Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama enamored with Lincoln but he is WRONG
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0d2e561b1e21dd5b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 12:06 am
From: "stermen"

NEW & SEALED APPLE IPOD TOUCH 8GB 2ND GEN MB528LL/A

FREE USPS PRIORITY MAIL! BONUS SOFTWARE! CASHBACK!

Click to go

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?type=4&campid=5336229480&toolid=10001&customid=&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Felectronics.shop.ebay.com%2Fitems%2FiPod-MP3-Players_%3FBrand%3DApple%252520iPod%26Product%252520Line%3DiPod%252520Touch%26Condition%3DNew%26_dmpt%3DOther_MP3_Players%26_fln%3D1%26_sacat%3D73839%26_ssov%3D1%26_trksid%3Dp3286.c0.m282%26_mPrRngCbx%3D1%26_udlo%3D179.91%26_udhi%3D267.99%26_qi%3DRTM547901

HELLO ALL AND WELCOME TO OUR BUY IT NOW FOR A BRAND NEW, 100% AUTHENTIC AND
SEALED APPLE IPOD TOUCH! ,
8GB MODEL!! This is the latest and greatest from Apple and the 2ND
Generation of this wonderful iPod!

As well, this is eligible for live.com's cashback. You can get this iPod for
about $186!
Please email us if you need assistance on getting the cashback rebate.

Click to go

"Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:49764cde@news.x-privat.org...
> "HEMI - Powered" <none@none.supernews> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B996A46B6092ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>> Hussein says he's a big fan of Abraham Lincoln, presumably because
>> he freed the slaves. Except that this is WRONG. Lincoln did NOT
>> free ANY slaves by law. The Emancipation Proclamation had NO force
>> of law and was ENTIRELY designed to foment discord amongst the
>> slaves in the Confederate states into rebellion and running away.
>>
>> In fact, it took the 13th Amendment to actually free all current
>> and future slaves. It wasn't ratified until December 6, 1865, AFTER
>> Lincoln had been assassinated. It had been passed by Congress
>> earlier that year, but of course, the Confederates didn't
>> acknowledge that. And, it took the ratification of the 14th and
>> 15th Amendments to fully define the rights of former slaves, now
>> citizens.
>>
>> But, what is REALLY wrong with the Obamanation's ideas about
>> Lincoln is that Lincoln had NO - repeat, NO - notion nor intention
>> to free ANY slaves. His ONLY intent was to preserve the union. It
>> is instructive to read what Lincoln actually said on this subject
>> in a letter to Horace Greeey on August 22, 1862, early in the Civil
>> War:
>>
>> "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the
>> Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored;
>> the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be
>> those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same
>> time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who
>> would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy
>> slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this
>> struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to
>> destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any
>> slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the
>> slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and
>> leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery,
>> and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
>> Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it
>> would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall
>> believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more
>> whenever".
>>
>> Hussein is NOT to be believed in ANYTHING he says. Let's start with
>> his upbringing, education, and writings that show he is a Marxist
>> and will govern as an old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberal, a Far
>> Left Loon, and a Green Nazi. He WILL usurp even more of YOUR rights
>> and freedoms in the name of what all Marxists really want - raw
>> power. He WILL institute marriage for the queers, pass legislation
>> to outlaw internal combustion automobiles, legislate/regulate coal-
>> fired electrical power plants out of existance, and go on the most
>> massive transfer of wealth since FDR's New Deal.
>>
>> In other words, he WILL confiscate YOUR hard-earned money and give
>> it to the lazy and the stupid and he WILL destroy our economy, NOT
>> rescue it.
>>
>> Don't believe me, then you'd best start learning what is REALLY in
>> Hussein's stimulus package which is nearing the $850 BILLION size.
>> His notion of "green jobs" is absurd, there is NO real need to do
>> so but more importantly, there is NO technology nor ANY
>> infrastructure to support that. Likewise, his idiotic notion of
>> using repairs to the nation's infrastructure is doomed to failure
>> just as FDR found out. Worse, his tax reduction is so SMALL when
>> looked at in a paycheck manner - LESS than $20/week - that there
>> will be NO stimulus effect whatsoever. Just a massive increase in
>> the national debt.
>>
>> And, another of Hussein's misguided Lincoln-esque ideas was the
>> train ride from Philadelphia to Washington. I hope that all of
>> those citizens disadvantaged by the security aspects of this highly
>> political trip will be so pissed off at him that they will rise up
>> and defeat his many ninnyhammer ideas and defeat him by a landslide
>> in 2012.
>>
>> I hope that all the Loons who're already standing in the icy cold
>> temperatures in the vain hope of hearing new hope at noon today get
>> exactly what they deserve - MORE rhetoric, MORE empty promises, and
>> MORE non-implementable ideas. What is tragic is that the 47% of the
>> people who did NOT vote for Hussein will also have to suffer under
>> his The One, The Messiah, the Marxist rule of a new king. Until
>> 2010, that is, when the conservatives WILL retake Congress and when
>> the conservative courts WILL strike down his un-Constitutional
>> ideas just like they did to FDR.
>>
>> Yes, Hussein is taking a page out of his hero's, Lincoln, playbook.
>> Just too bad he's so pathologically stupid and misguided as to NOT
>> even understand what Lincoln was all about.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>>
>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
>
>
> --
> [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
> Scientology International]
> "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike
> your Christ." Gandhi
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 2:08 am
From: House of Frauds

On May 22, 8:38 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-
part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> []
>
> > The key feature of super-zoom bridge camera is that you don't need to
> > make a choice -- you always have a relatively inexpensive, light and
> > compact, excellent quality lens.
>
> Jack of all trades - excels at none. But it may be good enough, depending
> on the users' criteria.
>
> David

more important is an 'eye' for a photo

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 4:53 am
From: "JimW"

After readling all the rants and raves here, I have decided on the Nikon P90
The best of both worlds.
JimW

" need to
>> make a choice -- you always have a relatively inexpensive, light and
>> compact, excellent quality lens.
>
> Jack of all trades - excels at none. But it may be good enough, depending
> on the users' criteria.
>
> David

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:11 am
From: "David J Taylor"

JimW wrote:
> After readling all the rants and raves here, I have decided on the
> Nikon P90 The best of both worlds.
> JimW

I've had and used several Nikon "P&S" cameras, and in general been very
pleased with them, although my most recent P&S camera was the very compact
Panasonic TZ3. Do let us know how you get on with the P90.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1f8ad7c1c284bd60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 2:42 am
From: "MB"

"Roger Blackwell" <r.blackwell1@nospamhomecall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a13e8d1$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Kurt Sloane" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:vPKdnWgfCb3VR47XnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> Ah, Cardiff, City of Culture:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/3055945632/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2880091916/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/2065913541/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/86142813/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/290702374/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/762244345/
>>
>> Although the media across the world have picked up on these photos, the
>> crazy thing is that this is quite a "normal" sight in most major towns
>> and cities in the UK on a Friday and Saturday night.
>
> Well at least people don't get shot as they lay there which would happen
> in some parts of the world. Life in the UK has its problems and its
> alienated youth but I would still rather live here than in a country that
> bans alcohol.
>
> Roger
>

What struck me about the pictures was that you regularly read of litter
wardens or Police Canteen Support Officers fining people for dropping a
crisp or a crumb, it can even be that they think someone dropped something
without any actual evidence. They usually seem to target people like young
mothers who are not likely to react violently. I wondered why they are not
out preventing real examples of littering as can be seen in these pictures.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Easy way to check 2 similar cameras please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b2908e8d2cba22a5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 2:55 am
From: Rob G

I've got two Panasonic FX01's. OK it's a basic P & S, but not too bad
a one for the price I've paid.

Why 2 and why the question?

The screen on my first got broken. I bought a second off Ebay for an
acceptable price mainly because it was cheap, I'm familiar with the
camera and didn't particularly want to go through the 'analysing
what's best for me' process again. I also then went ahead and replaced
the screen on the first, partly to satisfy the challenge of being able
to do so. That was successful. So I've now got 2 identical working
cameras.

But there will be differences and before I pop of one of them back
onto Ebay, is it likely these differences will be detectable and how
easy to find ?

Thanks
Rob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 5:48 am
From: Ofnuts

Rob G wrote:
> I've got two Panasonic FX01's. OK it's a basic P & S, but not too bad
> a one for the price I've paid.
>
> Why 2 and why the question?
>
> The screen on my first got broken. I bought a second off Ebay for an
> acceptable price mainly because it was cheap, I'm familiar with the
> camera and didn't particularly want to go through the 'analysing
> what's best for me' process again. I also then went ahead and replaced
> the screen on the first, partly to satisfy the challenge of being able
> to do so. That was successful. So I've now got 2 identical working
> cameras.
>
> But there will be differences and before I pop of one of them back
> onto Ebay, is it likely these differences will be detectable and how
> easy to find ?

Well, one of them has a broken screen...

--
Bertrand

==============================================================================
TOPIC: camera for quickly-made shots ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/380de2e92c70461f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 3:44 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:9o0c155mmi023mvjrujc9qh508fc49fbo6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:39:17 -0400, "Charles"
> <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in
> <guski9$591$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>
>>"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>news:FH1Ql.16964$%54.10002@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/4321-6501_7-6544164.html
>>>
>>> "Here are five of the fastest we've seen, with shot-to-shot times (in
>>> good
>>> light) of 1.5 seconds or less and shutter lags of 0.5 second or shorter
>>> in
>>> high-contrast conditions and 1.2 seconds or less in dim conditions."
>>
>>Yes, they are still a bit slow.
>
> Faster compacts are readily available.
>

But still faster than the time it takes me to take a camera out of my
pocket.
Even a DSLR whichy would actually take me longer.
So for me shutter lag isn;t that important from in teh sceme of things,
if my camera is in a pocket.
And my compact doesn;t needa lens cap, most of teh DSLRs
I'cve seen I'd have one put on if I wwere carrying it around in
my pocket.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 4:06 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:VenjhcMZTvEKFAQr@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <guulf0$1g5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:s8zNp1JLwsEKFAFm@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <guuhi501bf3@news1.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes
>>>>whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make
>>>>>> you any safer
>>>>>
>>>>> They do.
>>>>> Just look at the stats.
>>>>
>>>>So you're saying that you are safer in England after the gun laws than
>>>>before?
>>>
>>> The situation is worse now.
>>
>>In which way worse.
>
> More people carrying and waving around guns. Most shots fired don't hit
> the intended target.

