rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Is there anybody here that can read? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
* Another Camera Seized - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d817a4a6bad12460?hl=en
* Solution for D90 matrix..(update) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2c77d17e540a942b?hl=en
* Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
* Online Backup - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/42dbb5294c04e50c?hl=en
* I hate environmentalists - 5 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
* Please take a look at this its Free - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dafc5e677fdb822a?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there anybody here that can read?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 12:54 pm
From: Alan Browne
C J Campbell wrote:
> Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
> dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
> Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
> way the cookie crumbles.
Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
writer would decide which photos to use.
In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
the one choosing what goes into the article.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Camera Seized
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d817a4a6bad12460?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 1:29 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BE870B9EB8F7ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to
>> keep in mind that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a
>> condition that would result in a slow, permanent, and complete
>> loss of vision. I was highly graphical, and had been taking
>> pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the age of 18. How many
>> 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed backstage
>> to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton,
>> Eddie Money, Heart, etc...??
>
> Sorry to hear that. Retinitis pigmentosa, I assume? I know a couple
> of unlucky fellows that were eventually totally blinded by this
> insidious disease.
>
>> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision
>> without having an accident.
>
> Excuse me, but what the Hell were you doing street racing with only
> a 10% cone of vision?! Besides risking your own life, you might
> have killed your opponent or innocent bystanders.
>>
>> At the age of 22, my vision deteriorated to the point of
>> no-return, and I had to give up my license, and I went into a
>> rather hazy stage of drug and alcohol use in order to cope with
>> the depression.
>
> Yeah, booze and drugs always help - to fry one's brain permanently.
>
> There were a few rather fuzzy years about that
>> time, and I didn't pull out of it until I met my wife-to-be at
>> around 28, which is when I started getting my life back on
>> track.
>>
>> Did I have a "chip on my shoulder," as has been suggested?
>> Yeah, probably, but I think most psychologists would think that
>> normal for the circumstances.
>
> Yeah you did, still have, but no, shrinks would most certainly NOT
> give you a pass. I understand debilitating diseases, having a few
> nasty conditions myself, but that just isn't a reason to be
> reckless nor to take on the cops and take such a deep dive into
> alcoholism and drugs that you don't even remember a number of years
> of your life. I sincerly hope that you obtained both rehab to get
> off the junk and professional help to deal with your problems in a
> way less dangerous to yourself and others.
>
>> Did I rather tenaciously pursue my rights, more so than Mr. or
>> Ms. Average Joe(sephine)? Probably, and I still do because
>> able-bodied people continually trample them. A right is only a
>> right when it is granted by others, or defended by the claiming
>> party. Hence, I have learned that, if I want to pursue
>> happiness, as most North Americans like to do, I sometimes have
>> to beat my way through a rather callused crowd. I think you
>> will find this sentiment rather wide-spread in any disabled
>> community -- especially when dealing with the more highly
>> motivated members of those communities.
>>
>> Take Care,
>
> No, you really didn't defend you rights. You vastly exceeded your
> rights and freedoms and thus gave up most of the protections
> allowed by your laws. Honestly, I've been courteous to you but what
> you have described should have landed you in jail for most of your
> life. You just can't go around whacking cops, pushing your way onto
> potential crime scens, street racing without adequate vision,
> possibly in a drug or booze haze, and a number of other things
> you've bragged about. My hope for you is that you've intentionally
> over dramatized your exploits to look cool and really didn't do
> that crap.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
>
> "Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
> bumper sticker
>
>
Jerry, who said anything about "street" racing? I raced on the track, and I
did it sober. I lined my Mustang up against stripped out Camarros, rail
dragsters, and anything else that I could. Ever heard of bracket racing?
Completely legal, on a strip, and I hassled "street" racers I knew, telling
them that if they wanted to prove their rides were fast, produce a time
slip, it's much more impressive. The other drivers knew there were risks,
as much from "normal" drivers, equipment malfunctions and track conditions
as from a driver with poor vision. A friend of mine died on the same track
as I raced because he took a corner wide and ran into a dead machine parked
there, waiting for a toe...
Moreover, I had a VALID driver's licence at the time. You may not know
that, most places in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, a licence can be obtained
by anyone who is not legally blind; that means there are MILLIONS of
drivers out there who only have 10% of normal vision, and they are doing it
legally.
Nobody took my licence away. I gave it up, voluntarily, when I felt I could
no longer conduct my vehicle safely because I didn't want to endanger
others.
I consider myself mildly right on the political / social scale because I
find that the farther right one goes, the more people talk about rights, but
they are only concerned about their own. Everybody else is wrong, and they
need to be converted, or eliminated. Your attitude exhibits this phenomena
quite nicely, Jerry.
Regarding the assault incident, I'll take the judges words over yours as to
whether or not I was defending my rights.
In his judgement, he noted that, since I stood six foot four, had rugged
features, and had a heavy growth of beard at the time of the incident, there
was no way I should have been mistaken for being under the age of 18. In
fact, sitting there in the courtroom, squeaky clean and in my most civil
looking clothes, clean shaven, the judge himself couldn't picture me as an
under-aged person.
The judge noted that the cops "did not have any right to stop me," and that
by taking hold of me to prevent me from leaving, I had been in fact "placed
under arrest." Since the arrest was not warranted, i "had every right to
resist."
Please note, the Crown never appealed the verdict, so it was not erroneous.
And, if my actions were in error, do you not think the Crown would have gone
to great lengths to prove that average Joe's shouldn't go around "popping"
cops?
Maybe I'm not a constitutional scholar, but isn't it amazing how I based my
actions on the same criteria the judge later based his judgement on? And, I
was only 23?? Maybe, Jerry, you underestimate how much a person can learn
on their own. Members of the religious right like to feign ignorance,
stating that we are all idiots and only God has a usable intellect. I, on
the other hand, believe that the human intellectual capacity is vastly
underated, and underutilized. Just because I don't have credentials in a
given area doesn't mean I can't think rationally and logically and make an
intelligent decision -- even if others think I'm crazy at the time...
