Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Best Photo Scanners - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa72ed087c841433?hl=en
* I hate environmentalists - 12 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
* Just for Jerry... - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7ba5f2892276f349?hl=en
* Call for mandate - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6cbc763caf3831fc?hl=en
* Can you hear me? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/564c3d5e0b3abb29?hl=en
* New: Nikon D5000 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/74a657afcf04f678?hl=en
* New e-mail address for Shoot-In submissions - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4dc62031bd876fb6?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best Photo Scanners
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa72ed087c841433?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 9:38 am
From: Jürgen Exner

"PDM" <pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>news:68b6a929-8f01-41a5-b168-8e0fe2b260b4@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 12, 11:13 pm, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark Franzels <markfranz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Guys, just a theoretical question and not meant to practise
>> >it, but what minimum scanners and printers are enough
>> >to exactly print the dollar bill so accurate that it can't
>> >be distinguished from the original..
>>
>> It cannot be done, because bank notes are printed using steal engraving.

Ok, yes, it is steel engraving, of course. Or anti-steal :-)

>> The effects of that intaglio printing cannot be reproduced by other
>> printing techniques. Which of course is precisely the reason, why this
>> technique is used for bank notes in the first place.
>
>As Jurgen suggests, intaglio printing is widely available from
>commercial printers. The problem is the plates. You would need to
>hand make another set. That'll take you a year or two.

Not only that, even the person who created the original plate would not
be able to duplicate it exactly.

>Not quite true that intaglio can not be reproduced, at least enough to fool
>99%. Needs a close examination under a magnifying glass and then can be
>difficult.

Quite true, that's why we have seen teens passing bills that were
scanned and printed on a simple ink jet printer. And with higher quality
equipment you can certainly get even beyond those 99%.

But the OP explicitely asked for "can't be distinguished from the
original." And that is impossible.

jue

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 10:11 am
From: nospam

In article <49e4b62d$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, PDM
<pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> >> WRONG. Best one is the Skytex.
> >
> > You'd think the best scanner would have _some_ presence on the web...
>
> Agree, maybe got the name wrong, or maybe gone bust; think they are made in
> Israel of all places. Been a few years ago since used it. Once get back to
> college next week will check and let you know.

scitex

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 4:06 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:11:51 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <49e4b62d$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, PDM
><pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> WRONG. Best one is the Skytex.
>> >
>> > You'd think the best scanner would have _some_ presence on the web...
>>
>> Agree, maybe got the name wrong, or maybe gone bust; think they are made in
>> Israel of all places. Been a few years ago since used it. Once get back to
>> college next week will check and let you know.
>
>scitex

See
http://www.maya-archaeology.org/ScitexEverSmart_flatbed_scanner/Scitex_flatbed_scanners.php

Eric Stevens

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 10:38 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Twibil"
>> On Apr 13, 7:13 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>>>>>> (In a related story, psychologists have discovered that it's
>>>>>> invariably the least intelligent and least educated people who see and
>>>>>> state things in absolutes. Brighter souls recognise that there are
>>>>>> seldom cases where there are pure blacks and pure whites, and tend to
>>>>>> concentrate on distinguishing the shades of grey in any given
>>>>>> situation. For an example, see the differences between Sarah Palin and
>>>>>> John McCain...)
>>>
>>>>> She has much more appealing legs.
>>>
>>>> You betcha she does!!
>>>
>>>> And the striking intellect of a three-week-dead Haddock.
>>>
>>> Pretty ladies don't need to be smart.
>>
>> They do if they're running for high office and there's an informed
>> electorate.
>>
>> For example, see the recent election results...
>That's why the bitch is now Sec of State?

It's because she's smarter than some asshole rightard like you.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 11:23 am
From: Twibil

On Apr 14, 6:46 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Pretty ladies don't need to be smart.
>
> > They do if they're running for high office and there's an informed
> > electorate.
>
> > For example, see the recent election results...
>
> That's why the bitch is now Sec of State?

Exactly. In *both* ways that can be taken.

(A) Hillary lost the nomination because while she's smart as hell
about some things, she's never figured out how to be likable when she
needs to, and that's dumb.

(B) On the other hand, Obama wouldn't have had her on the team unless
he thought she could do the job, and you've got to admit that he
picked the perfect position for her: a Sec of State needs to be smart
and to have all the emotional sweetness of a hungry white shark
closing in for the kill.

Fits her perfectly.

~Pete

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 11:51 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-04-12 23:15:42 -0700, Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> said:

> On Apr 12, 8:00 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> You really are an insane fanatic.
>
> You mean that heretofore there had been some doubt in your mind?
>
> (In a related story, psychologists have discovered that it's
> invariably the least intelligent and least educated people who see and
> state things in absolutes. Brighter souls recognise that there are
> seldom cases where there are pure blacks and pure whites, and tend to
> concentrate on distinguishing the shades of grey in any given
> situation. For an example, see the differences between Sarah Palin and
> John McCain...)

Demonstrably untrue. The greatest crusaders and reformers in history
have come from the ranks of the educated and intelligent. These people
do have a tendency to see things in terms of black and white. In fact,
I would submit that opposite -- that those who are unable to
distinguish between black and white and those who argue that all shades
of grey are the same are people who are arguing from an unreasonable
position. People who refuse to acknowledge the difference between good
and evil invariably do so because of a need to justify something
heinous in their own lifestyles.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:11 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:gs29jt$3qh$1@qmul...
>
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BEC6C080895FReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131...
>> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>> For those who believe that the Bible is the unadultorated Word
>>> of God, compare the geneology of Genesis (chapter 5?) with the
>>> Geneology contained in Mathew (chapter 1, if I remember
>>> correctly). You'll notice there is a discrepency, they are not
>>> the same.
>>
>> If you're too stupid and ignorant to believe something so basic and
>> so obvious, there is no point in attempting to change you mind. In
>> short, I don't try to reason with fools.
>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Well, for those who say there are no mistakes in the Bible, this
>>> is somewhat troublesome, since either somebody added or forgot a
>>> name when riting one of the books -- ie. made a mistake. If
>>> there is one mistake, how many others are there...
>>
>> Look, dumb shit, the Bible is a collaborative effort of stories
>> handed down from one person to another,
>
> Yep, sensible peolpe know that.
>
>>from one generation to
>> another, and often from multiple people reporting on the same
>> event.
>
> Sometimes different events that are interchangeable.
>
> >Almost no one could read and write in Biblical times,
> I think the Egyptians could, so could the Chinese.
>
>>thus
>> the need for scribes. And, there were no spellung chekkurs or
>> Wikipedia to check one's work,
> So further evidence that the Bible could be mistaken.
> I used to think it was all lies, but I now tend to think of it as stories
> some might be lies some misunderstandings and others just wishful
> thinking.
>>
>> so why would you expect that it be
>> perfect?
>
> If it is the word of God it would be perfect,
> unless you're suggesting Gods word is imperfect.
>
> If it is truely his word and he is all powerfull then surely he wouldn't
> accept such misprints, he'd go in to that persons mind and make them see
> the light.
>
> Perhaps you can tell me why only Mathew seems to insist that Mary was a
> virgin
> at the time of christs birth.
>
>

And, speaking of geneologies, the one in Luke is totally different from
either the one in Genesis or Mathew.

I agree with those who say the Bible is a collection of stories (bordering
on fables), but my point is that the organized church usually won't admit
that. Higher up religious mucky mucks continually portray the scriptures as
being "divinely inspired," that they were written by God through the hand of
man. The provable inaccuracies go a long way to debunk this kind of
dark-aged fear mongering.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 2:45 pm
From: Ron Hunter

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> Your assertion that all "rabid" environmentalists advocate the end of
>>>>> humanity is plain wrong and just tainted propaganda.
>>>> Who gave you the right to define my terms? To ME a 'rabid
>>>> environmentalist' IS one who goes so far as to advocate extermination of
>>>> humans, and return of the earth to the animals.
>>> Who therefore obviously considers man not to be an animal, and who
>>> therefore is obviously religious in their thinking.
>
>> I am religious, and man certainly IS an animal. Why do you think that
>> has anything to do with religion? You seem to labor under the
>> misconception that all religious people are both stupid, and without the
>> ability to use logic, or science.
>
> You're not being logical. The only necessary implication of what I
> wrote is that only religious people think that man is not an
> animal. There is no need to make the further stronger assumption that
> there are no religious people who do not think man in an animal. And
> nothing I have written remotely warrants your other stupid
> presumptions about what I believe.
>

Your statement is interpreted as meaning that anyone who believes that
man in an animal can't be religious, which is balderdash. There may be
some who are religious who don't believe that man is an animal but I
really haven't encountered them.

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 2:46 pm
From: Alan Browne

John McWilliams wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, that makes it worse, but it isn't an issue of being too strong,
>>> I just find the odor to be so incredibly unpleasant. BO, while not
>>> pleasant, it more tolerable to me than things people do to smell
>>> likable. For me, no odor is far preferable to anything artificial.
>>> For years, I've recommend my special lady friends refrain from adding
>>> anything after their bath - save that nonsense for someone else.
>>
>> Different perfumes for different skins. If your nose is good you can
>> identify the perfume that matches her skin type. I've gone 6 for 6
>> with my girlfriend.
>
> That's an admirable record, but would she agree to an audit?? :-)

Ask her.

--
-- 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.

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 2:50 pm
From: Alan Browne

Peter Irwin wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
>> indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual thought.
>> When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and then they can decide
>> what course to take in their lives.
>
> I don't get how this is even possibly reasonable.
> When a child asks "why is tonight different from all other nights?"
> without prompting (and they will ask some such questions without
> prompting), do you have to tell them that you are forbidden to
> answer that question until they are 18 because of the Alan Browne law?

Who said it was a real proposal? It was just to illustrate the reality
that religions protect themselves by very early brainwashing (sorry,
"instruction") of children. And the frontline soldiers in this are
their own parents. Tell a kid he can go to hell and burn forever when
he's 5 years old and you don't even need to promise him heaven.

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 2:51 pm
From: Alan Browne

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
>> indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual thought.
>> When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and then they can decide
>> what course to take in their lives.
>
> Actually I strongly disagree. In your scenario they have nothing to base
> their decision on.
>
> A much better approach would be to teach them religion from the
> beginning, maybe 7th or 9th grade. But teach them about _ALL_ religions,
> from Greek mythology over Druidism, Shinto, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Islam,
> Christianity, to African, American and Australian native believe
> systems.
>
> Then and only then they have a chance to compare and make an educated
> decision for themself. And also to place religion as such in its right
> spot.

That would just confuse the poor things... Hmm, maybe you have a point.

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 3:31 pm
From: George Kerby

On 4/14/09 12:38 PM, in article 49e4ca31$0$1601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:

> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Twibil"
>>> On Apr 13, 7:13 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> (In a related story, psychologists have discovered that it's
>>>>>>> invariably the least intelligent and least educated people who see and
>>>>>>> state things in absolutes. Brighter souls recognise that there are
>>>>>>> seldom cases where there are pure blacks and pure whites, and tend to
>>>>>>> concentrate on distinguishing the shades of grey in any given
>>>>>>> situation. For an example, see the differences between Sarah Palin and
>>>>>>> John McCain...)
>>>>
>>>>>> She has much more appealing legs.
>>>>
>>>>> You betcha she does!!
>>>>
>>>>> And the striking intellect of a three-week-dead Haddock.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty ladies don't need to be smart.
>>>
>>> They do if they're running for high office and there's an informed
>>> electorate.
>>>
>>> For example, see the recent election results...
>> That's why the bitch is now Sec of State?
>
> It's because she's smarter than some asshole rightard like you.

FishRot, you are the Chairman of the Double-Digit Society of Socialists.

You have no idea how funny it is to see you talkin' about the concept of
'smart'!

BAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-
HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW!!!!!!!!!

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 3:34 pm
From: John A.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:45:58 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> Your assertion that all "rabid" environmentalists advocate the end of
>>>>>> humanity is plain wrong and just tainted propaganda.
>>>>> Who gave you the right to define my terms? To ME a 'rabid
>>>>> environmentalist' IS one who goes so far as to advocate extermination of
>>>>> humans, and return of the earth to the animals.
>>>> Who therefore obviously considers man not to be an animal, and who
>>>> therefore is obviously religious in their thinking.
>>
>>> I am religious, and man certainly IS an animal. Why do you think that
>>> has anything to do with religion? You seem to labor under the
>>> misconception that all religious people are both stupid, and without the
>>> ability to use logic, or science.
>>
>> You're not being logical. The only necessary implication of what I
>> wrote is that only religious people think that man is not an
>> animal. There is no need to make the further stronger assumption that
>> there are no religious people who do not think man in an animal. And
>> nothing I have written remotely warrants your other stupid
>> presumptions about what I believe.
>>
>
>Your statement is interpreted as meaning that anyone who believes that
>man in an animal can't be religious, which is balderdash. There may be
>some who are religious who don't believe that man is an animal but I
>really haven't encountered them.

It's clear to me that he did not say that all people with religious
thinking think people aren't animals, but rather that all people who
think people are not animals have religious thinking.

Do you see the difference?

Sure, it's probably wrong. There are probably also some non-religious
people who do not think of people as animals. I imagine they would be
basically ignorant, at least of rudimentary biology, and that is by no
means exclusive to the religious. But it's not wrong the way you claim
it's wrong.

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 3:36 pm
From: George Kerby

On 4/14/09 1:23 PM, in article
bfa76051-957e-4570-be8e-7e8895b6859e@s22g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
<nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 6:46 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Pretty ladies don't need to be smart.
>>
>>> They do if they're running for high office and there's an informed
>>> electorate.
>>
>>> For example, see the recent election results...
>>
>> That's why the bitch is now Sec of State?
>
> Exactly. In *both* ways that can be taken.
>
> (A) Hillary lost the nomination because while she's smart as hell
> about some things, she's never figured out how to be likable when she
> needs to, and that's dumb.

Not smart enough to control Bubba with flying ashtrays.
>
> (B) On the other hand, Obama wouldn't have had her on the team unless
> he thought she could do the job, and you've got to admit that he
> picked the perfect position for her: a Sec of State needs to be smart
> and to have all the emotional sweetness of a hungry white shark
> closing in for the kill.
>

"White Shark"?!? A Freudian slip?

> Fits her perfectly.
>
> ~Pete

The "recent election" - referring to Primary 2008 where she got her ass
kicked.

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 3:49 pm
From: John A.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:36:02 -0500, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 4/14/09 1:23 PM, in article
>bfa76051-957e-4570-be8e-7e8895b6859e@s22g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
><nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 14, 6:46 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Pretty ladies don't need to be smart.
>>>
>>>> They do if they're running for high office and there's an informed
>>>> electorate.
>>>
>>>> For example, see the recent election results...
>>>
>>> That's why the bitch is now Sec of State?
>>
>> Exactly. In *both* ways that can be taken.
>>
>> (A) Hillary lost the nomination because while she's smart as hell
>> about some things, she's never figured out how to be likable when she
>> needs to, and that's dumb.
>
>Not smart enough to control Bubba with flying ashtrays.
>>
>> (B) On the other hand, Obama wouldn't have had her on the team unless
>> he thought she could do the job, and you've got to admit that he
>> picked the perfect position for her: a Sec of State needs to be smart
>> and to have all the emotional sweetness of a hungry white shark
>> closing in for the kill.
>>
>
>"White Shark"?!? A Freudian slip?
>
>> Fits her perfectly.
>>
>> ~Pete
>
>The "recent election" - referring to Primary 2008 where she got her ass
>kicked.

Wow! If that's what you call getting your ass kicked, what the heck do
you call what happened to McCain?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just for Jerry...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7ba5f2892276f349?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 10:40 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>Dudley Hanks
>>> Hey, Jerry, if I set up a site with forums specifically for
>>> your rantings, will you take your bigotry there and help
>>> cleanup the group?
>>
>> Hey, now that I think of it, I like that idea...
>>
>> I think I'll do it, and I'll call the site, "Right is Wrong"...
>>
>I don't rant, moron,

Of course you do.

> but I DO make sport of fools like you with your
>shithouse lawyer idea of the law, and the obvious silliness of using
>drugs and getting smashed with booze at the same time you're driving
>on the street or some dumb ass Canuck sanctioned race track.

And there's another example of your rants.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:05 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tbb9u4plml7frptbhsrohs9bthiovhl9un@4ax.com...
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> put his foot in his mouth again when he
> wrote:
>
>>One easy example: with only one or two exceptions in the last 40+
>>years, your Canuck dollar, commonly called the Looney, has been
>>valued well UNDER the US dollar. Right now, I think it is someplace
>>UNDER 75-80 cents. So, if that doesn't tell you that your country is
>>majorly fucked up by idiots like you, I don't know what will.
>
> Hmmm, applying this "logic" to other currencies:
> The US dollar, commonly called green back, has always been valued well
> under the British Pound. Right now it is someplace below 70 pennies.
> In recent years the US dollar, commonly called green back, has been
> valued well under the Euro. Right now it is someplace around 75 Cent.
>
> So, if that doesn't tell you that your country is majorly fucked up by
> idiots like you, I don't know what will.
>
> jue

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Take Care,
Dudley

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:05 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BED7479D338CReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131...
> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>> Hey, Jerry, if I set up a site with forums specifically for
>>> your rantings, will you take your bigotry there and help
>>> cleanup the group?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hey, now that I think of it, I like that idea...
>>
>> I think I'll do it, and I'll call the site, "Right is Wrong"...
>>
> I don't rant, moron, but I DO make sport of fools like you with your
> shithouse lawyer idea of the law, and the obvious silliness of using
> drugs and getting smashed with booze at the same time you're driving
> on the street or some dumb ass Canuck sanctioned race track.
>
> I know many Canadians who are decent reasonable people, but the sub-
> genre of Canucks are demonstrably so stupid and ignorant that I
> classify them as fools, do not try to reason with them, but do enjoy
> fucking with their warped Socialist heads. You twits exactly deserve
> what you get from the Canuck factions that have so ruined your
> country.
>
> One easy example: with only one or two exceptions in the last 40+
> years, your Canuck dollar, commonly called the Looney, has been
> valued well UNDER the US dollar. Right now, I think it is someplace
> UNDER 75-80 cents. So, if that doesn't tell you that your country is
> majorly fucked up by idiots like you, I don't know what will.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
>
> "The government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson
> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
> problem!" - Ronald Reagan

Still haven't taken a remedial reading course, Jerry?

If you ever do learn how to read, you'll discover that, if our dollar were
higher than yours, you wouldn't be able to afford our exports. That would
mean that a great deal of what you buy every day would skyrocket in price.

So, Jerry, it's a good thing that idiots like you AREN'T running the States.
If they were, everybody would pay more. But, that is what the ultra Right
goofs like. Make the poor pay.

Once again, Jerry, you have proven that all you can do is parrot the party
line as you regurgitate ideological spiel you obviously don't understand.

BTW, I noticed you haven't posted any links to show that a driver with RP
would be banned from a U.S. track. You might be interested in this link,
which illustrates nicely that only a driver's licence and compliance with
tech rules is required:

http://www.texasraceway.com/events/bracketracing/rules.htm

Take Care,
Dudley

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:20 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:49e4caa8$0$1601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>Dudley Hanks
>>>> Hey, Jerry, if I set up a site with forums specifically for
>>>> your rantings, will you take your bigotry there and help
>>>> cleanup the group?
>>>
>>> Hey, now that I think of it, I like that idea...
>>>
>>> I think I'll do it, and I'll call the site, "Right is Wrong"...
>>>
>>I don't rant, moron,
>
> Of course you do.
>
>> but I DO make sport of fools like you with your
>>shithouse lawyer idea of the law, and the obvious silliness of using
>>drugs and getting smashed with booze at the same time you're driving
>>on the street or some dumb ass Canuck sanctioned race track.
>
> And there's another example of your rants.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer@sonic.net
>

Interesting he doesn't deny being a bigot...

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Call for mandate
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6cbc763caf3831fc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:23 pm
From: "Bowser"

My thought for the next mandate comes from an old photo book I found in the
attic: Punography. Take a cliche/saying, and provide a photographic
representation of it using up to four consecutive photos. I'd provide the
cliches/sayings, you shoot pix to illustrate them as visual puns. I think it
might be interesting to see how different shooters present different puns.
If you want, I'll scan and post a couple of examples.

Of you can just tell me to buzz off and offer your own suggestions.

The date for submissions is pending. I need to firm up my travel schedule
prior to setting a date.Right now, the earliest date looks like may 10th.
Stay tuned.

http://www.amazon.com/Punography-Bruce-McMillan/dp/0140048391

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:50 pm
From: tony cooper

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:23:05 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:

>My thought for the next mandate comes from an old photo book I found in the
>attic: Punography. Take a cliche/saying, and provide a photographic
>representation of it using up to four consecutive photos. I'd provide the
>cliches/sayings, you shoot pix to illustrate them as visual puns. I think it
>might be interesting to see how different shooters present different puns.
>If you want, I'll scan and post a couple of examples.
>
>Of you can just tell me to buzz off and offer your own suggestions.
>
>The date for submissions is pending. I need to firm up my travel schedule
>prior to setting a date.Right now, the earliest date looks like may 10th.
>Stay tuned.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Punography-Bruce-McMillan/dp/0140048391

Sounds good. Let's do it. However, it gives certain people an
advantage. All Bruce, Hemi, Pat, Bill Graham, and a few others have
to do is post a photograph of themselves over the saying "You can lead
a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

I totally reject the idea of posting my photograph over the saying
"There's no fool like an old fool".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can you hear me?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/564c3d5e0b3abb29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:59 pm
From: Justin C

Followup set to alt.photograpy

In article <z6cQj.1980$PM5.1207@edtnps92>, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
> "krishnananda" <k@ashram.in> wrote in message
> news:4810d64b$0$4110$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> In article <6P3Qj.11862$GE1.9306@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>> http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/index.html
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> > Regarding the sound, it's not a musical sound-track; rather, I just
>>> > recorded a few introductory words that play when the page is loaded.
>>>
>>> Better to have a link or button that says:
>>> <a href...>listen to introductory narrative</a>
>>> because automatic sound on a web page is disturbing to many people.
>>> Although this may be an exception as it's pointed at people who might
>>> rather have sound.
>>>
>>> > A musical sound-track may come later.
>>> >
>>> > Take Care,
>>> > Dudley
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>> As the best part of a big Flash animation is usually the "Skip Intro"
>> button, the best part of an <onload> mp3 or wav is the "Mute" button.
>>
>> A suggestion for your coding: using tables is a good way to divide up
>> the page; however, the table definition should contain specific cell
>> widths based on percentage of total width, or absolute pixel size. With
>> no specific instruction from the page, your tables rely on the browser
>> to assign widths. This can run into problems because the picture of Dima
>> is so big. You will probably have more luck with the title in one cell
>> spanning the whole table, the photo of Dima in one cell directly below
>> also full span, then start your text below divided into however many
>> columns you want.
>>
>> Also acquaint yourself with the table-compositor's best friend, the
>> non-breaking space, HTML entity:   or Hex:   . Put one in each
>> empty cell to maintain the widths.
>>
>> Or you can explore the possibility of using Flash. That gives you much
>> more control but some people will find it painful, and possibly your
>> screen reader may not be able to read it. Also, mobile web devices like
>> BlackBerry can't render Flash, but you can't please everyone.
>>
>> Also, the Macintosh rendering engine assigns font sizes based on 72dpi
>> while Windows assigns based on 96dpi. Current practice advocated by the
>> W3 Consortium is to use cascading style sheets, which overcome these
>> built-in differences.
>>
>> An excellent Windows HTML editor is UltraEdit
>> <http://www.ultraedit.com/> actually a general purpose programmer's
>> editor with libraries built in for web design and programming. They have
>> a free trial you can download. If you use a Mac then BBEdit
>> <http://www.barebones.com> is my personal favorite editor.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> --k
>
> Thanks for all the suggestions.
>
> As a newbie to the field of html tables (pun intended), I'm trying to figure
> out all of the uses they are good for. Having only used tables for data
> tables in word-processors, the concept of laying out a whole page with a
> table is a bit foreign to me, but I'm starting to see the logic behind the
> concept.
>
> My next version will incorporate many of your suggestions.

Dudley. Don't use tables for layout. It's not what they were designed
for and they, therefore, don't do a very good job of it. I have to
admit, it's amazing what they *can* be made to do, but don't expect it
to be easy, or the code to be easy to debug later. I know, I've done it.

As I mention in another post, use something that's designed to manage
content for you. Instead of spending half a day on layout and forming a
template from it, spend that time on layout and then forget about it.
There are various content management packages out there (Google for CMS
and be overwhelmed). What most of them do is, once the site is set up,
allow you to visit the site as an administrator and post an entry in a
basic text-box, this will then be laid out as per your layout. If you
want to tweak the layout you edit the master document and presto, the
whole site reflects the change.

I'm using WordPress, but I guess all the others offer similar. I find
the ability to send an email to a secret email address and have that
appear as a blog entry very useful. Wordpress also has a plugin for
markdown - it's similar to markup (as in HTML) but has a lot less tags
to learn. You just write your post including picture links, bold,
off-site links, whatever, upload pictures to the defaul upload directory
(FTP or upload manager from the admin pages of the site) and the page is
done. You never have to look at the code in your template again and
there's no possibility of screwing up layout, the CMS takes care of it
all. All you need is a server with PHP enabled.

Drop me an email if you'd like to discuss this further.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:44 pm
From: Justin C

Followup set to this group only

In article <c6ac1fb5-5d99-4e68-b26f-98df8de4c9c5@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Vance wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:46 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying a new feature on my site, and I'm wondering if someone might take
>> the time to drop by and test it for me.
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/index.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dudley
>
> On the opening page, Dima's picture lies over the title and hides it.
> The black narrative text lies on top of the image and is nearly
> impossible to read conveniently, the same with the links. The sound
> is good, though. Frames might be a good idea for layout, but I know a
> lot of people don't like them.

No, no, no! Don't use frames! Use CSS it does a *much* better job of
layout.

Better still use blogging software (WordPress is good) as a content
management system. Once you've got your theme/layout sorted all you have
to do is throw content at it.

Dudley, if you want to discuss doing as I suggest, I'd be happy to
discuss it, or offer help with set-up. Drop me an email, the reply
address works for another ... 70 days or so.

Lastly, don't use sound! If I'm listening to something already it
interferes. If my wife is watching the TV I get some nasty looks until I
turn it off. Photography is why people will be looking at your site,
it's something you have in common with those who visit; your taste in
music is very unlikely to coincide. Number one item in the "ways to
irritate your visitors and drive them away" is "music" <URL:
http://domainnamestuffetc.com/process_101_p3.htm>. A lot of designers
recommend that you don't do it.

If you're a multi-national with frequent TV ads with which someone
visiting the site might be familiar with, then the music might do a bit
of brand re-enforcement. Otherwise I think it's unlikely. It annoys the
hell out of me and I'll go elsewhere very quickly.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New: Nikon D5000
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/74a657afcf04f678?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 3:18 pm
From: ASAAR

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:30:24 +0100, Focus wrote:

>> The idiot "Focus" will buy one, and find that one or two of his images
>> are out of focus, or poorly exposed. He will then post at length about
>> his "problems" on here, displaying the usual near-complete lack of
>> knowledge of the basic principles of photography.
>> . . .
>> Well, you should know the routine by now. It repeats itself every time
>> Nikon introduces a new model. ;-)
>
> To satisfy you and your illiterate buddies: yes, I will buy this one for a
> number of reasons.

Chief among them is that just as it is with the fabled scorpion,
you will buy because it is your nature.

> Poor Canon must be in tears: they never come up with something new or
> original. Just some increase in MP at the cost of IQ with every single new
> camera.

With pronouncements such as these, are you surprised that some
people regard you as an idiot? FYI, many of Canon's DSLRs (starting
with, but not limited to the 40D and 50D) are much better for macro
and some other types of photography than anything Nikon or other
companies offer, because Canon came up with something new and
original. Not long ago Nikon introduced three impressive PC-E
Nikkors, but Canon just trumped them with their new offering, which
also benefited from something new and original, at least where DSLR
lenses are concerned. Nikon now has some DSLRs that provide
amazingly good low noise, high ISO performance, but not until the D3
put them near par with Canon's DSLRs, which for several years had
sensors that offered something new and better than what other
manufacturers provided. While you may not be an idiot, you sure
display an unfortunate combination of ignorance, lack of wisdom, and
the propensity to have strong opinions of things you know little of.

> All people seem to be idiots to you, aren't they?
> You're just too kind with words.

I normally wouldn't have commented on that poorly constructed
sentence, but as you followed it with one talking about "words", it
seemed to beg for someone to help you out by noting that you should
have paid more attention in class when the rules for assembling
words into proper sentences were taught. Know whut I mean, Vern?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New e-mail address for Shoot-In submissions
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4dc62031bd876fb6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 4:06 pm
From: "Bowser"

Due to the continued unreliability with gmail, I have opened a new account
with Yahoo: si.moderator@yahoo.com. Please direct all future submissions and
correspondence to this address. The links on the Rulz page have been updated
to incorporate this change. Read the Rulz here:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

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

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