But if there's more guns being waved around isn;t that because there are
more guns in circulation.

>
>>>There are more guns than before the ban...
>>
>>So.
>>There are also more people now than before the ban.
>
> The number of guns is going up faster than the population is going up

I guess that depends on how you count.

>>> virtually none of them legal. More people are illegally carrying guns
>>> than in the past.
>>
>>That's the problem when you make something illegal.
>>Make chewing gum illegal then you'll end up with far more criminals
>>than you did before the 'ban' on chewing gum.
>
> You are clearly not interested in a sensible discussion

As soon as you make something illegal then you have more people breaking the
law.

> LEGAL guns were banned. They were all licensed and known about. They
> were removed.

So now you're claiming that there are less guns in circualtion when you ban
them ???
I'm not sure what you're proving here.

>
> The number of illegal guns has risen dramatically.
Yes well that's obvious.

>Many of the illegal
> guns were never legal fro private ownership in the first place.
>

Yes most important from eastern Europe last I heard.

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 4:42 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:guuoj2023p0@news7.newsguy.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:5spINbJiusEKFAGI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <guudhh$ugd$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to
>>>>> get almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>>>>
>>>> they aren't that easy,
>>>
>>> They are
>>>
>>>> you do have to know the right people.
>>> True.
>>>
>>>> I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun
>>>> shop. In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England
>>>
>>> This proves that you do not see much. I have seen hundreds. Actually
>>> many fishing, horse and "country" shops were also gun shops.
>>
>> Were.......
>> I know where there is a gun shop, but it's not exactly on every street
>> corner,
>> that's the point.
>
> There's not a gun shop on every street corner in the US either. But
> that's
> beside the point. One doesn't buy black market items at a shop.

No but it's a good starting point.
My ex flatmate use to scire he drugs via those that were attending
counsilling
for drug rehab, they knoew the dealers and the best deals.
Same with under the counter sex mags, it's easier to make contacts in such
shops
adn the people that frequent them.
That doesn't;t mean those selling legal stuff will sell you the illegal
stuff.
When you need anything best to go where like minded people are likely to
congregate.

>>>> I giess you can buy them
>>>> somewhere though. I did hear of a pub a few miles away where you
>>>> could get one for about £200 'under the counter'.
>>>
>>> This is where most come from now.
>>
>> yes, and I donl;t see how letting everyone have a gun as a human
>> right will imporve that.
>
> Nobody has claimed that it would. The point is that it's not preventing
> anybody who wants one badly enough from having one.

Depends on how badly they want them.
We don;t have that attitude with nuclear weapons, oh we can;t stop Russia
from getting them so we'll let Iran, Iraq, Somalia etc...have them and any
other
country. For some reason those equipment/chemicals are restricted,
but some still get them, but that's virtually always the case.

>
>>>>> He can still get any gun for self defence. Nothing has changed.
>>>>> The ONLY people who do not have guns are the hobby shooters.
>>>>
>>>> So gun clubs don't have guns,
>>>
>>> What gun clubs? Most have gone.
>>
>> Why is that then if guns are so easy to get.
>
> Because using a black market gun at a gun club is likely to get you
> arrested?

Then you wouldn't use one at a gun club would you.

>>> It's not the same.
>>
>> I can understadn that, same as killing people in computer games isn;t
>> the same,
>> grand theft auto anyone.
>
> You want to go on a plane ride with a pilot whose only previous experience
> was computer simulation?

What has that got to do with it, but if I was hiring a gunman I'd obviously
prefer someone that can obtain a suitable weapon for what I'm hiring him
for.
I assume someone trained at a gun club could well be a better shot than
someone
off the street with a black market weapon.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 4:41 am
From: Chris H

In message <gv613o$fme$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:VenjhcMZTvEKFAQr@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <guulf0$1g5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>news:s8zNp1JLwsEKFAFm@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <guuhi501bf3@news1.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
>>>> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes
>>>>>whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make
>>>>>>> you any safer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do.
>>>>>> Just look at the stats.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you're saying that you are safer in England after the gun laws than
>>>>>before?
>>>> The situation is worse now.
>>>In which way worse.
>> More people carrying and waving around guns. Most shots fired don't hit
>> the intended target.
>
>But if there's more guns being waved around isn;t that because there are
>more guns in circulation.

Exactly so. More guns in circulation does not lead to more killings or
even more reported crime. Apart from the crime of actually owning an
illegal gun many are just carried and "waved about " like expensive
cameras, jewellery or cars. As status symbols.

Many don't get fired. Many that do don't hit the target and for 99.5% of
inter gang stuff never get reported. Most times when people are
threatened with guns in some 'hoods no one reports it.

So things are worse no matter what the massaged "reported crime" figures
are.

>>>> virtually none of them legal. More people are illegally carrying guns
>>>> than in the past.
>>>
>>>That's the problem when you make something illegal.
>>>Make chewing gum illegal then you'll end up with far more criminals
>>>than you did before the 'ban' on chewing gum.
>>
>> You are clearly not interested in a sensible discussion
>
>As soon as you make something illegal then you have more people breaking the
>law.

It was not suddenly made illegal. NOTHING changed with the new gun laws.
Certain types of gun any full bore pistols, pump shot guns and self
loading shot guns with more than 3 rounds were made illegal to own.

Therefore as all the legal ones were individually registered by serial
number to their owners they were simply collected.

That when the legal guns were collected the number of guns in the UK
(other than police /military etc) went down by about 10% since then the
number has risen dramatically. The majority are guns of types that were
never legal in the first place.

So removing the legally held guns in the UK has had absolutely ZERO
effect on gun crime. It has put people put of work and destroyed
businesses to pander to a hyped up and irrational fear.

Similar is happening with photography now under the guise of terrorism

>> The number of illegal guns has risen dramatically.
>Yes well that's obvious.

Why?

>>Many of the illegal
>> guns were never legal fro private ownership in the first place.
>Yes most important from eastern Europe last I heard.

That is the case as we have had an influx of criminals from there
running drugs and prostitution. Eastern Europe (the Balkans) has been
having a civil war for some time so their business methods are a bit
different :-)

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

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 5:15 am
From: Chris H

In message <gv637g$g8v$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:guuoj2023p0@news7.newsguy.com...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:5spINbJiusEKFAGI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <guudhh$ugd$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to
>>>>>> get almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>>>>>
>>>>> they aren't that easy,
>>>>
>>>> They are
>>>>
>>>>> you do have to know the right people.
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>> I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun
>>>>> shop. In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England
>>>>
>>>> This proves that you do not see much. I have seen hundreds. Actually
>>>> many fishing, horse and "country" shops were also gun shops.
>>>
>>> Were.......
>>> I know where there is a gun shop, but it's not exactly on every street
>>> corner,
>>> that's the point.
>>
>> There's not a gun shop on every street corner in the US either. But
>> that's
>> beside the point. One doesn't buy black market items at a shop.
>
>No but it's a good starting point.
>My ex flatmate use to scire he drugs via those that were attending
>counsilling
>for drug rehab, they knoew the dealers and the best deals.
>Same with under the counter sex mags, it's easier to make contacts in such
>shops
>adn the people that frequent them.
>That doesn't;t mean those selling legal stuff will sell you the illegal
>stuff.
>When you need anything best to go where like minded people are likely to
>congregate

It is not the same for guns in the UK. If you go to a UK gun shop
(when the still existed) and asked for an illegal gun they would more
than likely pass on you description to the police probably with the
shops CCTV tape

Guns however come from the same places you get your drugs and other
stolen or illegal stuff.

By your logic there should be a crowd of people dealing and selling guns
on the corner next to the police station

>We don;t have that attitude with nuclear weapons,

You are equating hand guns and nuclear weapons!!! Completely different
business all together.

>> You want to go on a plane ride with a pilot whose only previous experience
>> was computer simulation?
>
>What has that got to do with it, but if I was hiring a gunman I'd obviously
>prefer someone that can obtain a suitable weapon for what I'm hiring him
>for.

How would you know what a suitable weapon was? One of the best assassins
of the 1970's used a .22 pistol.

>I assume someone trained at a gun club could well be a better shot than
>someone
>off the street with a black market weapon.

Why do you assume that. Some one who spent a life time doing .22 target
shooting may never have fired anywhere but on an indoor range under
competition conditions. Never out side or a moving target or under any
form of stress situation.

You need the right sort of training or are you suggesting a butcher
would make a good surgeon.

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

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:26 am
From: Ron Hunter

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:VenjhcMZTvEKFAQr@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <guulf0$1g5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:s8zNp1JLwsEKFAFm@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <guuhi501bf3@news1.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
>>>> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes
>>>>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make
>>>>>>> you any safer
>>>>>> They do.
>>>>>> Just look at the stats.
>>>>> So you're saying that you are safer in England after the gun laws than
>>>>> before?
>>>> The situation is worse now.
>>> In which way worse.
>> More people carrying and waving around guns. Most shots fired don't hit
>> the intended target.
>
> But if there's more guns being waved around isn;t that because there are
> more guns in circulation.
>

Maybe. But then it may be that the fewer there are, the more likely
people are to wave them around, too. Guns sitting in drawers, or locked
cases don't count in this kind of calculation.

>>>> There are more guns than before the ban...
>>> So.
>>> There are also more people now than before the ban.
>> The number of guns is going up faster than the population is going up
>
> I guess that depends on how you count.
>
>
Huh? Does this mean a larger number have guns, or that a larger
percentage of the whole population has guns?

>>>> virtually none of them legal. More people are illegally carrying guns
>>>> than in the past.
>>> That's the problem when you make something illegal.
>>> Make chewing gum illegal then you'll end up with far more criminals
>>> than you did before the 'ban' on chewing gum.
>> You are clearly not interested in a sensible discussion
>
> As soon as you make something illegal then you have more people breaking the
> law.
>

I wonder where the statistic about more people illegally carrying guns
came from, and should we consider those who were legally carrying them
before in this kind of statistic? I think not.

>> LEGAL guns were banned. They were all licensed and known about. They
>> were removed.
>
> So now you're claiming that there are less guns in circualtion when you ban
> them ???
> I'm not sure what you're proving here.
>
>> The number of illegal guns has risen dramatically.
> Yes well that's obvious.
>
>> Many of the illegal
>> guns were never legal fro private ownership in the first place.
>>
>
> Yes most important from eastern Europe last I heard.
>
>
If the guns were previously legal, and then made illegal, then it is
highly likely that there are now more illegal guns than before.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean there are more guns than before,
and if there ARE, then how much good did the law making them illegal
really do?

It is true that the US state with the tightest gun laws also has the
most murders, and the state where it is legal to own, and carry a gun
without need for a permit is the state with the lowest number of
murders. Of course there are numerous other factors involved, but the
anti-gun lobby chooses to ignore such factors in favor of 'making it
simple' so that the rest of us can understand it.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:29 am
From: Ron Hunter

whisky-dave wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:guuoj2023p0@news7.newsguy.com...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:5spINbJiusEKFAGI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <guudhh$ugd$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to
>>>>>> get almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>>>>> they aren't that easy,
>>>> They are
>>>>
>>>>> you do have to know the right people.
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>> I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun
>>>>> shop. In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England
>>>> This proves that you do not see much. I have seen hundreds. Actually
>>>> many fishing, horse and "country" shops were also gun shops.
>>> Were.......
>>> I know where there is a gun shop, but it's not exactly on every street
>>> corner,
>>> that's the point.
>> There's not a gun shop on every street corner in the US either. But
>> that's
>> beside the point. One doesn't buy black market items at a shop.
>
> No but it's a good starting point.
> My ex flatmate use to scire he drugs via those that were attending
> counsilling
> for drug rehab, they knoew the dealers and the best deals.
> Same with under the counter sex mags, it's easier to make contacts in such
> shops
> adn the people that frequent them.
> That doesn't;t mean those selling legal stuff will sell you the illegal
> stuff.
> When you need anything best to go where like minded people are likely to
> congregate.
>
>
>
>>>>> I giess you can buy them
>>>>> somewhere though. I did hear of a pub a few miles away where you
>>>>> could get one for about £200 'under the counter'.
>>>> This is where most come from now.
>>> yes, and I donl;t see how letting everyone have a gun as a human
>>> right will imporve that.
>> Nobody has claimed that it would. The point is that it's not preventing
>> anybody who wants one badly enough from having one.
>
> Depends on how badly they want them.
> We don;t have that attitude with nuclear weapons, oh we can;t stop Russia
> from getting them so we'll let Iran, Iraq, Somalia etc...have them and any
> other
> country. For some reason those equipment/chemicals are restricted,
> but some still get them, but that's virtually always the case.
>
>>>>>> He can still get any gun for self defence. Nothing has changed.
>>>>>> The ONLY people who do not have guns are the hobby shooters.
>>>>> So gun clubs don't have guns,
>>>> What gun clubs? Most have gone.
>>> Why is that then if guns are so easy to get.
>> Because using a black market gun at a gun club is likely to get you
>> arrested?
>
> Then you wouldn't use one at a gun club would you.
>
>>>> It's not the same.
>>> I can understadn that, same as killing people in computer games isn;t
>>> the same,
>>> grand theft auto anyone.
>> You want to go on a plane ride with a pilot whose only previous experience
>> was computer simulation?
>
> What has that got to do with it, but if I was hiring a gunman I'd obviously
> prefer someone that can obtain a suitable weapon for what I'm hiring him
> for.
> I assume someone trained at a gun club could well be a better shot than
> someone
> off the street with a black market weapon.
>
>
>
I wouldn't. Sometimes training isn't as useful as experience. Ever
wonder why the well-trained and equipped British Army was driven out of
the Colonies? One reason was they the colonists used their guns to get
FOOD, and they didn't have money for wasting power and shot, so they
learned the first rule of gun control. Hit what you aim at!

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:29 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:5OnolQNYsvEKFA0X@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <guulsa$1j5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:5spINbJiusEKFAGI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <guudhh$ugd$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to get
>>>>> almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>>>>
>>>>they aren't that easy,
>>>
>>> They are
>>>
>>>>you do have to know the right people.
>>> True.
>>>
>>>>I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun shop.
>>>>In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England
>>>
>>> This proves that you do not see much. I have seen hundreds. Actually
>>> many fishing, horse and "country" shops were also gun shops.
>>
>>Were.......
>>I know where there is a gun shop, but it's not exactly on every street
>>corner,
>>that's the point.
>
> What point?

Ever heard of advertising, you know i never thought of eating a lump of
beef with cheese and lettuce in a bun before I saw McDonalds /wimpy etc..
if something is on every street it becomes a way of life, and acceptable
like
littering in the street, you see others do it it makes it acceptable.
It's all about conditioning.
Seeing women on the beech in swim suits is not exactly unusually,
seeing them walk through a city street dressed the same is unusually why ?

>
> It won't they are illegal guns held illegally and generally used for
> criminal purposes.
>
> These guns need to be removed.
So how will you remove them, by making them legal ?

>They have nothing to do with the legally
> owned guns that were held in the UK.

Not until they get in to teh wrong hands.
yes I knew a girl whiose father was ion a gun club and she learnet to
shoot by the age of 14. Trouble was one night someone broke in to the club
took one of those legal guns and shot the bloke who was sleeping with his
wife.
The bloke was killed by a LEGAL gun.
Ideally the guns should have been stored safely away or more safely than
they were.
This was in the UK about 20 years ago.
Trouble is it's not only illegal guns that kill.

> Self defence is VERY rarely a justification for a fire arm in the UK.
I can understand that, well when was the last wild bear recordeed in
Britain 15th century wasn't it. I can;t realyl think of any justification
for a fire
arm in the UK other than for 'fun'.
I'd like a tasser for the same reasons.
I guess there's some justification for a carrying a knife in the UK too.

As for the USA well it's thier right to bear arms or something.
It's part of their culture and law and they are also far more likeliy to be
attacked by
bears of course.

>>>>>>and why I wouldn't want the USA laws on guns
>>>>>>to be applied to the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make
>>>>> you
>>>>> any safer
>>>>They do.
>>> They don't
>>Then prove it.
>
> You said the make you safer.. You explain how that is and I will show
> you the flaw in the argument.

See the number of people killed in say the USA and compare that per head of
population. Yes and I know the theory that says if everyone is armed then
anyone shooting another will be shot themselves.

>>>>> He can still get any gun for self defence. Nothing has changed. The
>>>>> ONLY
>>>>> people who do not have guns are the hobby shooters.
>>>>
>>>>So gun clubs don't have guns,
>>>
>>> What gun clubs? Most have gone.
>>Why is that then if guns are so easy to get.
>
> You appear to be a complete idiot. The only guns you can use in gun
> clubs are legal guns.

yes so....

> You clearly have absolutely no idea bout the use of legal and illegal
> guns in the UK.

Well you haven't proved you know much more.
There's a pub near me that has bullet holes in the walls in the toilet
it was on the news a couple of years ago when a youth was killed.
As I've said I know a girl that was 14 and learnt how to shoot.
A friend of mine has been shot at by Israeli soldiers but I guess as it was
a legal
gun it was OK.
I do not believe that just because a gun is legal it can't do any harm
to an innocent person.

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 7:08 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:200905190910046752-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
> On 2009-05-19 07:33:11 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
> said:
>

>> I donl;t think I can out dodge a bullet.
>>
>> I know I can;t take films/movies as real life but it does seem possible
>> to
>> dodge out of the way of someone thrusting a knife towards you,
>> but it rarly seems possibkle with a gun even at the same distance as
>> distance increases
>> it does get easier to move faster than a bullet I guess.
>
> You are correct, that is movie myth, dodging is not the appropriate action
> and is not going to help you.
> Stopping the threat with your defensive firearm is.
> Defense against a knife once engage up close is a totally different story
> and requires a different skill set to be effective.

Yep, and I donl;t see how someone with a gun 10ft or 100ft way
can do much about it.

Sure that might fire at the attacker but with you claims of the accuracy
of teh average hand gun in teh average 'joe' doesn;t convinve me that no one
other than
the attacker will get heard.
Perhaps you've have stats on the number of lives saved in this situation.
But the number of situations that I know of where people have been attack by
knives
there's hasn;t been the opportunity to be protected by someone else's gun.

>We always consider a knife just as dangerous as a firearm if not more
> so.

Is that why the USA llicence guns and not knives

>Therefore the procedure in dealing with a noncompliant knife wielder, is to
>negate the threat with a firearm before the distance between you is closed.

And if that knife wielder had a gun ?

> Somehow whenever a knife wielder is shot there is some ignorant member of
> the press or letter writer who asks, "Why did they shoot him? He only had
> a knife!"

Yes that is a little said but then their is appropriate actiojn. What about
the
youth that was killed on teh London underground by cops with legal guns
because they thought he had a bomb.
Does that make imaginary weapons more dangerous than real ones .

>> Well I think I could dodgy a knife thrown from 20 ft but a bullet ????
>> I wouldn't be so sure.
>
> Who said anything about the knife being thrown?

We are talking about which weapon is the most dangerous.
I think guns are more dangerous in the hands of an attacker than a knife
would be.

>The knife wielder can close that gap very quickly and slash or stab.
A gun wielder doesn't have to bother top close the gap.

>Throwing a knife is not something a knife fighter would normally do.
Yep his more likely to creep up behind you,
a gun wielder could do the same but wouldn't have to get so close
to threaten your life.

The best way to get away from a kife is to run from it,
you won;t get as far if the person hasd a gun.

>Throw the knife and miss, and you have effectively disarmed yourself.

Yes, making a knife safer for the victim.
The knife wielder has to run after you and get within a few feet to
have any effect. It can't be that difficult to hit a running target with a
gun.

>>> That would permit a defensive action against an assailant armed with
>>> most
>>> fire arms, even fully automatic weapons. Provided training is maintained
>>> at
>>> a high level, certainly in some departments and with some individual
>>> police
>>> officers this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> For most of them, no...
>>>
>>> With good and frequent training yes.
>>
>> The problem is in the UK most people dion;t have such training.
>
> The Police departments and military should.

Yes hopefully, but that didnt; help jon demanzes on teh London underground.

>>>>> To use a firearm there are very noticeable body language signatures,
>>>>> which warn of the threat.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, the target enters the cross hairs...
>>>
>>> You have quite an imagination which seems to be ignorant of the reality
>>> police (& the military) have to deal with.
>>
>> Both the police and military seem to prefer guns to knives as their
>> required item for 'self' defence or the defence of others.
>
>
> Agreed.
> Only a handful of officers I know carry a knife as a backup weapon, but
> some do.

I wonder if any carry two like in the movies ;-)

>
> In my career I have used department issued 38 Special, 9mm automatic, .40
> S&W automatic (all S&W), 12 gauge shotgun (Remington 870 with both 00
> buckshot or "bean-bag" loads), 40mm & 35mm projectile launchers, which
> fire a variety of projectile types, and 5.56mm (.223) & 7.72mm (308)
> rifles.
>
> I also have used personal weapons as carry weapons , a Glock Model 23
> .40S&W, and most recently a Kimber Custom 45 ACP, we were encouraged to
> practice regularly on top of mandatory training and quarterly qualifying.

In a confrontation would you prefer one of the above or a knife.

> There are also other weapons trained & qualified with, such as chemical
> agents and a number of different types of baton.

I guess they can only be used for self defence ;-)

But I was in a car in London and the polce stopped and search it and
found a can of some sort of defence gas against attackers.
The three girls in the car wrere taken to the police station and questioned
for 3 hours
Why if it's only for defence purposes ?

> I retired in February and as a retired peace officer can carry a concealed
> firearm in California, provided I maintain an annual qualification &
> re-certification. All the firearms Laws for the use of that weapon apply.
Makes sense but perhaps peace officers in the USA need to carry
a gun, but I can't understand why you don;t prefer a knife.

> I also own a number of target weapons which are not suitable for concealed
> carry.
>
> Having said all of that I can do this;
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0076c3.jpg
> with this, http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg and
> defend myself at home if I have to.

Defending from people dressed in black ;)

>
> A firearm seems to me to be the best tool for the job.

That's why some criminals prefer them I guess.

It also seems strange that more police get shot in the USA than the UK,
thankfully it's quite rare in the UK.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 7:31 am
From: Ron Hunter

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:5OnolQNYsvEKFA0X@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <guulsa$1j5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:5spINbJiusEKFAGI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <guudhh$ugd$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to get
>>>>>> almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>>>>> they aren't that easy,
>>>> They are
>>>>
>>>>> you do have to know the right people.
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>> I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun shop.
>>>>> In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England
>>>> This proves that you do not see much. I have seen hundreds. Actually
>>>> many fishing, horse and "country" shops were also gun shops.
>>> Were.......
>>> I know where there is a gun shop, but it's not exactly on every street
>>> corner,
>>> that's the point.
>> What point?
>
> Ever heard of advertising, you know i never thought of eating a lump of
> beef with cheese and lettuce in a bun before I saw McDonalds /wimpy etc..
> if something is on every street it becomes a way of life, and acceptable
> like
> littering in the street, you see others do it it makes it acceptable.
> It's all about conditioning.
> Seeing women on the beech in swim suits is not exactly unusually,
> seeing them walk through a city street dressed the same is unusually why ?
>
>
>
>> It won't they are illegal guns held illegally and generally used for
>> criminal purposes.
>>
>> These guns need to be removed.
> So how will you remove them, by making them legal ?
>
>> They have nothing to do with the legally
>> owned guns that were held in the UK.
>
> Not until they get in to teh wrong hands.
> yes I knew a girl whiose father was ion a gun club and she learnet to
> shoot by the age of 14. Trouble was one night someone broke in to the club
> took one of those legal guns and shot the bloke who was sleeping with his
> wife.
> The bloke was killed by a LEGAL gun.
> Ideally the guns should have been stored safely away or more safely than
> they were.
> This was in the UK about 20 years ago.
> Trouble is it's not only illegal guns that kill.
>
>> Self defence is VERY rarely a justification for a fire arm in the UK.
> I can understand that, well when was the last wild bear recordeed in
> Britain 15th century wasn't it. I can;t realyl think of any justification
> for a fire
> arm in the UK other than for 'fun'.
> I'd like a tasser for the same reasons.
> I guess there's some justification for a carrying a knife in the UK too.
>
> As for the USA well it's thier right to bear arms or something.
> It's part of their culture and law and they are also far more likeliy to be
> attacked by
> bears of course.
>
>
>>>>>>> and why I wouldn't want the USA laws on guns
>>>>>>> to be applied to the UK.
>>>>>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> any safer
>>>>> They do.
>>>> They don't
>>> Then prove it.
>> You said the make you safer.. You explain how that is and I will show
>> you the flaw in the argument.
>
> See the number of people killed in say the USA and compare that per head of
> population. Yes and I know the theory that says if everyone is armed then
> anyone shooting another will be shot themselves.
>
>
>>>>>> He can still get any gun for self defence. Nothing has changed. The
>>>>>> ONLY
>>>>>> people who do not have guns are the hobby shooters.
>>>>> So gun clubs don't have guns,
>>>> What gun clubs? Most have gone.
>>> Why is that then if guns are so easy to get.
>> You appear to be a complete idiot. The only guns you can use in gun
>> clubs are legal guns.
>
> yes so....
>
>> You clearly have absolutely no idea bout the use of legal and illegal
>> guns in the UK.
>
> Well you haven't proved you know much more.
> There's a pub near me that has bullet holes in the walls in the toilet
> it was on the news a couple of years ago when a youth was killed.
> As I've said I know a girl that was 14 and learnt how to shoot.
> A friend of mine has been shot at by Israeli soldiers but I guess as it was
> a legal
> gun it was OK.
> I do not believe that just because a gun is legal it can't do any harm
> to an innocent person.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Not without a PERSON behind it, it can't.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CF dying?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2d949e57f899e814?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:06 am
From: "Bertram Paul"

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.247ff166b46b611e98bffe@news.supernews.com...
> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

I hope they'll keep doing that. CF cards are very bad with connections. I
had two readers of which a few pins were broken: toss and throw away.
Much to expensive too compared with SD cards.

--
---
Bertram Paul

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:34 am
From: Ron Hunter

Bertram Paul wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.247ff166b46b611e98bffe@news.supernews.com...
>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>> ------------------------------
>> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
>
> I hope they'll keep doing that. CF cards are very bad with connections. I
> had two readers of which a few pins were broken: toss and throw away.
> Much to expensive too compared with SD cards.
>
I had CF cards on my first digital. I never had problems with the pins
on either the camera, or card reader. The key is not to force anything.
Also, if the camera/card reader is properly designed, it would be
impossible to insert the card improperly. The only other reason pins
get damaged is foreign matter in the slot. I now have a camera (and
other devices) with SD card slots, and aside from the smaller size of
the SD card (which I don't see as an advantage), they work just as well.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 7:18 am
From: Jürgen Exner

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>
>SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
>impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
>so-called "professional" DSLRs.

On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish design
decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for another
round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4 years
after the previous war of confusion.

The brand new SDXC finally has some leeway with 2TB (maybe they got
smart finally?), but by spec it uses the proprietary exFAT, which means
you need to run a new Windows if you want to read what your camera
wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
ther won't. Mac users will probably be fine, too, because for sure Apple
is going to licence exFAT. But users of older OS's or free OS's will be
left in the dark unless someone manages to illegally reverse engineer
the exFAT format.

CF didn't and doesn't have those problems. It is 6 years older than SD
(CF was introduced in 1994) and was designed for 137GB capacity right
from the start, so the original design will be good for maybe another
3-5 years for a total live span of 20 years.

Compare that with SD, which had to be updated with a non-compatible
design change twice already after an average of just 4 years. I wonder
who is running the SD consortium. Must be marketing and sales, because
no engineer could possibly design a specification with a live limit of 4
years.

Other limitiations of SD like proprietary interface affects mostly
system designers (embedded systems, card reader manufacturers, ...) and
much less the photographing public.

jue

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 7:20 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>I had CF cards on my first digital. I never had problems with the pins
>on either the camera, or card reader. The key is not to force anything.
> Also, if the camera/card reader is properly designed, it would be
>impossible to insert the card improperly. The only other reason pins
>get damaged is foreign matter in the slot. I now have a camera (and
>other devices) with SD card slots, and aside from the smaller size of
>the SD card (which I don't see as an advantage), they work just as well.

100% ACK.

jue

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 7:33 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Jürgen Exner wrote:
[]
> On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish
> design decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
> As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for
> another round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4
> years after the previous war of confusion.
[]
> jue

Indeed, an unfortunate and confusing choice.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of cultivations
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/73684fdc56d114a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:04 am
From: "Miguel"

"Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> escribió en el mensaje
news:c5gaq45cm18vbhimm3gm3egbru0vtn6vkp@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:53:37 -0500, "Miguel"
> <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote Re Photos of cultivations:
>
>>
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3307325704/
>
> I like that one.

Hello, thanks for your comment.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Women Designer Clothes True Religion Jeans Ed Hardy Jeans
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/eec34495e0ed0b32?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:52 am
From: yijeans10@163.com

Brand Name Designer Clothing Online - Name Brand Clothes, Jewelry
Women Designer Clothes True Religion Jeans Ed Hardy Jeans (paypal
payment)(

www.niketrade08.cn )

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discount Brand Suit, Jeans, T-shirts (paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.
cn )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/814ea5b1bee77441?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 6:54 am
From: yijeans10@163.com

Discount Brand Suit, Jeans, T-shirts (paypal payment)
( www.niketrade08.cn )
Wholesale Brand Name Clothing - discount name brand clothing (paypal
payment)(

www.niketrade08.cn )
True Religion Jeans,Discount True Religion Brand Jeans,TR Jeans
(paypal

payment)( www.niketrade08.cn )
(paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn )

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

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