If you want to read his judgement, the trial took place in the Leduc
Provincial Court, around 1982 or '83.
So, Jerry, like I said, I'll take the judges verdict, not yours.
Also, (falling to your level) unless you are a qualified psychologist, I
doubt you have any authority to judge how people react to disabling
conditions. After sustaining such "permanent" frying, how many people do
you know who have come out of the haze with an IQ of 150? (If you want to
make a fortune on a gravity powered engine, I have an idea, but it'll cost
you...)
Indeed, I have not over dramatized to impress, if anything, I have
understated to maintain some semblance of credibility. There was also the
time I loaded a shotgun in front of this jerk who wanted to kick my head in
because a passenger in my car had given him the finger as we were driving
down the street. The kid was 12, and I was giving him a ride home to help
out his sister, who was a friend of mine.
The jerk on the other end of my shotgun barrel was a known gang member, and
fairly expert in the martial arts, but he didn't like facing a spray of
birdseed, so I never heard anything from him again.
Another example of rash behaviour? Well, first, you should know that I
contacted the cops about this situation, and was told to take the guy out to
a secluded spot and duke it out. If the cops got any report of a
disturbance, they'd be slow to respond, to give me time to tune him in -- or
to get my ass kicked by him and his buddies. Doing it my way, nobody got
hurt, and the problem ended then and there.
Yes, I have done some "crazy" things in my life, but the reoccuring
important factor is that nobody got hurt in all the insanity surrounding my
loss of vision. There was plenty of opportunity for people to get hurt, but
nobody did.
And, that extends to others, as well. I remember a time (I said thinggs got
fuzzy, I didn't say I can't remember them, so quit adding your spin to my
words) when I had done some LSD, along with some others. We were travelling
in a car (about six of us, three in the front and three in the back).
Another guy with RP was high in the back; I was in the front. While
tripping, this guy decides he can't take it any more and opens the back door
to jump out at highway speed.
I turned around, grabbed him by his belt, and dragged him back before he
could hit the pavement. Then, while holding him down with one hand
(remember, I stand 6' 4" and lifted weights back then), I closed the door
with my free hand. Once the door was closed and locked, I picked him up and
told the guy in the center to slip around to the door. Then I plopped the
guy freaking out in between the other two, where he couldn't hurt himself.
He's still alive, today.
Had I not been there, he would have been toast. I'm sure some of your
ultra-right tight shirts are crossing themselves right now and muttering,
"Indeed, God does work in mysterious ways." Or, maybe they are just
muttering that I was responsible for keeping another welfare bum on the
payroll... Probably more zealots saying the latter than the former.
But, I digress...
The basis of this thread was maintaining / defending ones rights, and I
think my assault incident illustrates quite vividly that, every now and
then, someone has to exert their rights in order to defend them. Yes, cops
do have a right to stop a guy who is walking down the street and carrying a
case of beer, as long as the fellow appears to be under the legal age. On
the other hand, cops don't have the right to use such a "routine check" to
hassle the former classmate of one of their buddies... Likewise, cops have
the right to obtain potential evidence from the camera of a journalist, but
they have fairly well-defined procedures they are supposed to follow. The
fact that the Vancouver police department has admitted procedures were not
followed and issued Mr. Payne an apology speaks to that point.
I always like to draw parrallels from incidents like this to illustrate that
the disabled have their rights trampled on a daily basis because most people
just don't care if the disabled have rights or not. Certainly, lip service
is paid often enough to those rights, but, in practice, it's just not the
same. If my history and ascertians make you uncomfortable, then I have done
my part...
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 1:38 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"jls" <notvalid@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:amest4pr8u2p0qgs51aa7p35cfcoo0rof1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:31:24 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
>>scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
>>protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
>>normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
>>them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
>>cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
>>the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
>>to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
>>recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
>>murder charges.
>
> Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
> consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'. Just from
> personal perspective, having some appreciation for the extreme
> circumstances under which officers often find themselves, it is a
> dangerous thing to expect perfection from them.
>
> For me it wouild have to be a pretty extreme circumstance, involving
> at the least a complete negligence in disregard for others, and/or
> some form of abuse of power, for me to ever consider this a reasonable
> action. Yes, "we the people" do need to make sure we are protected
> from abuse and tyranny from our government "agents", but we also need
> to make sure they have enough freedom to act in our interests as well.
Well said...
Take Care,
Dudley
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 2:21 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:...
>
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BE870B9EB8F7ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to
>>> keep in mind that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a
>>> condition that would result in a slow, permanent, and complete
>>> loss of vision. I was highly graphical, and had been taking
>>> pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the age of 18. How many
>>> 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed backstage
>>> to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton,
>>> Eddie Money, Heart, etc...??
>>
>> Sorry to hear that. Retinitis pigmentosa, I assume? I know a couple
>> of unlucky fellows that were eventually totally blinded by this
>> insidious disease.
>>
>>> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision
>>> without having an accident.
>>
>> Excuse me, but what the Hell were you doing street racing with only
>> a 10% cone of vision?! Besides risking your own life, you might
>> have killed your opponent or innocent bystanders.
>>>
>>> At the age of 22, my vision deteriorated to the point of
>>> no-return, and I had to give up my license, and I went into a
>>> rather hazy stage of drug and alcohol use in order to cope with
>>> the depression.
>>
>> Yeah, booze and drugs always help - to fry one's brain permanently.
>>
>> There were a few rather fuzzy years about that
>>> time, and I didn't pull out of it until I met my wife-to-be at
>>> around 28, which is when I started getting my life back on
>>> track.
>>>
>>> Did I have a "chip on my shoulder," as has been suggested?
>>> Yeah, probably, but I think most psychologists would think that
>>> normal for the circumstances.
>>
>> Yeah you did, still have, but no, shrinks would most certainly NOT
>> give you a pass. I understand debilitating diseases, having a few
>> nasty conditions myself, but that just isn't a reason to be
>> reckless nor to take on the cops and take such a deep dive into
>> alcoholism and drugs that you don't even remember a number of years
>> of your life. I sincerly hope that you obtained both rehab to get
>> off the junk and professional help to deal with your problems in a
>> way less dangerous to yourself and others.
>>
>>> Did I rather tenaciously pursue my rights, more so than Mr. or
>>> Ms. Average Joe(sephine)? Probably, and I still do because
>>> able-bodied people continually trample them. A right is only a
>>> right when it is granted by others, or defended by the claiming
>>> party. Hence, I have learned that, if I want to pursue
>>> happiness, as most North Americans like to do, I sometimes have
>>> to beat my way through a rather callused crowd. I think you
>>> will find this sentiment rather wide-spread in any disabled
>>> community -- especially when dealing with the more highly
>>> motivated members of those communities.
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>
>> No, you really didn't defend you rights. You vastly exceeded your
>> rights and freedoms and thus gave up most of the protections
>> allowed by your laws. Honestly, I've been courteous to you but what
>> you have described should have landed you in jail for most of your
>> life. You just can't go around whacking cops, pushing your way onto
>> potential crime scens, street racing without adequate vision,
>> possibly in a drug or booze haze, and a number of other things
>> you've bragged about. My hope for you is that you've intentionally
>> over dramatized your exploits to look cool and really didn't do
>> that crap.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>>
>> "Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
>> bumper sticker
>>
>>
>
> Jerry, who said anything about "street" racing? I raced on the track, and
> I did it sober. I lined my Mustang up against stripped out Camarros, rail
> dragsters, and anything else that I could. Ever heard of bracket racing?
> Completely legal, on a strip, and I hassled "street" racers I knew,
> telling them that if they wanted to prove their rides were fast, produce a
> time slip, it's much more impressive. The other drivers knew there were
> risks, as much from "normal" drivers, equipment malfunctions and track
> conditions as from a driver with poor vision. A friend of mine died on
> the same track as I raced because he took a corner wide and ran into a
> dead machine parked there, waiting for a toe...
>
> Moreover, I had a VALID driver's licence at the time. You may not know
> that, most places in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, a licence can be
> obtained by anyone who is not legally blind; that means there are
> MILLIONS of drivers out there who only have 10% of normal vision, and they
> are doing it legally.
>
> Nobody took my licence away. I gave it up, voluntarily, when I felt I
> could no longer conduct my vehicle safely because I didn't want to
> endanger others.
>
> I consider myself mildly right on the political / social scale because I
> find that the farther right one goes, the more people talk about rights,
> but they are only concerned about their own. Everybody else is wrong, and
> they need to be converted, or eliminated. Your attitude exhibits this
> phenomena quite nicely, Jerry.
>
> Regarding the assault incident, I'll take the judges words over yours as
> to whether or not I was defending my rights.
>
> In his judgement, he noted that, since I stood six foot four, had rugged
> features, and had a heavy growth of beard at the time of the incident,
> there was no way I should have been mistaken for being under the age of
> 18. In fact, sitting there in the courtroom, squeaky clean and in my most
> civil looking clothes, clean shaven, the judge himself couldn't picture me
> as an under-aged person.
>
> The judge noted that the cops "did not have any right to stop me," and
> that by taking hold of me to prevent me from leaving, I had been in fact
> "placed under arrest." Since the arrest was not warranted, i "had every
> right to resist."
>
> Please note, the Crown never appealed the verdict, so it was not
> erroneous. And, if my actions were in error, do you not think the Crown
> would have gone to great lengths to prove that average Joe's shouldn't go
> around "popping" cops?
>
> Maybe I'm not a constitutional scholar, but isn't it amazing how I based
> my actions on the same criteria the judge later based his judgement on?
> And, I was only 23?? Maybe, Jerry, you underestimate how much a person
> can learn on their own. Members of the religious right like to feign
> ignorance, stating that we are all idiots and only God has a usable
> intellect. I, on the other hand, believe that the human intellectual
> capacity is vastly underated, and underutilized. Just because I don't
> have credentials in a given area doesn't mean I can't think rationally and
> logically and make an intelligent decision -- even if others think I'm
> crazy at the time...
>
>
> If you want to read his judgement, the trial took place in the Leduc
> Provincial Court, around 1982 or '83.
>
> So, Jerry, like I said, I'll take the judges verdict, not yours.
>
> Also, (falling to your level) unless you are a qualified psychologist, I
> doubt you have any authority to judge how people react to disabling
> conditions. After sustaining such "permanent" frying, how many people do
> you know who have come out of the haze with an IQ of 150? (If you want to
> make a fortune on a gravity powered engine, I have an idea, but it'll cost
> you...)
>
> Indeed, I have not over dramatized to impress, if anything, I have
> understated to maintain some semblance of credibility. There was also the
> time I loaded a shotgun in front of this jerk who wanted to kick my head
> in because a passenger in my car had given him the finger as we were
> driving down the street. The kid was 12, and I was giving him a ride home
> to help out his sister, who was a friend of mine.
>
> The jerk on the other end of my shotgun barrel was a known gang member,
> and fairly expert in the martial arts, but he didn't like facing a spray
> of birdseed, so I never heard anything from him again.
>
> Another example of rash behaviour? Well, first, you should know that I
> contacted the cops about this situation, and was told to take the guy out
> to a secluded spot and duke it out. If the cops got any report of a
> disturbance, they'd be slow to respond, to give me time to tune him in --
> or to get my ass kicked by him and his buddies. Doing it my way, nobody
> got hurt, and the problem ended then and there.
>
> Yes, I have done some "crazy" things in my life, but the reoccuring
> important factor is that nobody got hurt in all the insanity surrounding
> my loss of vision. There was plenty of opportunity for people to get
> hurt, but nobody did.
>
> And, that extends to others, as well. I remember a time (I said thinggs
> got fuzzy, I didn't say I can't remember them, so quit adding your spin to
> my words) when I had done some LSD, along with some others. We were
> travelling in a car (about six of us, three in the front and three in the
> back). Another guy with RP was high in the back; I was in the front.
> While tripping, this guy decides he can't take it any more and opens the
> back door to jump out at highway speed.
>
> I turned around, grabbed him by his belt, and dragged him back before he
> could hit the pavement. Then, while holding him down with one hand
> (remember, I stand 6' 4" and lifted weights back then), I closed the door
> with my free hand. Once the door was closed and locked, I picked him up
> and told the guy in the center to slip around to the door. Then I plopped
> the guy freaking out in between the other two, where he couldn't hurt
> himself. He's still alive, today.
>
> Had I not been there, he would have been toast. I'm sure some of your
> ultra-right tight shirts are crossing themselves right now and muttering,
> "Indeed, God does work in mysterious ways." Or, maybe they are just
> muttering that I was responsible for keeping another welfare bum on the
> payroll... Probably more zealots saying the latter than the former.
>
> But, I digress...
>
> The basis of this thread was maintaining / defending ones rights, and I
> think my assault incident illustrates quite vividly that, every now and
> then, someone has to exert their rights in order to defend them. Yes,
> cops do have a right to stop a guy who is walking down the street and
> carrying a case of beer, as long as the fellow appears to be under the
> legal age. On the other hand, cops don't have the right to use such a
> "routine check" to hassle the former classmate of one of their buddies...
> Likewise, cops have the right to obtain potential evidence from the camera
> of a journalist, but they have fairly well-defined procedures they are
> supposed to follow. The fact that the Vancouver police department has
> admitted procedures were not followed and issued Mr. Payne an apology
> speaks to that point.
>
> I always like to draw parrallels from incidents like this to illustrate
> that the disabled have their rights trampled on a daily basis because most
> people just don't care if the disabled have rights or not. Certainly, lip
> service is paid often enough to those rights, but, in practice, it's just
> not the same. If my history and ascertians make you uncomfortable, then I
> have done my part...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
BTW, in case you question my assertion about IQ = 150, feel free to contact
a fellow named Braden Hirsch. I believe he still works for the Alberta
government, and I had the privilege / opportunity to work with him while I
was upgrading my education in the late 1980, and then again to work with him
in the '90s at a support service for disabled individuals attending a local
college in Edmonton. He pegged my IQ at 150, though noting it would be
difficult to determine any thing exactly given the sensory deficit and
experiencially diverse development I have functioned with.
You might want to pay particular attention to a book he wrote; it's in the
library of the University of Alberta and here is the catalog entry for it:
Comparison of computerized and standardized version of the Multidimensional
Aptitude
Battery and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised
Personal Author:
Hirsch, Braden P.
Title:
Comparison of computerized and standardized version of the Multidimensional
Aptitude Battery and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised / by
Braden P. Hirsch.
Publication info:
1986.
Physical descrip:
vii, 35 leaves ; 29 cm.
Subject term:
Intelligence tests--Data processing.
Subject term:
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Dissertation note:
Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Alberta, 1986.
Added author:
University of Alberta. Dept. of Educational Psychology.
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 2:48 pm
From: Chris H
In message <ZtoDl.5592$e_5.3143@newsfe03.iad>, Martin Brown <|||newspam|
||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <6liDl.19783$%e2.17319@newsfe24.iad>, Martin Brown
>><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> However, there is a D-notice in force.
>> Really? Do you know that for a fact?
>
>ISTR they used those exact words on the BBC 10pm news last night.
Thanks
>> I thought that system had long since got to be replaced by something
>>less formal.
>
>I think they were *very* annoyed yesterday and wanted to be absolutely
>certain of enforcing the no show ban on the unwelcome pictures.
I agree. I am surprised that the picture was published given the
content.
>I just hope that having the operation go off at half cock doesn't
>completely screw up all chance of obtaining a conviction.
Agreed.
>Or worse still result in some innocent harmless individuals being
>snatched at gun point, locked up for 28 days and then released without
>charge.
Shirley not?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 2:51 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9BE870B9EB8F7ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>>> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
>>> jour ...
>>>
>>>> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to
>>>> keep in mind that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a
>>>> condition that would result in a slow, permanent, and complete
>>>> loss of vision. I was highly graphical, and had been taking
>>>> pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the age of 18. How many
>>>> 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed backstage
>>>> to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton,
>>>> Eddie Money, Heart, etc...??
>>>
>>> Sorry to hear that. Retinitis pigmentosa, I assume? I know a couple
>>> of unlucky fellows that were eventually totally blinded by this
>>> insidious disease.
>>>
>>>> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision
>>>> without having an accident.
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but what the Hell were you doing street racing with only
>>> a 10% cone of vision?! Besides risking your own life, you might
>>> have killed your opponent or innocent bystanders.
>>>>
>>>> At the age of 22, my vision deteriorated to the point of
>>>> no-return, and I had to give up my license, and I went into a
>>>> rather hazy stage of drug and alcohol use in order to cope with
>>>> the depression.
>>>
>>> Yeah, booze and drugs always help - to fry one's brain permanently.
>>>
>>> There were a few rather fuzzy years about that
>>>> time, and I didn't pull out of it until I met my wife-to-be at
>>>> around 28, which is when I started getting my life back on
>>>> track.
>>>>
>>>> Did I have a "chip on my shoulder," as has been suggested?
>>>> Yeah, probably, but I think most psychologists would think that
>>>> normal for the circumstances.
>>>
>>> Yeah you did, still have, but no, shrinks would most certainly NOT
>>> give you a pass. I understand debilitating diseases, having a few
>>> nasty conditions myself, but that just isn't a reason to be
>>> reckless nor to take on the cops and take such a deep dive into
>>> alcoholism and drugs that you don't even remember a number of years
>>> of your life. I sincerly hope that you obtained both rehab to get
>>> off the junk and professional help to deal with your problems in a
>>> way less dangerous to yourself and others.
>>>
>>>> Did I rather tenaciously pursue my rights, more so than Mr. or
>>>> Ms. Average Joe(sephine)? Probably, and I still do because
>>>> able-bodied people continually trample them. A right is only a
>>>> right when it is granted by others, or defended by the claiming
>>>> party. Hence, I have learned that, if I want to pursue
>>>> happiness, as most North Americans like to do, I sometimes have
>>>> to beat my way through a rather callused crowd. I think you
>>>> will find this sentiment rather wide-spread in any disabled
>>>> community -- especially when dealing with the more highly
>>>> motivated members of those communities.
>>>>
>>>> Take Care,
>>>
>>> No, you really didn't defend you rights. You vastly exceeded your
>>> rights and freedoms and thus gave up most of the protections
>>> allowed by your laws. Honestly, I've been courteous to you but what
>>> you have described should have landed you in jail for most of your
>>> life. You just can't go around whacking cops, pushing your way onto
>>> potential crime scens, street racing without adequate vision,
>>> possibly in a drug or booze haze, and a number of other things
>>> you've bragged about. My hope for you is that you've intentionally
>>> over dramatized your exploits to look cool and really didn't do
>>> that crap.
>>>
>>> --
>>> HP, aka Jerry
>>>
>>> "Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
>>> bumper sticker
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jerry, who said anything about "street" racing? I raced on the track,
>> and I did it sober. I lined my Mustang up against stripped out Camarros,
>> rail dragsters, and anything else that I could. Ever heard of bracket
>> racing? Completely legal, on a strip, and I hassled "street" racers I
>> knew, telling them that if they wanted to prove their rides were fast,
>> produce a time slip, it's much more impressive. The other drivers knew
>> there were risks, as much from "normal" drivers, equipment malfunctions
>> and track conditions as from a driver with poor vision. A friend of mine
>> died on the same track as I raced because he took a corner wide and ran
>> into a dead machine parked there, waiting for a toe...
>>
>> Moreover, I had a VALID driver's licence at the time. You may not know
>> that, most places in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, a licence can be
>> obtained by anyone who is not legally blind; that means there are
>> MILLIONS of drivers out there who only have 10% of normal vision, and
>> they are doing it legally.
>>
>> Nobody took my licence away. I gave it up, voluntarily, when I felt I
>> could no longer conduct my vehicle safely because I didn't want to
>> endanger others.
>>
>> I consider myself mildly right on the political / social scale because I
>> find that the farther right one goes, the more people talk about rights,
>> but they are only concerned about their own. Everybody else is wrong,
>> and they need to be converted, or eliminated. Your attitude exhibits
>> this phenomena quite nicely, Jerry.
>>
>> Regarding the assault incident, I'll take the judges words over yours as
>> to whether or not I was defending my rights.
>>
>> In his judgement, he noted that, since I stood six foot four, had rugged
>> features, and had a heavy growth of beard at the time of the incident,
>> there was no way I should have been mistaken for being under the age of
>> 18. In fact, sitting there in the courtroom, squeaky clean and in my
>> most civil looking clothes, clean shaven, the judge himself couldn't
>> picture me as an under-aged person.
>>
>> The judge noted that the cops "did not have any right to stop me," and
>> that by taking hold of me to prevent me from leaving, I had been in fact
>> "placed under arrest." Since the arrest was not warranted, i "had every
>> right to resist."
>>
>> Please note, the Crown never appealed the verdict, so it was not
>> erroneous. And, if my actions were in error, do you not think the Crown
>> would have gone to great lengths to prove that average Joe's shouldn't go
>> around "popping" cops?
>>
>> Maybe I'm not a constitutional scholar, but isn't it amazing how I based
>> my actions on the same criteria the judge later based his judgement on?
>> And, I was only 23?? Maybe, Jerry, you underestimate how much a person
>> can learn on their own. Members of the religious right like to feign
>> ignorance, stating that we are all idiots and only God has a usable
>> intellect. I, on the other hand, believe that the human intellectual
>> capacity is vastly underated, and underutilized. Just because I don't
>> have credentials in a given area doesn't mean I can't think rationally
>> and logically and make an intelligent decision -- even if others think
>> I'm crazy at the time...
>>
>>
>> If you want to read his judgement, the trial took place in the Leduc
>> Provincial Court, around 1982 or '83.
>>
>> So, Jerry, like I said, I'll take the judges verdict, not yours.
>>
>> Also, (falling to your level) unless you are a qualified psychologist, I
>> doubt you have any authority to judge how people react to disabling
>> conditions. After sustaining such "permanent" frying, how many people do
>> you know who have come out of the haze with an IQ of 150? (If you want
>> to make a fortune on a gravity powered engine, I have an idea, but it'll
>> cost you...)
>>
>> Indeed, I have not over dramatized to impress, if anything, I have
>> understated to maintain some semblance of credibility. There was also
>> the time I loaded a shotgun in front of this jerk who wanted to kick my
>> head in because a passenger in my car had given him the finger as we were
>> driving down the street. The kid was 12, and I was giving him a ride
>> home to help out his sister, who was a friend of mine.
>>
>> The jerk on the other end of my shotgun barrel was a known gang member,
>> and fairly expert in the martial arts, but he didn't like facing a spray
>> of birdseed, so I never heard anything from him again.
>>
>> Another example of rash behaviour? Well, first, you should know that I
>> contacted the cops about this situation, and was told to take the guy out
>> to a secluded spot and duke it out. If the cops got any report of a
>> disturbance, they'd be slow to respond, to give me time to tune him in --
>> or to get my ass kicked by him and his buddies. Doing it my way, nobody
>> got hurt, and the problem ended then and there.
>>
>> Yes, I have done some "crazy" things in my life, but the reoccuring
>> important factor is that nobody got hurt in all the insanity surrounding
>> my loss of vision. There was plenty of opportunity for people to get
>> hurt, but nobody did.
>>
>> And, that extends to others, as well. I remember a time (I said thinggs
>> got fuzzy, I didn't say I can't remember them, so quit adding your spin
>> to my words) when I had done some LSD, along with some others. We were
>> travelling in a car (about six of us, three in the front and three in the
>> back). Another guy with RP was high in the back; I was in the front.
>> While tripping, this guy decides he can't take it any more and opens the
>> back door to jump out at highway speed.
>>
>> I turned around, grabbed him by his belt, and dragged him back before he
>> could hit the pavement. Then, while holding him down with one hand
>> (remember, I stand 6' 4" and lifted weights back then), I closed the door
>> with my free hand. Once the door was closed and locked, I picked him up
>> and told the guy in the center to slip around to the door. Then I
>> plopped the guy freaking out in between the other two, where he couldn't
>> hurt himself. He's still alive, today.
>>
>> Had I not been there, he would have been toast. I'm sure some of your
>> ultra-right tight shirts are crossing themselves right now and muttering,
>> "Indeed, God does work in mysterious ways." Or, maybe they are just
>> muttering that I was responsible for keeping another welfare bum on the
>> payroll... Probably more zealots saying the latter than the former.
>>
>> But, I digress...
>>
>> The basis of this thread was maintaining / defending ones rights, and I
>> think my assault incident illustrates quite vividly that, every now and
>> then, someone has to exert their rights in order to defend them. Yes,
>> cops do have a right to stop a guy who is walking down the street and
>> carrying a case of beer, as long as the fellow appears to be under the
>> legal age. On the other hand, cops don't have the right to use such a
>> "routine check" to hassle the former classmate of one of their buddies...
>> Likewise, cops have the right to obtain potential evidence from the
>> camera of a journalist, but they have fairly well-defined procedures they
>> are supposed to follow. The fact that the Vancouver police department
>> has admitted procedures were not followed and issued Mr. Payne an apology
>> speaks to that point.
>>
>> I always like to draw parrallels from incidents like this to illustrate
>> that the disabled have their rights trampled on a daily basis because
>> most people just don't care if the disabled have rights or not.
>> Certainly, lip service is paid often enough to those rights, but, in
>> practice, it's just not the same. If my history and ascertians make you
>> uncomfortable, then I have done my part...
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>
> BTW, in case you question my assertion about IQ = 150, feel free to
> contact a fellow named Braden Hirsch. I believe he still works for the
> Alberta government, and I had the privilege / opportunity to work with him
> while I was upgrading my education in the late 1980, and then again to
> work with him in the '90s at a support service for disabled individuals
> attending a local college in Edmonton. He pegged my IQ at 150, though
> noting it would be difficult to determine any thing exactly given the
> sensory deficit and experiencially diverse development I have functioned
> with.
>
> You might want to pay particular attention to a book he wrote; it's in
> the library of the University of Alberta and here is the catalog entry for
> it:
>
> Comparison of computerized and standardized version of the
> Multidimensional Aptitude
> Battery and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised
> Personal Author:
> Hirsch, Braden P.
> Title:
> Comparison of computerized and standardized version of the
> Multidimensional Aptitude Battery and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
> Scale - Revised / by Braden P. Hirsch.
> Publication info:
> 1986.
> Physical descrip:
> vii, 35 leaves ; 29 cm.
> Subject term:
> Intelligence tests--Data processing.
> Subject term:
> Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
> Dissertation note:
> Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Alberta, 1986.
> Added author:
> University of Alberta. Dept. of Educational Psychology.
>
>
>
Sorry, Jerry, you probably aren't used to dealing with people who can back
up what they say. But, my somewhat right of center conservatism insists
that I try to work within the accepted framework of things, as much as
possible. It's just that my conflicting mental ability and physical
limitations are constantly at odds, not so much with each other, more like
at odds with societal norms / expectations. Hence, most people can't relate
to my situation and just put me down as a left wing nut...
What can I say. Life is interesting, if nothing else...
Take Care,
Dudley
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 3:24 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-04-09 11:19:40 -0700, jls <notvalid@yahoo.com> said:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:31:24 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
>> scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
>> protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
>> normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
>> them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
>> cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
>> the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
>> to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
>> recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
>> murder charges.
>
> Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
> consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'. Just from
> personal perspective, having some appreciation for the extreme
> circumstances under which officers often find themselves, it is a
> dangerous thing to expect perfection from them.
Here are some details for you to check:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/oscar_grant.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tuAhoTPXEk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVsncZ7K584&feature=related
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/14/BART.shooting.arrest/index.html
Certainly the charge of murder may be a case of a DA over-charging and
may end up with a voluntary or in-voluntary manslaughter result. It may
result in aquital and a finding that the shooting was accidental.
What cannot be refuted is the well documented negligence on the part of
the officer and the death of the victim, Oscar Grant.
>
> For me it wouild have to be a pretty extreme circumstance, involving
> at the least a complete negligence in disregard for others, and/or
> some form of abuse of power, for me to ever consider this a reasonable
> action. Yes, "we the people" do need to make sure we are protected
> from abuse and tyranny from our government "agents", but we also need
> to make sure they have enough freedom to act in our interests as well.
Agreed.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:21 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/8/09 2:26 PM, in article 3U6Dl.20763$Db2.10544@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:qeydnWaEW_WpwEHUnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>> Dudley,
>> You sound like a person I wouldn't want to know. Your confrontational
>> attitude, and tendency to do really stupid things (hitting a cop) will
>> likely keep your life very interesting. I hope that you have learned to
>> be less pugnacious as you have gotten older.
>> I suspect that in this area, you would still be sitting in prison,
>> wondering how you got there.
>
> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to keep in mind
> that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a condition that would
> result in a slow, permanent, and complete loss of vision. I was highly
> graphical, and had been taking pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the
> age of 18. How many 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed
> backstage to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton, Eddie
> Money, Heart, etc...??
>
Dudley, do you still have those? I would love to see them posted. I too, at
that age (early 1970's) was the "officilal photographer" of several venues
in the Houston area. I hate it that nagatives of my backstage photography of
Mothers of Invention, The Animals, Fever Tree, 13th Floor Elevators, ZZ Top,
Joe Cocker, Jethro Tull and several others that my feeble mind cannot recall
has been lost.
> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision without
> having an accident.
>
You must mean 90% normal vision, I hope!!!
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:28 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C603ED47.26CE2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 4/8/09 2:26 PM, in article 3U6Dl.20763$Db2.10544@edtnps83, "Dudley
> Hanks"
> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:qeydnWaEW_WpwEHUnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Dudley,
>>> You sound like a person I wouldn't want to know. Your confrontational
>>> attitude, and tendency to do really stupid things (hitting a cop) will
>>> likely keep your life very interesting. I hope that you have learned to
>>> be less pugnacious as you have gotten older.
>>> I suspect that in this area, you would still be sitting in prison,
>>> wondering how you got there.
>>
>> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to keep in mind
>> that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a condition that would
>> result in a slow, permanent, and complete loss of vision. I was highly
>> graphical, and had been taking pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the
>> age of 18. How many 18 year old photographers do you know who were
>> allowed
>> backstage to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton,
>> Eddie
>> Money, Heart, etc...??
>>
> Dudley, do you still have those? I would love to see them posted. I too,
> at
> that age (early 1970's) was the "officilal photographer" of several venues
> in the Houston area. I hate it that nagatives of my backstage photography
> of
> Mothers of Invention, The Animals, Fever Tree, 13th Floor Elevators, ZZ
> Top,
> Joe Cocker, Jethro Tull and several others that my feeble mind cannot
> recall
> has been lost.
>> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision without
>> having an accident.
>>
> You must mean 90% normal vision, I hope!!!
>
Nope, I only had 10% normal vision, the minimum vision required to obtain a
driver's licence...
Take Care,
Dudly
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:51 pm
From: "Paul Bartram"
"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-g20-police-assault-footage
> Here's a case where a video shot by a civilian is both evidence and
> 'public interest.'. Should the police have seized this? Note: the Guardian
> article does not say who took the video, reporter or bystander (or indeed
> a police videographer.) But the fact that it was leaked to the press first
> means at least we know about it and it can't be covered up. However, that
> doesn't make it any less useable as evidence.
Here's the latest on this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/10/g20-assault-investigation
Couple of things: Looks like the police are going to 'soft pedal' on the
investigation, as they haven't even interviewed the 'offender' after 48
hours (although he is suspended from duty - with pay or without?)
They now say there were no CCTV cameras in the vicinity. Hard to believe, in
the centre of London, the most surveilled place on the planet.
There is a possibility of previous contact with the police, not that this
would be any excuse for thuggery, but I get the feeling that The Guardian
(one of the few newspapers still in existence with morals) will keep their
teeth locked on this story, and the truth will 'out' in the end.
Paul
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Solution for D90 matrix..(update)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2c77d17e540a942b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 2:08 pm
From: "Focus"
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009040911075850878-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2009-04-09 04:11:26 -0700, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> said:
>
>> I had Nikon Netherlands look at the pictures and they agreed my camera
>> over
>> exposes.
>> Nobody less then the coordinator is going to personally supervise the
>> repair.
>>
>> Strange nobody here seem to have come up with that idea; most people
>> preferred to argue the fact that I wasn't able or professional enough to
>> adjust the camera.
>>
>> Something to think about, CJ Campbell, before you point your finger in
>> the
>> wrong direction....
>>
>> Can you still enjoy your food with that boot in your mouth? ;-)
>
> Actually, I did consider the possibility that there is something wrong
> with your camera. I believed, however, that you had already checked that
> out. I guess you aren't as smart as I thought.
Sure, sure....
You considered, you believed, you guessed....
Maybe you should stick with the given facts instead of jumping to premature
conclusions and assumptions.
Or does it make you feel like a better photographer or pro when you put
other people down?
--
---
Focus
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 3:19 am
From: "Paul B"
Thus spake ASAAR:
> I disagree. I took a closeup picture of some people on a train a
> week ago, coincidentally shot at 35mm. Although not tack sharp, it
> still managed to look pretty good. Without IS it would have been
> pretty awful, as the shutter speed was a looong 1/2 second.
You are disagreeing!? As a general rule, the longer the lens, the more
useful IS is going to be. I've taken shots down to around 0.5" myself that
were sharp but my P&S doesn't go below 35mm equiv. All I can say is that IS
is very useful unlike stuff like face recognition or in-camera sepia filters
etc
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 2:52 pm
From: ASAAR
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:19:08 +0100, Paul B wrote:
>> I disagree. I took a closeup picture of some people on a train a
>> week ago, coincidentally shot at 35mm. Although not tack sharp, it
>> still managed to look pretty good. Without IS it would have been
>> pretty awful, as the shutter speed was a looong 1/2 second.
>
> You are disagreeing!? As a general rule, the longer the lens, the more
> useful IS is going to be. I've taken shots down to around 0.5" myself that
> were sharp but my P&S doesn't go below 35mm equiv. All I can say is that IS
> is very useful unlike stuff like face recognition or in-camera sepia filters
> etc
Of course I'm disagreeing. Not with the assertion that IS is more
useful at longer focal lengths, but that it serves no useful purpose
at 35mm and shorter focal lengths. I might argue that point only
because Rita insists that it's so, but then she won't use IS/VR even
on long telephotos. Complications may arise with wide angle lenses
on DSLRs at the slow shutter speeds that don't get along very well
with mirror slap, but for wide angle lenses on P&S cameras (that go
to 24mm and wider), that complication isn't seen.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:53 pm
From: "Paul B"
Thus spake Ron Recer:
> Most people use the lens longer than the camera body. Why keep
> paying for sensor stabilization boby after body when you can have an
> IS lens that works with many bodies and most agree the lens IS is
> superior to the sensor IS.
> Ron
Most new Canon & Nikon bodies have ultrasonic shift so they are already half
way there so I surmise that any added expense is going to be mostly a
one-off development cost that most other manufacturers have already carried
out.
--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Online Backup
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/42dbb5294c04e50c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 2:27 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
<trehook@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:22527e07-0198-4549-9ee9-8fd1c820a22e@l25g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
go to that group for answer and free remote support
http://groups.google.com/group/trevor-hook
Trevor Hook
On Apr 6, 7:34 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 9:50 pm, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >"Jürgen Exner" <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> Your method has the big disadvantage to not protecting you in case of
> > >> e.g. a virus, because if a virus is going erase thedataon your
> > >> computer, then that HD next to the computer will be erased, too.
>
> > >Yes, but what protects the "on line" computer from the viruses? Or, to
> > >put
> > >it another way, why don't the viruses infect the people who are
> > >handling
> > >your backup files?
>
> > Good question. The answer is that hopefully(!) your computer and the
> > backup storage server are not infected at the same time. Besides, for
> > decend backup the online backup server itself would need to be backedup
> > regularly to an offline medium.
>
> > >If I have two external hard drives (which is easy and
> > >cheap to do) then I can only keep one of them plugged into my computer
> > >at a
> > >time, (while the other one is in a closet at my friends house on the
> > >other
> > >side of town)
>
> > That is definitely a very smart way to go.
>
> > jue
>
> There are no perfect systems. Storing then at your friend's house
> works well until (a) you get lazy and forget to keep switching, (b)
> your friend's wife gets mad at you (or him) and tosses it, (c) you
> lose thedatathat is on existing drive but not old enough to be on
> the stored one.
>
> About 15 years ago we had a little insurrection in the works. A local
> not-for-profit made two backups of everything -- onto floppies cuz
> that's what everyone used at the time. The uprising didn't cause and
> problems so on Monday everyone wentbackto work, NBD. Just by
> coincidence, their main hard drive died. No problem, two fresh
> backups. The first person in got their backup and there was a bad
> sector. It was useless. They went to get their second copy and they
> guy had left them on thebackledge of his car and they all warped
> from the sun -- also useless. So don't think your friend and/or his
> girlfriend are a perfect storage arrangement.
>
> I use both a RAID array and Carbonite. I'm paranoid. I also work out
> of my house so it's all business-related and I need to keep the info.
> Bothbackupeverything I change, in real time. The RAID array also
> keepsbackcopies, in case I over right anything.
>
> Carbonite offers the advantage of being off site. If there's a
> tornado or fire or whatever, it won't effect them because they are not
> local. If I am traveling, I can also access files in an emergency.
> They also offer professions monitoring their systems, keeping
> everythingupand running, etc. The cost is reasonable.
>
> My RAID array allows me to access anything, anywhere on the network.
> If my computer dies, I can go on another computer and keep working --
> that's critical for projects with deadlines. It also keeps 5back
> copies so it provides overwrite protection. I could keep more but I'm
> not THAT paranoid. The downside is moreup-front expense and I have
> to maintain it myself.
>
> Then, about every 6 months I archive everything to another computer
> and an external hard drive.
>
> Mydata-management is a pain, but it's what I have to do to ensure
> that what I need is where I need it when I need it.
>
> As for Carbonite, it's an excellent system. If there was ONE thing
> that you were going to do to ensure backups, that's it because it's a
> forget-about-it type of backup.
I'm sure it is. But regardless of how good it is, if I'm not doing it
myself, then I won't be able to sleep well at night. It's kind of like
driving somewhere with a friend. When he is driving, I can't sleep. I admire
him for being able to sleep when I drive, but I can't return the favor, even
if he drives like an expert and/or is a professional.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:25 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/8/09 11:34 PM, in article 9auqt4tbmo4kag6eje4agp5hqf8nq8jsrf@4ax.com,
"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On 09 Apr 2009 02:33:22 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>
>> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
>> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
>
> Folks like that remind me of little brothers. There's one cookie left
> for them and their older brother. They want it all and their brother
> wants to split it evenly. Their mom says split it evenly. So the
> little brother screams and hollers that it's no fair their older
> brother got he they wanted and they didn't.
>
"Their mom says split it evenly. So the little brother screams and hollers
that it's no fair their older brother got he they wanted and they didn't."
WTF are you trying to say here?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:27 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/9/09 12:26 AM, in article
DsSdnRzga5qFGkDUnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica, "Jer"
<gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>
>
> What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that of
> horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less. And you
> know this.
>
Yeah but what comes after the fart is most disturbing. I don't think
mountain bikes take dumps. They make dump the rider, tho...
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:29 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/9/09 6:32 AM, in article Xns9BE84CB896443FatherGuido@198.186.190.61,
"Father Guido Sarducci" <don@novello.com> wrote:
> In message news:49dd5e72$0$1600$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net, rfischer@sonic.net
> (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
>> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
>
> Depends. Are you nailed down?
Oh my, FATHER!
I am so ashamed of you.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:31 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/9/09 9:50 AM, in article Xns9BE86E42B45F2FatherGuido@198.186.190.61,
"Father Guido Sarducci" <don@novello.com> wrote:
> In message news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDUnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica,
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> said:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
>>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>>
>>
>> What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
>
> Have you ever stepped on a bug?
>
>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that of
>> horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less. And you
>> know this.
>
> Mountain bikes are not powered, genius.
Bull! One human power: No more - no less. Unless you're Lance Armstrong...
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:35 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/9/09 10:41 AM, in article 7GoDl.40473$_R4.27772@newsfe11.iad, "Martin
Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for
>>> their kind, the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest
>>> G20 meetings.
>
> Unlike the rednecked fuckwits who drive everywhere in their 5mpg monster
> trucks tearing the land to shreds and shooting everything in sight.
>
Like these rat-bastards who should have Jack Bauer attach jumper cables to
their nipples...
<http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6365427.html>
People who kill pets go on to be Serial Killers
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please take a look at this its Free
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dafc5e677fdb822a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 4:27 pm
From: "Paul Bartram"
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> This is spam, posted in a great many news groups. It was reported.
..and the replies (except this one) posted to all those groups again!
Paul
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment