning
>in 1969 as an entry level engineer, branching out into CAD and
>utility programming, then later when I went over to the Dark Side
>of management, I was responsible for all CAD and PC support for
>Chrysler Engineering. I retired in 2002 which gives me plenty of
>time to explore not only my photographic interests but the time to
>watch lots of cable news and Google to stay on top of current
>events and the political climate.

I'm looking forward to retirement myself, but that won't be for
another decade unless the economy forces me otherwise.

I've been to the Chrysler corporate headquarters, the palace as I call
it... and several other Chrysler plants in the course of my work.
(I'm in the steel industry.) I was at KPT in Kokomo in December...
that place is almost a ghost town now.

>I've lived in SE Michigan all my life, currently in a NNW suburb of
>Detroit. If you feel comfortable with it, I'd like to at least know
>what region of our great country you hail from so I can have a
>greater appreciation of your background and how you may have
>developed your views.

Ohio here, so we're almost neighbors.

>Just one bit of politics in what I intended to be a fully ON-topic
>post for a change: I describe myself as right of center but I DO
>take ideas and platform planks from the left of center as well. As
>I've said, all meaningful valuable social legislation has pretty
>much occurred during Democratic eras while building up the
>military, altering tax policy for the better, and adhering to
>traditional family values usually occurs only during Republican
>times. If I had my druthers, I'd like to be able to select items
>from each party's platforms, I think we'd be a better country if we
>could more directly influence our elected officials true agendas.
>For example, my bent toward such things as pro-life runs in
>conflict with conservative/Republican ideas on the believed right
>of gun ownership. Likewise, good ideas like stem cell reseach paid
>for by the government is somehow opposed by the Republicans.

There is nothing wrong with a healthy mix of political opinions. We
might disagree a bit on stem cells, especially since some of the more
promising research is coming from adult stem cells, making it less
necessary to deal with the ethical dilemma of destroying one human
life in order to make life better for another one.

>
>Enough of that, let's get back to photography and see what
>interesting things we can learn from each other about that.
>
>And, have a great Tuesday!

Thank you!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:56 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Say, in all of the political crap we've engaged in I've lost
>>track of what you said your current digital camera was. Maybe
>>you never did and we just started talking in the Palestinian
>>attack thread, can't really remember.
>
> Yes, it is very refreshing to actually talk about photography
> instead of constantly trying to swat down the insults of the
> loons at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
>
I haven't bugged you about it because you said it amuses you to
debate with these twits. Personally, I find it best not to try to
reason with fools but each of us must do what they think best.
About the only time I tend to get involved in these codswallop
debates with obvious mordant misanthropes is to correct major
falsehoods masquerading as truth. I think this is why you've been
swatting down all the obvious bilge aimed at both the Israelis and
you personally.
>
>>I've got a Canon Rebel XSi which I really love. I previously
>>used a Rebel XT but decided to upgrade to the XSi even though it
>>was only an incremental change because it has a much larger LCD
>>on the back, finally adopted a noise reduction feature, and I
>>could learn to quickly use it because the ergonomics are almost
>>identical.
>
> I use Nikon gear, having switched over from Canon when the D200
> was introduced. I recently got a D300, but haven't had much
> opportunity to use it. Prior to digital I used Canon 35mm
> cameras along with a Pentax 6x7. I still have all of that, but
> don't shoot film any more.

I went through a couple of not-so-great EVF cameras before making
the jump to a DSLR a few years ago. At the time, I had the Nikon
D70s and Canon Rebel XT on my short-list. Both seemed to get about
the same quality reviews and people were evenly divided as to which
was the better camera. What swayed me was someone on this NG who
said that at the end of the day, prospective buyers should just go
to a store and handle each camera they're considering. That did it
for me. I particularly liked the smaller physical size and lighter
weight of the Rebel as it helps me through some strength problems
resulting from health issues.

In my film days, I used a Nikon Photomic FTN with a number of
outstanding Nikkor lenses, so I was naturally biased in favor of
them and I'm sure that had I chosen the D70s, I'd likely have been
equally satisfied except maybe for hauling around it's greater
heft.

> However, I am in the process of scanning my archive of film,
> mostly b&w negatives. It's interesting going into that time
> machine!
>
Yeah, BIG problem in this area for me, also! I've got at least
5,000 35mm slides in Kodak Carousel trays sitting in my basement
literally gathering dust. Most are Kodachome, some are pushed
Ektachrome. I took thousands of pictures of scenery, castles, and
the like while I was in Europe in the Army circa 1971, including a
leave to London and Paris. A few years back, I came close to buying
a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to start to work on digitizing what I believe
will be about 1,000 "good" slides out of the big bunch downstairs.
I still haven't gotten around to that because of continuing health
problems. Nothing that will kill me, just makes me miserable much
of the time.

I'm VERY interested in how you plan to approach the problem of
scanning your neg and slide collection, as to what scanner you now
have or plant to buy. Thanks in advance, Stephen.
>
>>My primary photographic interest is cars. I particularly enjoy
>>the major Mopar outdoor shows in my area, as well as the annual
>>Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise. And, we've got two great museums
>>near me for cars, the Walter P. Chrysler Museum and the Henry
>>Ford Museum.
>
> I mostly do landscape / nature / outdoor kind of stuff. I also
> like to do airshows and other aviation-related pictures.
>
I did airshows, airports, and the like in my film days, lots of
architecture, etc. both here and in Europe. Also been to the
Smithsonian a couple of times, GREAT place for pictures!
>>
> I'm looking forward to retirement myself, but that won't be for
> another decade unless the economy forces me otherwise.

Back in 2001, Chrysler was undergoing one of it's bigger
restructurings. At that time, I was a senior manager and through
the process, got bounced from job to job getting "downsized" myself
from a high of over 80 people in my department to only 7. So, it
didn't surprise me that I was demoted a grade. Nothing I did or
failed to do, this happened to a LOT of people back then and I
imagine even more these days. So, I asked for a special Special
Retirement package as I was just a year too young at the time for
the packages granted to people during our restructuring. I was
granted a special package and left in early 2002. Maybe if my
health had been better and I hadn't gotten sidelined in my career I
might have stayed on, but I don't for a minute regret the decision
to retire.

I truly hope that our economy will improve so that you can make
your own decision a little easier.

> I've been to the Chrysler corporate headquarters, the palace as
> I call it... and several other Chrysler plants in the course of
> my work. (I'm in the steel industry.) I was at KPT in Kokomo
> in December... that place is almost a ghost town now.

Really?! I was on the 15th Floor a couple of times to visit,
they're pretty strict about security up there after 9/11. I started
as an entry leven engineer in the old Highland Park HQ in April,
1969 the day after graduating engineering school from Oakland
University. I moved to Auburn Hills in early 1992 in the 2nd big
wave moving into the new Technology Center, which opened several
years before the HQ Tower was built.

In my pure engineering days, I did several new car pilot launch
assignments and two plant new car launches. Great way to make money
on overtime, but pretty rugged work. I imagine that if you've been
in the steel biz for a long time, you've also seen your share of
tough plants.
>
>>I've lived in SE Michigan all my life, currently in a NNW suburb
>>of Detroit. If you feel comfortable with it, I'd like to at
>>least know what region of our great country you hail from so I
>>can have a greater appreciation of your background and how you
>>may have developed your views.
>
> Ohio here, so we're almost neighbors.
>
I have a Cyber friend in Cincinnati and another in Dayton. And, I
learned of an Iwo Jima vet alive and well in Dayton. We're good
friends now although we'll likely never meet. If you're interested
in any of my pictures scanned from my father's WWII album, let me
know. I can post them to alt.binaries.pictures.military. Of course,
if you want to post pictures of your military days, I'd be very
interested to see them.
>
>>Just one bit of politics in what I intended to be a fully
>>ON-topic post for a change: I describe myself as right of center
>>but I DO take ideas and platform planks from the left of center
>>as well. As I've said, all meaningful valuable social
>>legislation has pretty much occurred during Democratic eras
>>while building up the military, altering tax policy for the
>>better, and adhering to traditional family values usually occurs
>>only during Republican times. If I had my druthers, I'd like to
>>be able to select items from each party's platforms, I think
>>we'd be a better country if we could more directly influence our
>>elected officials true agendas.

> There is nothing wrong with a healthy mix of political opinions.
> We might disagree a bit on stem cells, especially since some of
> the more promising research is coming from adult stem cells,
> making it less necessary to deal with the ethical dilemma of
> destroying one human life in order to make life better for
> another one.

It wasn't my intent to push any of your hot buttons with stem cell
research, I just picked a couple of obvious examples where I tend
to look to both the Left and the Right in choosing issues I
support. At one time, I was a strong pro-choice person but have
slowly drifted to a strong pro-life advocate as I've aged.
Natually, I do NOT advocate or even condone human cloning from stem
cells OR the use of DNA for sinister purposes like discriminating
in jobs or insurance. I want to see SOMETHING happen with ANY
promising stem cell research to take on such obvious life-
threatening diseases such as cancer and heart failure plus the
ravages of living longer such as Alzheimer's.

If we get off on more OT stuff, we may incur the ire of those in
this NG so if you ever get interested in perhaps going off-line and
E-mailing to discuss the issues that ring our bells, I'd be happy
to give you my addy in munged form.

Again, any more insights on your scanning of negs and slides would
be appreciated as some day, I'll get off my ass and buy a decent
scanner.

Have a great day!

--
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

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:27 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:498899d7$0$1670$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>
>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>program for 'free'
>
> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?

Those that make money from selling their photographs or are employed
because they know how to get the best from using such a program.

>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>
> Yes. Adding features costs money.

So, they don;t have to add any features they could have stayed with version
2.5 which
was the first version I ever used (a copy).
The only reasson they added new features was because they wanted to make
more money
by selling version 3.0 (with layers), and I guess they didnt; want any other
software vendor taking their market share. Actually I added to their nmarket
share.

>The thieves take away money that
> might have been used to make the product better.

That's why such people aren't thieves because they don;t remove any money
from anyone. When I was helping students with 2.5 the college they were
attending
only had 2.5, I upgraded to 3.0 about a month before they did, and when the
students
I was helping saw what could be done and asked/demanded thier college get
up to date,
so they brought 3 copies and all because I showed them what could be done
with a copy.

>>Suppose I told you that I have the adobe collection, does this mean you
>>can't
>>get a stiffy any longer,
>
> Pervert.

Cheers
but what has that got to do with the price of photoshop ;-)

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:41 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:49891ec1$0$1635$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> NelsonTodd <ntodd@retriever.org> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>
>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>program for 'free'
>>>
>>>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>
>>You do.
>
> Nope.
>
>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>
>>>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>>>might have been used to make the product better.
>>
>>They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>
> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
> company it could use to produce the software.

How ?
The company develop software so they can continue to sell more software.

As you're not too bright think of it this way, how do the car company
Cadillac (or any other high end car manufacturer) loss money when someone
steals one of their cars........
Answer they they don;t in fact if the 'thief' in the case damages or
distorys the car
then the owner claims off insurance and buys another so the manufacturer
sells another car.
So how have they lost money by selling two cars instead of one ?

It's a little more complicated with software but if I steal the CS4
collection
who exactly finds that it is missing from their computer and therefore can
no longer work ?

>> They are using a copy from
>>a library of an unlimited number of copies that cost nobody any money to
>>make.
>
> Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much Adobe spends to produce
> Photoshop?

Does that matter, it's their choice, if tehy want to spend a few $1000 or
designing a new icon
then that's fine by me. I've never asked them to do anything for me.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:37 am
From: "J. Clarke"

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:49891ec1$0$1635$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> NelsonTodd <ntodd@retriever.org> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the
>>>>>> rest
>>>>>> of us for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any
>>>>> other program for 'free'
>>>>
>>>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>
>>> You do.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>>> has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money
>>>> that might have been used to make the product better.
>>>
>>> They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>>
>> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
>> company it could use to produce the software.
>
> How ?
> The company develop software so they can continue to sell more
> software.
>
> As you're not too bright think of it this way, how do the car
> company
> Cadillac (or any other high end car manufacturer) loss money when
> someone steals one of their cars........
> Answer they they don;t in fact if the 'thief' in the case damages or
> distorys the car
> then the owner claims off insurance and buys another so the
> manufacturer sells another car.
> So how have they lost money by selling two cars instead of one ?
>
> It's a little more complicated with software but if I steal the CS4
> collection
> who exactly finds that it is missing from their computer and
> therefore can no longer work ?
>
>
>>> They are using a copy from
>>> a library of an unlimited number of copies that cost nobody any
>>> money to make.
>>
>> Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much Adobe spends to
>> produce Photoshop?
>
> Does that matter, it's their choice, if tehy want to spend a few
> $1000 or designing a new icon
> then that's fine by me. I've never asked them to do anything for me.

The bottom line on this is that it's stealing because the consensus in
our society is that it's stealing. If you want to call it "counting
coup" or something that's fine but don't act all surprised when you
get dragged off to jail.

If you don't _like_ that consensus, you're free to do your best to
change it and get the copyright laws repealed. But until you have
done that, regardless of your opinion in the matter, in law it is
still a property crime.

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

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 6:21 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-01-28 14:51:35 -0800, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com said:

> If Adobe used better protection you would not see this post!

So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line of
reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has less
money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your windows,
climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your house. After
all, if you used better protection, no one could do that!

Maybe someone should just steal your computer and sell all your
pictures. Perhaps Adobe could use some of your Photoshop work for their
advertising without paying you!

I am really beginning to like this idea of taking anything I want from
people and rationalizing it because they are richer than me and,
anyway, if they didn't want me to steal from them they would have
protected themselves better. It means I can justify taking anything
that is not nailed down. Hey, if the neighbor didn't want his Lexus
stolen, he shouldn't have left his keys in his dresser drawer, eh? But
for sure, I think every one of us here should find out who you are so
we can come over to your house and take your stuff. I am sure you will
understand and be real happy about it.

Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software piracy.
You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on deaf ears.
And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad when they drag
you away in irons. In fact, most people will probably stand and cheer
when you die, if they think about you at all. Pirates and thieves are
usually not nearly as popular as they think they are. All their friends
are really just the circling buzzards.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:41 am
From: tony cooper

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:

>So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
>probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line of
>reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has less
>money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your windows,
>climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your house. After
>all, if you used better protection, no one could do that!
>
>Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software piracy.
>You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on deaf ears.
>And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad when they drag
>you away in irons.

Let's be realistic about this, Mr Waddling. No individual is going to
be carted off in chains for pirating software if he or she is doing so
for personal use. It just doesn't happen. It's because it doesn't
happen that the people who do pirate software consider it a
"victimless crime" that poses no danger to them. They know the worst
that will happen is that their pirated software will become disabled.

The software people do police companies who use pirated software, but
only when some disgruntled employee blows the whistle and notifies,
say, Microsoft that the company is using illegal copies of Excel.

The analogy of the person who uses pirated software being the same as
the person who would burgle his/her neighbor's house is also
unrealistic. This goes back to the "victimless crime" attitude that
people have about software. They know that burgling their neighbor is
a crime, and that the neighbor will be deprived of possessions if they
do so. They don't feel that Microsoft or Adobe loses anything as a
result of software theft.

Oh, I agree with you that it *is* a crime, and it *does* deprive the
intellectual property owner of the result of their effort in
developing the program, but my point is that you aren't going to
convince any user of highjacked software that he or she is doing the
same thing as shoplifting or petty theft. It's just not realistic.

Your diatribe, and the other ones like it, are a waste of words.
Potential software thieves aren't going to pay the slightest attention
to it.

If Adobe and Microsoft and the other providers of software want to
reduce or eliminate software piracy, they are going to have to develop
additional safeguards in the software. Adobe took a step towards this
in the "phone home" code. Their program can still be pirated by
people like "Robin Hood" and the people who read Robin Hood's post,
but Adobe cut off the less-informed would-be pirate who knew just
enough to burn a copy of a legit program.

The software providers are not going to go after individual offenders
with criminal charges. That's not a cost-effective program for the
software maker or a viable asset-allocation for the local police
force. Truly, local authorities have better things to do than raid
the homes of individual pirated software users.

While I agree with your general position, the threats and dangers you
say are out there are - realistically - not out there. Robin Hood may
lack ethics, but he's basically spot-on when he says that Adobe has to
solve the problem or it won't be solved.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:45 am
From: Gerald Hawks

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:37:35 -0500, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:49891ec1$0$1635$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> NelsonTodd <ntodd@retriever.org> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the
>>>>>>> rest
>>>>>>> of us for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any
>>>>>> other program for 'free'
>>>>>
>>>>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>>
>>>> You do.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>> has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money
>>>>> that might have been used to make the product better.
>>>>
>>>> They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>>>
>>> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
>>> company it could use to produce the software.
>>
>> How ?
>> The company develop software so they can continue to sell more
>> software.
>>
>> As you're not too bright think of it this way, how do the car
>> company
>> Cadillac (or any other high end car manufacturer) loss money when
>> someone steals one of their cars........
>> Answer they they don;t in fact if the 'thief' in the case damages or
>> distorys the car
>> then the owner claims off insurance and buys another so the
>> manufacturer sells another car.
>> So how have they lost money by selling two cars instead of one ?
>>
>> It's a little more complicated with software but if I steal the CS4
>> collection
>> who exactly finds that it is missing from their computer and
>> therefore can no longer work ?
>>
>>
>>>> They are using a copy from
>>>> a library of an unlimited number of copies that cost nobody any
>>>> money to make.
>>>
>>> Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much Adobe spends to
>>> produce Photoshop?
>>
>> Does that matter, it's their choice, if tehy want to spend a few
>> $1000 or designing a new icon
>> then that's fine by me. I've never asked them to do anything for me.
>
>
>The bottom line on this is that it's stealing because the consensus in
>our society is that it's stealing. If you want to call it "counting
>coup" or something that's fine but don't act all surprised when you
>get dragged off to jail.
>
>If you don't _like_ that consensus, you're free to do your best to
>change it and get the copyright laws repealed. But until you have
>done that, regardless of your opinion in the matter, in law it is
>still a property crime.
>
>--

"Laws" are just someone's opinion on paper. No more valid than my opinion.
Even if the majority is claiming that opinion as law, since when has the
majority ever been right.

Just because you are so spineless as to obey the self-serving opinions of
others doesn't mean that everyone is as spineless as you are. Next you'll
be using the law-approved toilet paper because you can't think for yourself
that much or make any of your own choices in life. You live your life
requiring that someone tells you what to do, just like any unthinking
snot-nosed child that needs a mommy or a daddy to tell them what to do at
every turn.

Your opinion is not my law, my opinion is not your law.

Grow up, and deal with it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:35 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>But like the Bush's they make sure their own children don't have
>>to go to war.... GWB managed to get in to the National Guard and
>>not even turn up.
>
> That story was thoroughly debunked and Dan Rather was forced to
> resign from his job for reporting such nonsense from sources
> proven to be fabricated.

As far as Dan Rather is concerned, this is true. However. George W.
Bush DID make a conscious decision to seek a commission in the
Texas Air National Guard. Nothing unusual or unethical about that
at all. What he did after he received his commission WAS irregular
in that he sought the help of a Colonel in the TANG to get him a
sweetheart deal that would keep him stateside and out of harm's
way. Still nothing too unusual about that, lots of people who think
they're important pull strings.

But, FAILING to show up for 6 MONTHS worth of weekend NG meetings
and his required summer 2-week tour IS a violation of his oath of
commission, unethical, and unacceptable. THIS is what was widely
reported and IS true. Rather screwed up by running with a varient
of the story that proved to be false on it's face.

Here's the thing about people who are otherwise good men and women
who someday decide to seek public office: they simply MUST make
damn well sure that there is NOTHING in their past of ANY kind that
might later be viewed as improper. OR, if they make what many of us
do - mistakes of our youth - they MUST reveal this to the public
BEFORE seeking office. To do otherwise is highly unethical and may
even be illegal, e.g., the recent spate of tax evaders in the Obama
camp.
>
>>There are a lot of ex-servicemen in government But how many have
>>children in the military? Michael Moore looked into this in
>>the US and found very few. I don't have data for the UK but I
>>bet it is similar.
>
> You really are gullible, aren't you? Michael Moore is one of
> the most disreputable producers of lying "documentaries" we
> have. If you believe what he says, it's no wonder you believe
> all the Palestinian propaganda and other one-sided reporting
> about "Israeli War Crimes."
>
Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around intentionally
smearing people in the name of "truth", but really just to enhance
his own reputation and line his pockets. He is, in Bill O'Reilly's
terms, a pinhead.

--
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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:49 am
From: tony cooper

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:35:21 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn>
wrote:

>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around intentionally
>smearing people in the name of "truth", but really just to enhance
>his own reputation and line his pockets. He is, in Bill O'Reilly's
>terms, a pinhead.

While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one" comes to
mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone else a
"pinhead".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lithium & future long term battery cost
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d45d9eb5b0863b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:39 am
From: "Alan Smithee"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009020319022327544-savageduck@savagenet...
> With the lastest moves from an oil based economy to a "green" one, the
> current trend seem to be ripe to establish Bolivia as the "Lithium Saudi
> Arabia" !!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/world/americas/03lithium.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008700362_lithium03.html
> http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3004099
>
> We
> can only hope that this does not trickle down to include price rises for
> digital cameras of all types. Perhaps the time has come to develop a new
> battery type or power source to give us an early into to alternatives,
> rather than being locked into one energy source as we are with oil.
>
> This might also be an opportune time to invest in lithium futures!!

Like these?
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/15/angstrom-power-touts-hydrogen-fuel-cells-for-cellphones/

What I find Ironic is that Abu Dhabi are creating a zero carbon emission
city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City) using money made from fossil
fuels. ;-)

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic