Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 14 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 11:59 pm
From: "Jeff R."

Mr.T wrote:
> "Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote in message
> news:4987de96$0$23396$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Of the three desktop PCs in this house, two are AMD dual cores
>> (including this one), and the only reason I'd replace it would be to
>> upgrade. Flawless for years, so far.
>
> Big deal, I have a friend who is still using a 300Mhz Celeron
> everyday (or very close to) for over a decade without a single part
> replacement.
> I did have to fix the CPU fan when it failed to boot because the fan
> wouldn't spin, it was so clogged with dust. CPU was fine, and even
> the fan's still working after a clean!
> AMD dual cores are almost new by comparison :-)
>
> MrT.

as I said: The plural of anecdote is not data.

...but keep supplying anecdotes, by all means. Just be careful when
projecting them as data.

--
Jeff R.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 12:22 am
From: Ron Hunter

Larry Thong wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
>>> It looks like we are being forced to upgrade our computers once again
>>> since we have upgraded our cameras. The new CPU is guaranteed to
>>> outlast most other chips on the market by 10-years. Fortunately
>>> Intel has been forced to throw away the old way of thinking, no more
>>> planned obsolescence.
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2369/2273922550_9bc64f5845_b.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>> Good thing AMD has been around since 1989, kicking the complacent,
>> greedy Intel in the ass. Intel FINALLY made the grade in the last
>> 2-3 years. If there were no AMD, we'd still be using Intel 486
>> chips...at $1000 a pop.
>
>
> Actually Intel chips are dirt cheap when you consider how robust they are
> and the performance they deliver. This is why they are exclusively used by
> Panasonic in the Tough Book series of laptops and Apple's Mac. It is
> totally and utterly foolish to use anything other than Intel chips and it
> breaks every terrestrial and celestial boundary of stupidity to use AMD.
> The Intel i7 kicks ass!!
>
Not so. I have had only ONE Intel chip machine since 1995. It is the
slowest one on my inventory. I have not had any problems with AMD
chips, and they are cheaper for a given level of performance. Intel,
with it's gigantic R&D budget has pulled ahead of AMD in the speed race,
but their chips aren't really any better as to reliability, or
throughput for the buck than AMD.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:39 am
From: "Larry Thong"

Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Actually Intel chips are dirt cheap when you consider how robust
>> they are and the performance they deliver. This is why they are
>> exclusively used by Panasonic in the Tough Book series of laptops
>> and Apple's Mac. It is totally and utterly foolish to use anything
>> other than Intel chips and it breaks every terrestrial and celestial
>> boundary of stupidity to use AMD. The Intel i7 kicks ass!!
>>
> Not so. I have had only ONE Intel chip machine since 1995. It is the
> slowest one on my inventory. I have not had any problems with AMD
> chips, and they are cheaper for a given level of performance. Intel,
> with it's gigantic R&D budget has pulled ahead of AMD in the speed
> race, but their chips aren't really any better as to reliability, or
> throughput for the buck than AMD.

See above. Haven't you ever wondered why AMD chips are never chosen for
mission critical applications or environments where life and safety are at
stake? How many police/rescue vehicles or service/industrial vehicles have
you seen with and AMD based laptop? A hint, ZERO. The Tough Book made by
Panasonic has never used anything other than Intel chips. Even Apple
recognized the problems with AMD and refused to embarrass themselves. Sorry
to say it, AMD is nothing more than a technological embarrassment. Don't
get me wrong, AMD can be acceptable for use in gaming PCs, but I would never
use one for business apps.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: G10-based gigapan of the inaguration
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/67f1c7109366755c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 12:30 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> wrote in
>news:4984d3de$0$2284$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> No, not a political post, just something you might find interesting:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------------------------------------------- David Bergman
>> used his MacBook Pro and a Gigapan Imager to create an amazing 1,474
>> megapixel photo of President Obama's Inauguration.
>
>It looks horrible. Typical P&S output.

Idiot troll.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 12:32 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Robin Hood <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote:
>On 02 Feb 2009 01:08:36 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Robin Hood <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote:
>>>On 01 Feb 2009 22:55:38 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:00:52 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:06:35 -0800 (PST), blackmanblues@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>: 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
>>>>>>: >
>>>>>>: > [etc.]
>>>>>>: >
>>>>>>: > 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How long do you goobers think it will take before Adobe fixes the trial
>>>>>>version to plug that leak?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>Adobe does not care. PERIOD! For at least a decade this has been going
>>>>>on yet Adobe does nothing. They know no matter what they do, in only a
>>>>>few days a hacker puts out a new fix. It's like farting in a
>>>>>hurricane.
>>>>
>>>>There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>for their own selfish wants.
>>>
>>>I have a joke for you Ray:
>>
>>You _are_ a joke, thief.
>>
>>>What do Space Aliens and Honest Jews have in common?
>>>|
>>>Well... everyone has heard that they exist but nobody has ever
>>>actually met one!
>>
>>And you're an anti-semite as well.
>>
>>An all-round sleazebag.
>
>Ray
>
>I've read many of your posts. I think you are a complete wacko!

That coming from an admitted thief and anti-semite.

Oooo! I'm _so_ concerned.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef39fca12569e5d3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 12:35 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Sir John Howard" <sirjohnhoward@gmail.con> wrote in message

>> > This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
>> > lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
>> > Photoshop with a single image.
>>
>> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
>> controls depth of field.
>
>Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute for a
>full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow the
>depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
>And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.

I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. Of course, TS
lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 12:54 am
From: kangarooistan

On Feb 3, 3:24 pm, Sir John Howard <sirjohnhow...@gmail.con> wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > On 2009-02-02 11:59:33 -0800, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> said:

Presented by
Phillip Adams
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2480326.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/

=================================================================
Malaika Mukantare

Death of pregnant mother Malaika Mukantare declared major crime
Article from: The Advertiser

February 02, 2009 06:26pm

POLICE investigating the murder of a pregnant mother in a New Year's
Day fire are hunting an intruder seen near her flat shortly before
she died.

Police today declared the death of Malaika Mukantare in her Camden
Park unit on January 1 about 3am a major crime.

Police are calling on anyone who may have seen or heard an intruder
near the Anzac Hwy units, or who may have had a similar experience.

Ms Mukantare, 21, was pregnant when she died. Her partner Luka
Kageregere and their son Joseph escaped the fire.

Anyone with information should phone BankSA Crime Stoppers 1800 333
000..
===============================================================

Coppers sure are slow

blind freddy could see this slimy little racist creep posting as
"little Johnny Howard" and his socks , and mates are as guilty as
shit

Sooner or later even the coppers will be forced to arrest him

kanga
======
Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:01:01 +1100
From: Sir John Howard <sirjohnhow...@gmail.con>
Reply-To: onlyidiotsvotelab...@alp.kooks
Organization: The Liberals are our last great hope
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.afghanistan,alt.religion.islam
Subject: '
References:
<fcc6eefb-638f-48a4-911b-1604ab8da37c@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To:
<fcc6eefb-638f-48a4-911b-1604ab8da37c@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <0197e1ac$0$20628$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 02a8b35e.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=Vl20bTJ4ZiAWe7Bc]TQV_NL?0kYOcDh@J;>GTR`=ZX:Bo0=8]
>8dTXG52NCT?:SO5C43iJflH3]]@

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 12:38 am
From: nospam

In article <87ljsoaunu.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> >> It doesn't make *any* sense to have a raw converter that
> >> requires invoking something the size of Photoshop.
> >
> >why? what would the user do with the output? open them in photoshop
> >and edit? seriously, what's the goal here?
>
> Batch processing raw files to quickly produce
> previewable full size images.

although not ideal, photoshop can batch process them, but why not just
use an image cataloguing app that could read the raws directly? for a
preview, the conversion need not be perfect. it only needs to be good
enough to decide if further processing is warranted. it could even use
the embedded jpegs.

> >> I've provided a list of reasons more than once. The
> >> basic fact is that there are two programs running
> >> sequentially.
> >
> >no, there is one program which happens to have a portion of its code
> >split off into a separate module. it is very tightly intertwined and
> >does not run sequentially.
>
> I can't verify that, as I do not run any form of
> Windows, but I'm willing to bet that if you know how to
> inspect running processes what you'll find is that *any*
> plugin is run as a separate process. The operations are
> *not* intertwined, but are sequential.

how much would you like to bet? :) i've written several photoshop
plugins and you're wrong. photoshop plugins are dlls and have full
access to photoshop's image buffers in various forms as well as being
able to call its internal routines for manipulating and displaying the
data. they are basically part of the app itself, with the code in a
different file. there is no separate process.

> That's what a "plugin" is!

a plugin can be in many different forms.

> >in fact, i vaguely recall that jpeg2000 support was initially added as
> >a plugin many years back and in the next revision of photoshop, the
> >jpeg2000 code was built-in. the user interface was identical in both
> >cases -- the user picked open... and in the dialogue, they picked a
> >jpeg 2000 image. when they picked save..., jpeg2000 was one of the
> >choices listed. there was no difference to the user, whatsoever.
>
> But clearly there *was* a difference in how it worked,
> or they would not have moved it from a plugin to an
> integral part of the monolith.

internally there was a difference (although probably not as much as you
think), but the only people who cared about it were the software
developers who wrote it. users saw no difference, nor do they care
what goes on under the hood. they just want to edit images.

what advantage is there to the user in knowing the implementation
details? will they produce better photos ?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 1:13 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87ljsoaunu.fld@apaflo.com...
>> >why? what would the user do with the output? open them in photoshop
>> >and edit? seriously, what's the goal here?
>>
>> Batch processing raw files to quickly produce
>> previewable full size images.
>
>Why not simply use a free program (or maybe even one that came with your

Well, that's the point! You *don't* need to invoke
Photoshop for something like that, and don't want to
either.

>camera) that will allow you to view the Raw files without conversion?

You can't look at raw data without a conversion. In
this case the point is to have full sized, not a
thumbnail.

>No need for Epson or Adobe in that case!

Precisely my point. No need, and it would be underable too.

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 1:18 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <87ljsoaunu.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> It doesn't make *any* sense to have a raw converter that
>> >> requires invoking something the size of Photoshop.
>> >
>> >why? what would the user do with the output? open them in photoshop
>> >and edit? seriously, what's the goal here?
>>
>> Batch processing raw files to quickly produce
>> previewable full size images.
>
>although not ideal, photoshop can batch process them, but why not just
>use an image cataloguing app that could read the raws directly? for a
>preview, the conversion need not be perfect. it only needs to be good
>enough to decide if further processing is warranted. it could even use
>the embedded jpegs.

Exactly. No need for Photoshop. You're catching on real fast...

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:48 am
From: nospam

In article <878wonc1z9.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> >> >> It doesn't make *any* sense to have a raw converter that
> >> >> requires invoking something the size of Photoshop.
> >> >
> >> >why? what would the user do with the output? open them in photoshop
> >> >and edit? seriously, what's the goal here?
> >>
> >> Batch processing raw files to quickly produce
> >> previewable full size images.
> >
> >although not ideal, photoshop can batch process them, but why not just
> >use an image cataloguing app that could read the raws directly? for a
> >preview, the conversion need not be perfect. it only needs to be good
> >enough to decide if further processing is warranted. it could even use
> >the embedded jpegs.
>
> Exactly. No need for Photoshop. You're catching on real fast...

that's why they wrote lightroom. :)

creating previews doesn't justify running camera raw as a standalone
utility to batch convert into jpeg. also, managing two sets of files
is worse.

there are much, much better ways to handle previews, namely by using a
catalogue app that manages it for you. therefore, there's not much of
a need for camera raw to be a standalone utility.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Communication will be posted on Monday, 2/2/09.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cd84bae54388da77?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 12:57 am
From: frank

On Feb 2, 7:06 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:06:09 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
>
> <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 2, 2:02 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> Whassa matter, Bret? Couldn't think of an imaginative way meet the
> >> mandate?
>
> >I took one today that might qualify. I'll send it shortly.
>
> Ahhh, c'mon, Bret. The rules are loose. If it's a good photograph,
> send it in. Helen will swoon with ecstasy and tell you it should be
> in National Geographic, D-Mac will tell you it should have been a
> hand-held 67 shot stitched panorama shot from a ladder, Rita won't
> understand it if it's in focus, Noons will say it's over-sharpened
> crap, and Focus will tell you it's blurry. (Noons and Focus would say
> the same thing about a photograph taken with the lens cap on.)
>
> >> Couldn't you have photographed one of those cheerleaders with the
> >> Clydesdale legs holding up a megaphone?
>
> >Dude, 1950 says hi.
> >Cheerleaders don't use megaphones any more to communicate the cheers.
> >They text them to the audience.
>
> So? That's communication.
>
> Megaphones *are* "in", though. Maybe Tennessee hasn't caught up, but
> it's retro-cool.http://www.teamsportswear.com/cheerleadinguniforms/sub/cheerleadingme...
> If those cheerleaders have thumbs as sturdy as their thighs, they'd
> need a keyboard the size of a backboard to text.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

They use them up here in NW Indiana also. No camera store in town
though...bummer. Seems to be the wave of the future. Big box for
photography supplies. Yeeeccchhhh.......

==============================================================================
TOPIC: اربح معنا
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9d84d2acdb5c55b5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 1:41 am
From: ميدو الزعيم

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/arab_f
أقوى جروب عربي للصور معنا ستجد أفضل الصور وأمتعها والجديد منها والمميز
صور سيارات صور فنانين صور ثلاثية الأبعاد صور فنية صور إبدعات ومباني
وصور للجوال صور محمد عبده عبدالمجيد عبدالله عبادي الجوهر أصالة نصري
نانسي عجرم أمل حجازي نبيل شعيل إيهاب توفيق مصطفى قمر هاني شاكر سمية
سومه بهاء سلطان نورا رحال عمرو دياب سيارات شبح مرسيدس بي ام دبليو سمية
الخشاب مي عز الدين خالد صالح لوسي بوسي نور الشريف حسين فهمي وأحلى صور
لتوقيعك .
شاركنا بصورك واربح أفضل الجوائز معنا فقط انت الكسبان
--------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/llarab

جروب كل العرب لكل العرب الشرفاء ساحة ثقافية وترفيهية واسعة
أحدث الأفلام العربيه
أروع الأغاني العربية والغربيه
أناشيد إسلاميه
كتابات ثقافيه منوعه
احلى الصور
أطلق العنان لخيالك
شارك بما لديك
أمتعنا بخواطرك
كن معنا أخاً ولنا صديقاً
نوجهك ونستمتع
أهلاً وسهلاً بكل العرب

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wen now
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/08ec6da9e5fec2e3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 1:42 am
From: ميدو الزعيم

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Strange camera "healing"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6979e21142cbf833?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:06 am
From: "Focus"

My sister wrote me this:
"I told you it was showing only black with some color streaks in the LCD
monitor. And then, if I took a picture, it would be just like whatever the
monitor showed (no picture).
I put new batteries in, but that didn't help. Every so often the monitor
would suddenly be normal again.

So, I was looking at it one day and began to rub the plastic shield on the
monitor.

Low and behold, the black and streaks disappeared and I could see what my
camera was pointing at.

It's worked fine since (knock on wood).

So how could this happen? What's going on?

Huh? Is it taking the picture from the LCD monitor and not the viewfinder?
That's weird."

The camera is an old Canon Powershot, I believe 4 MP.

Anyone have a clue what this was?

--
Focus

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:37 am
From: bugbear

Focus wrote:
> My sister wrote me this:
> "I told you it was showing only black with some color streaks in the LCD
> monitor. And then, if I took a picture, it would be just like whatever the
> monitor showed (no picture).
> I put new batteries in, but that didn't help. Every so often the monitor
> would suddenly be normal again.
>
> So, I was looking at it one day and began to rub the plastic shield on the
> monitor.
>
> Low and behold, the black and streaks disappeared and I could see what my
> camera was pointing at.
>
> It's worked fine since (knock on wood).
>
>
>
> So how could this happen? What's going on?
>
> Huh? Is it taking the picture from the LCD monitor and not the viewfinder?
> That's weird."
>
> The camera is an old Canon Powershot, I believe 4 MP.
>
> Anyone have a clue what this was?

Yeah. Dodgy contact on the CCD. It's a return-to-maker fault.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=221&modelid=8774

BugBear

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:36 am
From: "Focus"

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:-JednbGUZqvvgxXUnZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Focus wrote:
>> My sister wrote me this:
>> "I told you it was showing only black with some color streaks in the LCD
>> monitor. And then, if I took a picture, it would be just like whatever
>> the monitor showed (no picture).
>> I put new batteries in, but that didn't help. Every so often the monitor
>> would suddenly be normal again.
>>
>> So, I was looking at it one day and began to rub the plastic shield on
>> the monitor.
>>
>> Low and behold, the black and streaks disappeared and I could see what my
>> camera was pointing at.
>>
>> It's worked fine since (knock on wood).
>>
>>
>>
>> So how could this happen? What's going on?
>>
>> Huh? Is it taking the picture from the LCD monitor and not the
>> viewfinder? That's weird."
>>
>> The camera is an old Canon Powershot, I believe 4 MP.
>>
>> Anyone have a clue what this was?
>
> Yeah. Dodgy contact on the CCD. It's a return-to-maker fault.
>
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=221&modelid=8774
>

Thanks a lot!
I'll send the link to my sister, she'll be very happy!

--
Focus

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c2fab188817ea6e4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:19 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

>>Stephen, the name National Socialist Peoples Party, or Nazi
>>Party, was a misnomer meant to ensnare a gullible population.
>>It was really a fascist regime as I know you are aware. Fascism
>>is an example of the wrap-around effect I talked about in
>>another post, where if one goes left far enough, the socialism
>>part gets overwhelmed by extreme control of everything,
>>everybody, and even every thought and action. In other words, a
>>traditional fascist dictatorship state. The START of this is
>>what people in our country call a "nanny state" where the
>>government regulates most of buying choice and usage choice and
>>cleverly whittles away as most other freedoms. This is precisely
>>what the Green Nazis that now dominate the Democratic Party
>>intend to do with electrical power, cars, TVs, anything they
>>deem anti-social.
>
> Yes, fascism is so far left that it appears to be far right.
> But it is quite socialist and left wing in the sense that the
> state controls everything, from the media to the economy.

Oh, I agree with you here just fine, but the KIND of control that
Fascism exerts IS different than either Socialism or Communism as
we have seen in Germany, Italy, later China and of course, the
former USSR.

> Right wing in the sense of the conservative movement in the USA
> is quite the opposite. That philosophy believes in as little
> government and as much freedom of the inividual as possible.
>
Yes, quite true. There's a couple of schools of thought here
including so-called strict constructionists that I tend to be one
of. But, I am NOT a Libertarian like Ron Paul. Those people have
such extreme views on the Right as to be Loons themselves. How, for
example, is it even feasible to abandon a national military in
favor of state militias again, even if we wanted to?!

When one enters the range of Far RIGHT Loons, that of neocons and
reactionaries, reason goes out the window just as surely with Loons
of the Far Left, just in a way different form. But, what is so
wrong with modern conservatism is that it no longer bears ANY
resemblence to the Reagan philosophy or that of Ike 30 years
earlier. Sadly for those of us who want small government and lower
taxes overall, the Bush 43 years saw the BIGGEST enlargement in the
size of government and spending since at least LBJ's Great Society
which coincided with the spending for Viet Nam. Can't quite
understand what happened here.

Have a happy Tuesday!

--
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 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:24 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

>>It was right wing Fascism.
>>
>>If I renamed the communist party the Republican Party it would
>>still be communist. "National Socialism" is not the same as
>>"Socialism"
>>
>>It is this sort of equivocation which removes any credibility
>>you have Stephen.
>
> As I just posted in response to Hemi, it IS socialist in the
> sense that the state controls everything from the media to the
> economy. That is not what the right wing seeks, at least not in
> the USA. What the left wingers call "right wing" are
> conservatives who believe in as little government as possible
> interfering with the lives of the individual. It's interesting
> that they will call Republicans and conservatives such names as
> "fascists" when nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> If you don't understand that, then I'm afraid you are far, far
> down on the credibility scale.
>
Polling over the last 20 years or more has consistently shown the
United States to be right of center on key issues such as social
engineering, size of government, strong national defense, tax
policy, Bill of Rights in it's correct form, religious thinking,
pro life vs pro abortion, and the like. However, when these
fundamentals of conservatism go out the window as they did during
the most recent Adminstrations efforts to conceal the truth from
the American people, they can and DID "throw the bums out" and the
Republicans lost about all the clout they ever had.

There IS hope for 2010, though, IF the Rebublicans quit looking for
retribution, allow Michael Steele to develop a sane message for the
party and quit worrying about how to deliver "the message" AND the
party is seen as being FOR things Americans truly believe in
instead of simply against the liberals. And, there is a VAST need
for new candidates and new thinking if the Red Team expects to
regain control of at least one house of Congress and/or the White
House in 2012. I was LESS than impressed with the presidential
hopefuls last year and see NO ONE on the horizons that can carry
this country next election, but there's still plenty of time.

--
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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:50 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9BA73669BBC10ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.gn> writes
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>Stephen, the name National Socialist Peoples Party, or Nazi
>>>Party, was a misnomer meant to ensnare a gullible population.
>>>It was really a fascist regime as I know you are aware. Fascism
>>>is an example of the wrap-around effect I talked about in
>>>another post, where if one goes left far enough, the socialism
>>>part gets overwhelmed by extreme control of everything,
>>>everybody, and even every thought and action. In other words, a
>>>traditional fascist dictatorship state. The START of this is
>>>what people in our country call a "nanny state" where the
>>>government regulates most of buying choice and usage choice and
>>>cleverly whittles away as most other freedoms. This is precisely
>>>what the Green Nazis that now dominate the Democratic Party
>>>intend to do with electrical power, cars, TVs, anything they
>>>deem anti-social.
>>
>> Yes, fascism is so far left that it appears to be far right.
>> But it is quite socialist and left wing in the sense that the
>> state controls everything, from the media to the economy.
>
>Oh, I agree with you here just fine, but the KIND of control that
>Fascism exerts IS different than either Socialism or Communism as
>we have seen in Germany, Italy, later China and of course, the
>former USSR.

Not really... they are all similar and different. Not all communist
states are the same. Socialist ones vary a hell of a lot. Fascism also
varies eg German and Italy. However they all have similar controls over
their population

>> Right wing in the sense of the conservative movement in the USA
>> is quite the opposite. That philosophy believes in as little
>> government and as much freedom of the inividual as possible.
>>
>Yes, quite true. There's a couple of schools of thought here
>including so-called strict constructionists that I tend to be one
>of. But, I am NOT a Libertarian like Ron Paul. Those people have
>such extreme views on the Right as to be Loons themselves. How, for
>example, is it even feasible to abandon a national military in
>favor of state militias again, even if we wanted to?!

Many counties do just that. However if you are paranoid and insecure
as America is they it needs a huge military to stand against what ever
demons the collective psyche has dreamed up.

Reds, Islamic terrorists or what ever. If you are a contented country
with a non-paranoid and secure population you don't need a big Army..
For example Switzerland, Iceland, New Zealand etc

Many have a large army simply to give the population a job. Turkey for
example has a large army in order to educate and train the population
and give them a job some what of a socialist idea for a right wing
country.

When it comes to the fighting they use the professional corps of the
military not the conscripts.

>When one enters the range of Far RIGHT Loons, that of neocons and
>reactionaries, reason goes out the window just as surely with Loons
>of the Far Left, just in a way different form.

Quite so. Both are as bad as each other.

>But, what is so
>wrong with modern conservatism is that it no longer bears ANY
>resemblence to the Reagan philosophy or that of Ike 30 years
>earlier. Sadly for those of us who want small government and lower
>taxes overall, the Bush 43 years saw the BIGGEST enlargement in the
>size of government and spending since at least LBJ's Great Society
>which coincided with the spending for Viet Nam. Can't quite
>understand what happened here.

The Bushes have been the downfall of the US

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:31 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 03 Feb 2009 04:02:38 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:46:57 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <akkdo419rhrjued3c1okom4p6ck45nqfaj@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>On 01 Feb 2009 22:42:44 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>>>>jour ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There have also been protest marches in support of the Gazan's
>>>>>>>>and anti Israel that have not been predominantly Islamic but a
>>>>>>>>general cross section of the population including Jews who
>>>>>>>>understand that criticising the state of Israel is not
>>>>>>>>anti-sematic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since when have the protest marches of university students been
>>>>>>> the "real world?" When have they ever been evidence of
>>>>>>> expertise on world facts or foreign affairs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's also common for students to be ultra-liberal,
>>>>>
>>>>>Only if you're so far to the right that you'd embarrasss Hitler.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hitler was an extreme left-winger, Mr. text clipper. What do you
>>>>think National Socialism is?
>>>
>>>It was right wing Fascism.
>>>
>>>If I renamed the communist party the Republican Party it would still
>>>be communist. "National Socialism" is not the same as "Socialism"
>>>
>>>It is this sort of equivocation which removes any credibility you have
>>>Stephen.
>>
>>As I just posted in response to Hemi, it IS socialist in the sense
>>that the state controls everything from the media to the economy.
>
>That's fascism.

Correct, that is fascism, which is a manifestation of socialism taken
to its exreme. The irony is that fascists claim to hate socialists,
but they end up doing the same thing under a different name.

>> That
>>is not what the right wing seeks,
>
>Yes it is.

You're lying again. Not only are you bigoted against Israel, you are
bigoted against conservatives. You've made that clear in every topic
you post in.

>
>> at least not in the USA.
>
>Of course it is. Corporations and government work together to control
>everything. Corporate ownership and control abetted by government
>enforcement. That IS the right's agenda in the United States.

Not only are you a self-righteous bigot, you are a dishonest and
paranoid fool who believes any left-wing propaganda that gets fed to
you.

Pssst... Ray! Look over your shoulder. I think those black
helicopters have found you. You're about to be arrested and thrown
in the George W. Bush Re-education Camp. You know, the one
controlled by big oil and with Dick Cheney as the head prison guard.
Soon you'll be forced to say phrases like, "neocons are nice people."
How horrible for you!!! Next thing you know they'll cut off your
ponytail and take away your marijuana plants. Torture!!

>> What the
>>left wingers call "right wing" are conservatives who believe in as
>>little government as possible interfering with the lives of the
>>individual.
>
>LOL!

Laugh all you want, it is the absolute truth.

>
>"Conservatives" who advocate for anti-abortion, pro-censorship,
>anti-civil rights, and pro-corporation are not trying to avoid
>interfering in other people's lives. You're just trying to force
>people to allow YOUR interference.

All those leftist bumper sticker accusations just prove who you are.

You rant and rave about a few hundred innocent people killed in a war,
yet you don't blink an eye at the MILLIONS of the most innocent and
helpless humans who are slaughtered in abortion clinics on a routine
basis.

You also ignore the FACT that the Republicans have the actual record
of promoting civil rights in this country. The KKK was started by
Democrats. Martin Luther King was a Republican, you ninny. It was
the conservative Republicans who ended slavery and pushed to enact
civil rights laws. You know as little about U.S. history as you do
about the history of the Middle East.

It's the left wing Democrats in power now who are seeking to do things
like nationalizing the country's banking system and impose
government-controlled health care on everyone. It is the Democrats
who are seeking to silence free speech with such Nazi programs as the
"fairness doctrine." You are so incredibly stupid to let your
ideology distort your view of the facts.

You are truly a fool who sees black as white, and who stands on his
head while telling the rest of the world that they are upside-down.
That's why I say you are a Nazi. That black SS uniform would fit you
perfectly.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:30 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

>>> Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually
>>> done to defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did
>>> you do the same?
>>>
>>> Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of
>>> was won at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the
>>> 1770's.
>>>
>>I also served in the military, the US Army. And, my father was a
>>WWII Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The
>>thing about liberty is that it MUST be defended VIGOROUSLY by
>>all, else it will soon be lost. Thus, the true cost of war's
>>awful casualties often is freedom itself, followed closely by
>>national security.
>
> Absolutely true. The left-wing loons who shout the loudest
> about liberty have *no idea* how fragile it really is or what it
> really costs to maintain it.
>
> And then there are many of those in Europe who think they have
> liberty because they have a parlimentary form of government that
> trumps the monarchy; but they really don't have a clue about
> what liberty really is. They still look to the government to
> provide their every need and regulate all aspects of their
> lives. That's why so many of them are so bewildered when they
> come over here.
>
I try to make it a practice to talk about WHAT is going on but NOT
to openly trash a sitting president. Thus, although I was VERY
vocal about Obama during the campaign, he won, and I will refer to
him as Mr. President or President Obama now. The Hussein thing was
an intentional stunt since HE decided to use that name during his
swearing in.

In keeping with my stance on criticism of sitting presidents, I
will only say in reply to your comments above that President Obama
has but about 6 months to make it at least LOOK like the economy is
turning around or Bush's Recession WILL become Obama's Recession.
And, if he isn't VERY careful in Afghanistan, it will become his
albatross just as surely as Iraq doomed Bush.

As to why so many people want to drink the poison Kook-Aid of
"free" government benefits, consider that by the time the current
plan for tax cuts is enacted, some 52% of ALL Americans will pay
ZERO IRS taxes while almost all of it will be paid by those in the
top 10-15%. Thus, those who pay NO taxes at all will surely drink
the poison of "free" because THEY don't have to pay for it.

Likewise, as philosophers have said many times, if the politicians
had to go to war to defend THEIR notions of freedom and world
democracy instead of our young men and women, things MIGHT be
different.

--
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: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:57 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9BA73831DAF57ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.gn> writes
>>
>I try to make it a practice to talk about WHAT is going on but NOT
>to openly trash a sitting president. Thus, although I was VERY
>vocal about Obama during the campaign, he won, and I will refer to
>him as Mr. President or President Obama now. The Hussein thing was
>an intentional stunt since HE decided to use that name during his
>swearing in.

Does he have a choice? I thought you had to use your full name when
swearing like that?

>In keeping with my stance on criticism of sitting presidents, I
>will only say in reply to your comments above that President Obama
>has but about 6 months to make it at least LOOK like the economy is
>turning around or Bush's Recession WILL become Obama's Recession.
>And, if he isn't VERY careful in Afghanistan, it will become his
>albatross just as surely as Iraq doomed Bush.

I agree... He has a poisoned chalice. If he has not started to improve
things he will get the blame even though it was Bush who caused it.
People have short memories

>As to why so many people want to drink the poison Kook-Aid of
>"free" government benefits, consider that by the time the current
>plan for tax cuts is enacted, some 52% of ALL Americans will pay
>ZERO IRS taxes while almost all of it will be paid by those in the
>top 10-15%. Thus, those who pay NO taxes at all will surely drink
>the poison of "free" because THEY don't have to pay for it.

However the top 10% can probably afford to move out of the US and can do
so easily..... Then what?

>Likewise, as philosophers have said many times, if the politicians
>had to go to war to defend THEIR notions of freedom and world
>democracy instead of our young men and women, things MIGHT be
>different.

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.

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.

However in the current Royal Family probably 50% have seen active
service

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fead44f05cd4f2a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 2:48 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 03 Feb 2009 03:54:13 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>But in fact some of those deaths were accidental, just as many of the
>>>>Israel soldier casualties were accidental "friendly fire" deaths.
>>>
>>>Where "some" means at least 600+ people.
>>
>>Why is it that you think that the number of deaths somehow makes one
>>side more morally superior to the other?
>
>You have no morals at all, do you? You only have a hatred of Arabs.

You have no morals at all, do you? You only have a hatred of Jews.

Answer my question, bigot.

>
>>>>The biggest reason for the civilian casualties, which you deny, is
>>>>that Hamas places military targets in civilian areas.
>>>
>>>Sleazy Israeli propaganda.
>>
>>Prove that it isn't true.
>
>Prove that you're not an IDF propagandist.

Prove that you're not a Hamas, FATAH, PLO or Iranian propagandist.

>>>The truth is that the Israelis herded the Palestians into a crowded
>>>situation and then started killing people.
>>
>>That's the very definition of spin.
>
>It's the facts, bigot.

It's your spin, bigot.

>
>>>Tell us, bigot: How many Palestinians were allowed to leave when the
>>>Israelis decided to start killing people?
>>
>>Tell us, bigot: are you still molesting young boys?
>
>The asshole runs away from the facts again.

The anally-obsessed bigot continues to selectively clip text and avoid
questions.

>
>>>The answer is: None.
>>
>>That would be the answer to the question,
>
>Stop lying, you bigoted coward.

I'm not, you cowardly self-righteous bigot.

All you have are insults. That's why I throw them right back at you,
it seems to be the only thing you understand. Run away, coward, and
come back when you have something of substance to say.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/75383ce6b288a1df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:00 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 03 Feb 2009 03:57:52 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 01 Feb 2009 22:42:07 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Not biased. After careful non-biased study it is the only sensible
>>>>>arrangement. Remove the aggressors. Israelis behaviour from day 1 has
>>>>>shown it does not deserve to keep the land it has taken from the
>>>>>Palestinians
>>>>
>>>>Like I said, you are biased.
>>>
>>>So far you've accused everybody posting here who disagrees with of
>>>being biased, as well as the UN, the BBC, and everybody else critical
>>>of Israel.
>>
>>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?

>>Anyone who dwells on the casualties caused by Israel
>
>Thousands of people.
>
>>while not showing
>>equal outrage at what Palestinian militants have been doing to Israeli
>>civilians for decades is biased.
>
>Which makes you biased.

What a fool you are. Read what I said. I said "showing equal
outrage" at what the other side is doing. Asking for equal treatment
is not bias. That is the opposite of bias. YOU are the biased one
for constantly harping on the evils of one side while excusing the
other.

>Damned by your own words.

Really? That describes you in just about everything you write.
That's why you are viewed by most people on usenet as merely a cranky
troll who has much too high an opinion of himself.

>
>>Anyone who claims that Palestinians firing thousands of rockets at
>>random into Israeli civilian areas is merely "fighting back" is
>>biased.
>
>But when Israel does the very same thing it's "defense"?

They don't do the very same thing. That's your spin.

And regardless of what Israel does, you're still justifying what the
other side does.

>>Anyone who clips away volumes of text and dismisses any information
>>that supports Israel,
>
>Now you're lying.

You say I'm lying even as you are caught doing that very thing in this
post. You are truly pathetic.

>
>>It's fine to criticize Israel.
>
>Not to you, bigot.

You again prove you are a self-righteous bigot. I said it's fine to
criticize Israel, and then you make that bigoted statement. It's
easy to see why you hate Israel so much.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: camera for diving ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5f0b7143efb2882?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:10 am
From: Antonio Huerta

Thanks everyone for answering. What do you think about this camera,
"Vivitar Waterproof Digital Camera 5188, 5.1 Megapixels, (5cm)2" LCD
Display", http://www.oo.com.au/Vivitar_Waterproof_Digital_Cam_P5774.cfm?afid=18&gclid=CKmWxNa5upgCFQE_gwodfUxeZg
.

It is inexpensive, but what about the image quality ? How is the
quality of optics ? What would you compare it with -- e.g. Canon
A610 ? Better or worse ?

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

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