rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
* Why EVFs will replace reflex systems - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 24 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:57 pm
From: Bob Williams
Rich wrote:
> We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
> cameras.
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
>
The FZ-28 already has a 486mm (equivalent) lens.
Adding a 3X auxiliary lens would bring it up to 1458mm!!!
Try purchasing one of those puppies for your F.F. DSLR.
Bob Williams
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:16 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> For the overwhelming majority of people (and I am repeating myself
> here) who do not shoot hundreds of photos per day, battery life is a
> non- issue.
Most days I don't shoot more than 100 photos, just on certain days.
Perhaps the majority of people would also shoot more photos than normal on
their own special days - holidays, birthdays, weddings, parties etc - and
would be rather frustrated should their batteries run out!
One aspect which you may not have considered is that when battery life
extends past a few days, you may get out of the routine of ensuring that
you have a full charge at the start of the day.
Battery life - both shelf life and in-use life - isn't a non-issue, it's
an issue you need to manage according to your own requirements and
expectations.
Cheers,
David
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:25 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:18:42 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>Well, if you believe guns are dangerous, what about hammers, baseball
>bats, knives, razor blades, and CARS? Why not ban them too?
>Point me to ONE case where a gun jumped out of a locked drawer, or case,
>and shot someone. Just one, please.
>
>Guns are TOOLS. How they are used is the crux of the matter.
this is utter bollox.
I'm not debating this subject with any more crazies but just in case
you are willing to apply logic I will illustrate why danger resides in
objects ONCE, then the subject is closed.
minefield A Two mines, one bomb disposal team
minefield B One mine, two bomb disposal teams
which is most dangerous? A. Because the danger varies with the mines,
not the people. Hence objects can be dangerous, there is nothing about
"danger" which requires dangerous objects to "jump out of drawers"
Danger is the potential for harm. If you cannot understand this you
are not thinking clearly.
SUBJECT CLOSED.
--
Mike
== 2 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:27 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:22:48 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>>> its when they only accept yes
>>> answers in referenda. :-(
>>
>> :-)
>>
>A recent Dallas election required a 'yes' vote to PREVENT the city
>government from building a hotel with public funds. Guess why it was
>phrased that way, and by whom.
Right! But its of course not as bad as getting the answer you didn't
want and coming back and asking again or pretending there was no need
to ask in the first place
--
Mike
== 3 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:32 am
From: "Mike"
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:01:14 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>California/grand canyon would be in a small group just after those
>
>And you probably think you can see both in one day.
erm, you havent been reading the part of this thread about Route 66? A
12 hour+ drive was discussed. As a landscape photographer I would want
a couple of dawn /dusks at any location anyway. I don't do "its
Tuesday so it must be Belgium" travel.
--
Mike
== 4 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:35 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:07:02 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>and suggested he take somewhere between 4-7 days to do it.
given the long flight I would be thinking three weeks+. I hate long
flights. I'm actually considering boat for Antarctica, all the way
from UK!
--
Mike
== 5 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:38 am
From: "Mike"
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:50:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <see@sig.nature>
wrote:
>And as every good marxist knows they
>were in England at the time. So you could imagine them hanging out in
>London bars together discussing the definition of socialism.
there's a story that might be true that a meeting was arranged above a
pub to do some "commie" plotting so the cloak and dagger boys put a
spy in a cupboard to listen in, they neglected to get somebody who
spoke Russian.........
--
Mike
== 6 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:38 am
From: "Mike"
On Thu, 14 May 2009 01:12:53 +0100, Jack Campin - bogus address
<bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Engels was mainly based in Manchester. I prefer to imagine it was
>in a Lancashire pub, and Marx was explaining the MCM' theory of the
>economic cycle by juggling a ferret from one trouserleg to the other.
aye lad, in t'flat 'at too.
--
Mike
== 7 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:41 am
From: "Mike"
On 14 May 2009 02:41:43 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>> If so that _is_ a cultural difference. I don't remember the definition of
>> socialism _ever_ coming up in a conversation in an American bar.
that's why Americans are usually ill informed about it
>There's probably at least one bar in every British city where you'd be
>unlikely to pass an evening without overhearing an argument about the
>true nature of socialism.
and why Europeans are less so, what do people think the French discuss
in cafes, philosophy not "soccer" (and girls of course)
--
Mike
== 8 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:43 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:36:50 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>Mike your definition of socialism is tailored to make is seem that the
>UK isn't socialist, which by any rational measure, it certainly IS. But
>then SO IS THE US.
Its not MY definition, its the dictionary one, its the same in the US
dictionary that was also quoted. You are just plain wrong.
--
Mike
== 9 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:49 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 23:59:17 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Yet, you know so much about the culture of Americans. You can't be
>arsed to actually visit the place, but you know Americans don't
>understand your culture.
I'm not claiming to know everything (or anything much) American
culture, I'm suggesting travel outside your own country (any country)
broadens your knowledge more than travel within in. It seems I knew
enough about the US to hit on an area where several Americans are
rapidly proving they don't understand the first thing about what
"socialism" means and have atypical views on gun control.
I didn't say Americans don't understand my culture, so start thinking
about the ignorance shown in this thread and stop trying to willy
wave.
<stupid willy waving snipped>
--
Mike
== 10 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:54 am
From: "Mike"
On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:49:38 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>. It seems I knew
>enough about the US to hit on an area where several Americans are
>rapidly proving they don't understand the first thing
to make it fully clear this discussion started on the usefulness of
traveling outside your own country (which I do a lot) I gave you three
or four Americans some examples of things *you* don't understand, you
have proved in spades I was right.
--
Mike
== 11 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:56 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-14 00:35:11 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:07:02 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> and suggested he take somewhere between 4-7 days to do it.
>
> given the long flight I would be thinking three weeks+. I hate long
> flights. I'm actually considering boat for Antarctica, all the way
> from UK!
The 4-7 days would be for a California-Grand Canyon excursion. That
would not include any California-WestCoast program or anything else you
might want to explore in the South West (Consider New Mexico) or the
Northern National Parks (Glacier NP & YellowStone NP)
So 3+ weeks would give you a pretty good time frame to complete a
pretty full itinerary.
As far as Antarctica goes, You might reconsider flying to South
America first to get a little more out of your time in the area. Check
Lindblad Expeditions
http://www.expeditions.com/Destination44.asp?Destination=283
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 12 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:56 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:43:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>The really sad part is that when the Russians opened up their files after
>the fall of communism, it turned out that the vice chairman of the committee
>was working for the NKVD.
bloody hell!
--
Mike
== 13 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 12:58 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:45:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>Whether He cares or not where's the harm in asking Him to? I doubt that He
>cares when anyone sneezes either but it's nonetheless polite to say the
>words.
is it polite in a world where belief in gods is far from universal and
the assumption is in addition that its the Christian god?
When I hear somebody say "god bless America" I just wince.
--
Mike
== 14 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:00 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:15:10 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>If you are trying to be polite say, "Thank you for enduring my
>interuption of your life to bolster my political ends (this applies to
>all parties.) Good night."
you know, while our suggestions meet the needs of logic etc, I think
we had better not apply for advertising jobs :-)
--
Mike
== 15 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:01 am
From: "Mike"
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:48:28 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>That's not a joke, either. When an American accuses another American
>of being "UnAmerican", the accuser is always basing that on his own
>beliefs of what is the American way of doing things. The accuser
>considers his own way of doing things to be the only acceptable way.
>He is presenting his own opinion as the standard for all.
so it might well still be used, but the use would be seem by a
sophisticated American as rather crass?
--
Mike
== 16 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:04 am
From: "Mike"
On 14 May 2009 02:47:26 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>I thought it was only the English part of the UK that had an
>established church?
C of E, good point
wiki says:-
In the United Kingdom, the Church of England and the Church of
Scotland remain established, although the Church of Ireland and the
Church in Wales were disestablished in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries respectively.
--
Mike
== 17 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:06 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:28:21 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>> socialism
>> a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates
>> that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be
>> owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
>>
>
>That is communism.
no, that is socialism
>> In Marxism a transitional social state between the overthrow of
>> capitalism and the realization of Communism.
>>
>> Communism
>> a theory or system of social organization in which all property is
>> vested in the community and each person contributes and receives
>> according to their ability and needs.
>>
>So is that.
communism and socialism are the same, I don't think so.
>> People outside of the US know all this.
>
>It is not necessary that the people as a whole (ie., the government) own
>anything for it to be socialism, only that they take from those who
>earn, and redistribute to those who don't.
nonsense, you are arguing with the dictionary.
--
Mike
== 18 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:08 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 17:01:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>> Gun owners are generally perceived in the UK as creepy.
>
>
>I live in Texas. Owning, and often carrying, a gun is considered pretty
>much the expected way of doing things. You never know who has a gun,
>and since anyone can carry one in his car if he is going across county
>lines, lots of people do carry them. Still, they aren't going to
>disappear in my lifetime, that's for sure. Note, I don't own one.
>Don't need one. Have never owned one. I support the right to own one,
>however, as it is a part of our constitution, and our national, and
>state, heritage.
yep, the typical US and typical UK view are very different on this.
--
Mike
== 19 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:11 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:40:31 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>And you really believe that if all law-abiding citizens turned in their
>guns the criminals wouldn't use theirs? And you talk about logic?
you have got yourselves into a difficult situation with lots of guns,
getting out of it isn't easy, as for logic, it would be nice if the
pro gun people would at least acknowledge what "dangerous" means, they
could follow on with "socialism".
--
Mike
== 20 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:14 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:45:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>> ROFL, that's how *English* evolved for gods sake, only Americans think
>> they are specially diverse or did something special with English while
>> everything in this thread proves in many areas there is an American
>> non diverse view of the world.
>How does that relate to changes to the language? So, if a new word
>comes up UK people ignore it, right?
wrong.
>You KNOW better than that.
>English is a mixture of several languages, with many words taken
>directly from French, and German, and many others adapted from the
>ancient Anglo and Saxon words.
everybody know that.
>Most modern speakers don't even
>understand the Canterbury Tales in the original version.
correct
>So, please
>don't try to tell me that UK English doesn't change,
I didn't.
>and PLEASE don't
>even think that the US usage doesn't affect the language as used world-wide.
I didn't.
--
Mike
== 21 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:16 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:49:37 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:
>> I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
>
>Depends on where, and when it takes place.
so you agree?
--
Mike
== 22 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:23 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-14 01:11:11 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:40:31 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> And you really believe that if all law-abiding citizens turned in their
>> guns the criminals wouldn't use theirs? And you talk about logic?
>
> you have got yourselves into a difficult situation with lots of guns,
> getting out of it isn't easy, as for logic, it would be nice if the
> pro gun people would at least acknowledge what "dangerous" means, they
> could follow on with "socialism".
The problem is, the group you are trying to educate believe "socialism"
is "dangerous" and the right to bear arms will protect them from it.
...and I can talk? I am a multi-gun owner (11) who resents the idea of
gun control, beyond background check periods on purchases (I have a Law
Enforcement background and have retired). I do not hold to the
knee-jerk reactionary interpretation of "socialism" I do know I do not
have to protect myself from "socialism" with any of my guns.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 23 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:27 am
From: "Mike"
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:56:01 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>As far as Antarctica goes, You might reconsider flying to South
>America first to get a little more out of your time in the area. Check
>Lindblad Expeditions
>http://www.expeditions.com/Destination44.asp?Destination=283
the flying makes sense if you find planes acceptably comfortable,
maybe if I spent some capital on first class...
--
Mike
== 24 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 1:31 am
From: "Mike"
On Thu, 14 May 2009 01:23:51 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>The problem is, the group you are trying to educate believe "socialism"
>is "dangerous" and the right to bear arms will protect them from it.
My partner is all for bare arms on Rafael Nadal! (The debate has
reached that sort of point)
--
Mike
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment