rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Scenic areas in England - 21 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Why EVFs will replace reflex systems - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
* etre rich , gagner argent étudiant , jouer a worms en ligne , jouer en ligne
gratuits , jouer foot en ligne , jouer a risk en ligne , s enrichir , jouer
échecs en ligne , on va devenir riche et c est pas une blague , devenir riche
sans se fatiguer - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1bd9f8bae32ecdf7?hl=en
* New Mandate: Filters! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6ca44008ad5d3083?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:20 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:41:03 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
> (We don't like long flights and frankly its
>not a priority)
lets do some travel for a change!
my long haul shortlist is
Antarctica
south island new Zealand
Patagonia,
California/grand canyon would be in a small group just after those
my action list is completing the British isles archipelago, return to
Iceland, do the Faeroes, Channel Isles, isle of Man
continue down Italy in la Marche and the deep south
central Spain in winter for the cranes.
--
Mike
== 2 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:31 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu
Chris H wrote:
>>>
>> In a practical sense, a country practices socialism when it takes money
>>from someone via taxes, and gives it to someone else who didn't earn
>> it. Under than definition, both the US, and UK are socialist
>> countries.
>
> By that definition ALL countries are socialist and all countries since
> the beginning of time,.
>
> Clearly your definition of socialism is different to that used by the
> rest of the world
He oversimplified, but basically he is right.
Economic socialism is taking money from some people and giving
it to others without regard to their (present or past) tax payments
or their services to the government.
Thus, Social Security is not socialism, since the more you pay
in the more you get, and there is a maximum limit on payments.
Medicare is near-socialism since payouts are not dependent on
payins. Medicaid is pure socialism. AFDC is socialism.
A public education system is a special case, since the
actual people cannot have ever paid taxes. Their parents,
of course, can have. In most states it is paid for by a mix
of sales, property, and income taxes, and taxes on gambling.
Everyone pays sales taxes, only the employed (or the
investment class) pay income taxes, while only the well-off
pay property taxes and disproportionately the poor lose money
gambling. Hence it is hard to tell whether it is socialism
or not. The undergraduate (K-12) system is marginally
socialistic, while tuition in most states for
higher education is so high it most clearly is not.
Doug McDonald
== 3 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:29 am
From: Chris H
In message <4dhl059drco87k1e2ud8ctuqj10p92t6j7@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:31:02 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
>>
>>Politics or "American Politics"? :-)
>
>its only become "American" because people keep raising American
>points, for me its likely to get difficult with subjects like the
>civil war, which until recently has been an agreed no go area, but you
>only find that out by talking and reading about it :-)
Why? What is the problem with Cromwell?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 4 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:37 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:31:02 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>> Clearly your definition of socialism is different to that used by the
>> rest of the world
>
>He oversimplified, but basically he is right.
I prefer the ones in the dictionary that I cut and pasted for you.
--
Mike
== 5 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:38 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:29:04 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>the
>>civil war, which until recently has been an agreed no go area, but you
>>only find that out by talking and reading about it :-)
>
>Why? What is the problem with Cromwell?
More Franco :-)
--
Mike
== 6 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:42 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:38:46 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>>the
>>>civil war, which until recently has been an agreed no go area, but you
>>>only find that out by talking and reading about it :-)
>>
>>Why? What is the problem with Cromwell?
>
>More Franco :-)
I confess! I posted it like that to cause confusion between civil
wars, knowing people would think, ah haaa! He wants us to assume US
civil war, when of course the civil war where there is/was a bond of
silence has to be a recent one.
--
Mike
== 7 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:44 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mostly I use socialism as a descriptor for excessive
>> government regulation.
>
> You are welcome to create your own language where you say "chair" to
> what other people call table. But then you shouldn't be surprised when
> people consider you rather wierd if you tell then, you are eating from
> your "chair".
>
How else would I express it? I eat from my chair. This is the device
I sit in. It sits in front of my HDTV centered between the 5 surround speakers.
The food is removed by me from a thing called a "plate" which
sits on what is called the "arm" of this "chair". It is a wide
flat spot to my right (one is to the left also, but being right-handed
I use the right one) which is made for that purpose. I remove the
food from the plate with devices called either "forks" or
"chopsticks" (I don't eat soup in that chair.) My drinks sit
to the right of me on a device called a "spectrum analyzer"
(you don't want to know further about this, but if you do,
go to alt.video.digital-tv).
Doug McDonald
== 8 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:43 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 17:00:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Only last week, just a few miles from here a 17 year old got mad at a
>> guy over a girl, and went over, and bashed down his front door, then
>> approached the guy with a baseball bat. Bang, he's dead. No charges
>> filed against the shooter.
>> THAT'S why we guard that right.
>
> and how often does the home owners gun get taken from him and used
> against him
Why don't you tell us since you seem to think that you know?
> and how often does the criminal come ready to shoot first
> because the home owner has a gun,
Why don't you tell us since you seem to think that you know?
> US gun ownership does not stop an
> historically high murder rate. But I've had this debate before with US
> gun nuts and logic always seems beyond them.
So if there were no murders committed with firearms in the US how would the
US murder rate compare to that of England? The numbers are available
online, so why don't you compare them for us?
== 9 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:50 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:25:46 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> You've been coy about this, so I'll ask: Have you ever actually been
>> to the United States? Have you actually done any world traveling
>> yourself? I think you mention that you've been to two other
>> countries. That, in the US, is like an American having been in two
>> different states or maybe crossing across into Toronto from Detroit.
>
> I mentioned I *regularly* go to two others countries, I also said I
> haven't been to the US. (We don't like long flights and frankly its
> not a priority). I've been to loads of countries but I only travel
> regularly in the three.
>
> As you seem to be trying a willy waving contest, I take its that
> because you can't find anything wrong with what I have said.
>
>> These theories you have about the benefit of world travel...have you
>> ever actually put them into practice? You sound like an armchair
>> traveler.
>
> Why? Because my view of travel isn't yours?
> I go to Spain and Italy three or four times a year, other places
> exceptionally. As I explained I believe in intensive travel, you learn
> more that way. You get to see more than the superficial which you seem
> to think is the limit.
>
>> A pub conversation with a European isn't going to explain the true
>> nature of socialism.
>
> you would very quickly learn the false definition used here was way
> off beam, there's got to be a reason so many Americans have a clueless
> idea of what socialism is, its going to be something related to being
> in America.....
So you're saying that the main topic of conversation in British bars is the
definition of socialism?
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.
>> The central concept of socialism - government
>> control of resources and production - wouldn't come up. The
>> conversation is more likely to center around "Who pays the medical
>> bills?" or "How many vacation/holiday days do you get?"
>
> they might well be starting points.
== 10 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:52 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:41:03 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>
>> (We don't like long flights and frankly its
>> not a priority)
>
> lets do some travel for a change!
>
> my long haul shortlist is
> Antarctica
> south island new Zealand
> Patagonia,
> California/grand canyon would be in a small group just after those
>
> my action list is completing the British isles archipelago, return to
> Iceland, do the Faeroes, Channel Isles, isle of Man
> continue down Italy in la Marche and the deep south
> central Spain in winter for the cranes.
So basically you are going to go to places you have been before, and most of
them are in the UK.
Try doing some _travelling_. Get on your motorcycle and ride to Moscow or
something.
== 11 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 7:04 am
From: Chris H
In message <guei2m$6b5$1@news.acm.uiuc.edu>, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu writes
>Chris H wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> In a practical sense, a country practices socialism when it takes money
>>>from someone via taxes, and gives it to someone else who didn't earn
>>> it. Under than definition, both the US, and UK are socialist
>>> countries.
>> By that definition ALL countries are socialist and all countries
>>since
>> the beginning of time,.
>> Clearly your definition of socialism is different to that used by
>>the
>> rest of the world
>
>He oversimplified, but basically he is right.
>
>Economic socialism is taking money from some people and giving
>it to others without regard to their (present or past) tax payments
>or their services to the government.
>
>Thus, Social Security is not socialism, since the more you pay
>in the more you get, and there is a maximum limit on payments.
>Medicare is near-socialism since payouts are not dependent on
>payins. Medicaid is pure socialism. AFDC is socialism.
>
>A public education system is a special case, since the
>actual people cannot have ever paid taxes. Their parents,
>of course, can have. In most states it is paid for by a mix
>of sales, property, and income taxes, and taxes on gambling.
>Everyone pays sales taxes, only the employed (or the
>investment class) pay income taxes, while only the well-off
>pay property taxes and disproportionately the poor lose money
>gambling. Hence it is hard to tell whether it is socialism
>or not. The undergraduate (K-12) system is marginally
>socialistic, while tuition in most states for
>higher education is so high it most clearly is not.
>
>Doug McDonald
SO you are saying that the USA is a socialist state? :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 12 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 7:09 am
From: Chris H
In message <nejl05he5mla3m2f28vgtvgi949bosn2al@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:38:46 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>
>>>the
>>>>civil war, which until recently has been an agreed no go area, but you
>>>>only find that out by talking and reading about it :-)
>>>
>>>Why? What is the problem with Cromwell?
>>
>>More Franco :-)
>
>I confess! I posted it like that to cause confusion between civil
>wars, knowing people would think, ah haaa! He wants us to assume US
>civil war, when of course the civil war where there is/was a bond of
>silence has to be a recent one.
Just out of devilment and idle curiosity technically was the US War of
independence a civil war and both sides were "British" (or at least part
of the same empire) at the start?
If Cornwall fights the rest of England and declares independence that
would be a civil war....
(It feels like a Friday afternoon)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 13 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 7:18 am
From: William Black
J. Clarke 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.
It happened once to me in Texas.
I found that if I kept things simple (you know, I get free health
care, I pay more tax than you, single mums get a free house, I pay
a lot more tax than you, you die younger and your babies die in
greater numbers, I pay more tax than you but I get a state pension
when I retire) ordinary people in the USA do understand, but you have
to be careful NOT to say the word Socialism or you get asked why you
don't go and live in Russia...
--
William Black
== 14 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 7:48 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:dqrhsHLytqCKFAy0@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <vv5l055vt0dair2t8unqiikncl8u9geiqi@4ax.com>, Mike
> <rubbish@live.com> writes
>>On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:42:32 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Venting your political opinions in a bar is one thing, but start
>>>>talking about how you keep a gun at home to blow away any potential
>>>>enemies, and watch the people around you finish up their drinks in
>>>>a hurry and leave.
>>>
>>>True
>>>
>>>>Gun owners are generally perceived in the UK as creepy.
>>>
>>>No we are not.
>>
>>sorry Chris, not true.
>
> It is
Yep mostly, unless of course you know the person.
>
>> but the perception is as the one gun owner I have known,
>
> ONE owner? I have known 100's (Been in several clubs of 50 + in the
> past ) AFAIK all the gun clubs I was a member of (full bore rifle and
> pistol) have now gone as have the many shops and firms that supported
> the business. The UK gun ban cost a lot of people their livelihoods and
> saved not one life .
I know there were more gun clubs in the past but there was also more stamp
collecting too.
I'm not too sure how you can claim that. I do know of one person
that was killed because of the existence of a gun club because that's where
his murderer got the gun from.
>>who had cupboards full of Nazi regalia and uniforms.
>
> THAT is worrying. That sort of person would be gently eased out of any
> club I was a member of....
Oh I don't know I knew this blonde girl (German) who was very in to
the uniform thing, it was a fetish thing and from what I could see didn't do
any harm.
Some people are into uniforms, but not the British ones because they were
really crap
uncomfortable and not even very practical and above all else had NO style.
> Actually Hamilton was eased out of several gun clubs and the police
> given a "heads up" over several years before he went on his rampage.
Pity something wasn;t done at the time I guess.
> In the past most gun clubs usually had one or more serving police
> officers as members. No conspiracy just how it was.
I can understand that.
>So any people who
> joined the club that later gave any cause for concern usually had
> concern passed on to the Police.
That should happen with any club, including photography,
but who were those police officers that were fouund to be in possesion of
child porn.
Just because police are involve dit doesn;t mean no crime gets commited or
incompetence won't evolve.
> This is why Hamilton had been flaged to the police and the local
> Firearms team recommended his FAC was not renewed. Hamilton could
> have been stopped and lost his legal guns long before he went on the
> rampage with the laws available at the time.
It's a pity that didn;t happen at the time then.
== 15 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 7:54 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:52:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>> my action list is completing the British isles archipelago, return to
>> Iceland, do the Faeroes, Channel Isles, isle of Man
>> continue down Italy in la Marche and the deep south
>> central Spain in winter for the cranes.
>
>So basically you are going to go to places you have been before, and most of
>them are in the UK.
Er, no, not mostly in UK. The theme of this thread is leaving your own
country, Iceland, Faroes, Spain and Italy are not in the UK and yes I
return to places may times, you learn more that way.
--
Mike
== 16 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 7:56 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:50:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>So you're saying that the main topic of conversation in British bars is the
>definition of socialism?
of course its not, that was one subject that emerged as having a
different viewpoint in US and UK but if you use the oddd definition of
it used by a couple of americans here, you will soon find people
saying, "er, why are you calling that socialist?", just as happened
here.
--
Mike
== 17 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 7:59 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:44:24 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>> You are welcome to create your own language where you say "chair" to
>> what other people call table. But then you shouldn't be surprised when
>> people consider you rather wierd if you tell then, you are eating from
>> your "chair".
>>
>
>
>How else would I express it? I eat from my chair.
I really hope you are willfully misunderstanding.
--
Mike
== 18 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:02 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 15:09:19 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>Just out of devilment and idle curiosity technically was the US War of
>independence a civil war and both sides were "British" (or at least part
>of the same empire) at the start?
no, because not on the home soil?
>If Cornwall fights the rest of England and declares independence that
>would be a civil war....
Hmmmm. Yes I suppose so.
--
Mike
== 19 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:07 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 02:16:12 -0700, Jack Campin - bogus address
<bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> said:
> That's an urban legend. There is no such place. (And there couldn't
> be, since no English-speaking settlement in North America dates from
> the 16th century).
Oh well! In that case I have probably been urban legendd! :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 20 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:06 am
From: Chris H
In message <a6ol051rh3fjg4mpk95askkf42lk6g7ef1@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 15:09:19 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Just out of devilment and idle curiosity technically was the US War of
>>independence a civil war and both sides were "British" (or at least part
>>of the same empire) at the start?
>
>no, because not on the home soil?
Sounds reasonable.
>>If Cornwall fights the rest of England and declares independence that
>>would be a civil war....
>
>Hmmmm. Yes I suppose so.
However Cornwall is attached physically to England where as America is
not so your argument holds.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 21 of 21 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:04 am
From: Chris H
In message <guemnu$qc4$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>who had cupboards full of Nazi regalia and uniforms.
>>
>> THAT is worrying. That sort of person would be gently eased out of any
>> club I was a member of....
>
>Oh I don't know I knew this blonde girl (German) who was very in to
>the uniform thing, it was a fetish thing and from what I could see didn't do
>any harm.
Not quite the same thing :-)
>Some people are into uniforms, but not the British ones because they were
>really crap
>uncomfortable and not even very practical and above all else had NO style.
Also true :-)
>> Actually Hamilton was eased out of several gun clubs and the police
>> given a "heads up" over several years before he went on his rampage.
>Pity something wasn;t done at the time I guess.
It was and that is what makes people mad.
>>So any people who
>> joined the club that later gave any cause for concern usually had
>> concern passed on to the Police.
>
>That should happen with any club, including photography,
>but who were those police officers that were fouund to be in possesion of
>child porn.
>Just because police are involve dit doesn;t mean no crime gets commited or
>incompetence won't evolve.
True but the information usually gets passed on. The Police in gun clubs
are not likely to be into gun crime.
I have noticed that more than one Police officer on the anti porn or
child abuse get found with child porn.... It would be interesting to see
why.
>> This is why Hamilton had been flaged to the police and the local
>> Firearms team recommended his FAC was not renewed. Hamilton could
>> have been stopped and lost his legal guns long before he went on the
>> rampage with the laws available at the time.
>
>It's a pity that didn;t happen at the time then.
Quite so. The Gun clubs told the police AT THE TIME (actually in the
years before) they were worried about him. The firearms team did not
want to renew the license before the event.
So why wasn't it stopped? The laws at the time could have done so with
ease. There was no need to bring in the bans we now have.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:33 am
From: Don Stauffer
Mark Sieving wrote:
> On May 12, 8:28 am, Don Stauffer <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>
>>> imaged. Most optical viewfinders do not because of cost. The cost of
>>> a pentaprism in a full frame digital is not inconsiderable.
>> On the contrary. Almost every SLR I have owned, film or digital, shows
>> slightly MORE than what is contained by the format.
>
> What SLRs have you owned? Of the current Nikon lineup, only the D3x,
> D3, and D300 have 100% viewfinders. The rest are about 95% coverage.
> For Canon, the 1D MK III and 1Ds Mk III have 100% viewfinders. The 5D
> Mk II has 98% coverage, and the rest are about 95%.
>
> Now, there's nothing wrong with 95% coverage. That's perfectly
> adequate for almost any practical application. But it is a fact that
> only a few SLRs have 100% viewfinder coverage.
Whoops- you are right. I had it backwards. STill, 95% is close enough
for me. I have never been bothered by the little bit of extra I get. I
generally crop all my pics a bit anyway- I don't ordinarily like the 3/2
format unless the subject is long and squat.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:11 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>> Few people are foolish enough to think the future of
>> photography is anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is
>> a long time, and mirrorless is still science fiction for most
>> of us.
>
> It'll go the way of the solid rear axel.
>
What's an "axel"? Do you mean "axle"? Last time I looked, Hotchkiss
drive had hardly gone away. It is still alive and well and still
used today in trucks. Independent rear suspension has replaced it
in cars and largely in SUVs, but if we're going to use cars as an
analogy or metaphor, I think that far more progress has been made
since, say, the end of WWII than has been made on the basics of SLR
technology.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:14 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Eric Stevens added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>These days, I tend to use the small built-in speedlite now that
>>the XSi is a usable high ISO camera (and I can up the speed to
>>compensate for the low GN), when I am "serious" about flash in a
>>museum, I take my external flash which has the side benefit of
>>saving the camera battery.
>
> I don't know of any museum which will let photographs be taken
> with a flash. How do you manage?
I manage quite well, thank you. I have taken flash pictures in all
the museums of the Smithsonian, the Henry Ford Museum, the Walter
P. Chrysler Musueum, and many other, smaller museums across our
great country. The ONLY place where flash is generally forbidden in
places I've personally been in the DIA (Detroit Institute of Art)
because they are fearful of damage to the paintings. Those places
which still have a flash restriction often still have it not
because there is a real risk of damage to the artifacts on exhibit
but because their policy hasn't been updated since the days of
flash bulbs which literally did explode at times.
Incidently, I also took flash pictures at the Imperial War Museum
in London, but flash was pretty much prohibited in the castles I
visited in Germany.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
==============================================================================
TOPIC: etre rich , gagner argent étudiant , jouer a worms en ligne , jouer en
ligne gratuits , jouer foot en ligne , jouer a risk en ligne , s enrichir ,
jouer échecs en ligne , on va devenir riche et c est pas une blague , devenir
riche sans se fatiguer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1bd9f8bae32ecdf7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:37 am
From: g359fit@googlemail.com
etre rich , gagner argent étudiant , jouer a worms en ligne , jouer en
ligne gratuits , jouer foot en ligne , jouer a risk en ligne , s
enrichir , jouer échecs en ligne , on va devenir riche et c est pas
une blague , devenir riche sans se fatiguer ,
*
*
*
+++ GAGNER ARGENT EN LIGNE +++ GAGNER ARGENT SUR INTERNET +++
*
http://WWW.REAL-CASH-DREAMS.COM
http://WWW.REAL-CASH-DREAMS.COM
http://WWW.REAL-CASH-DREAMS.COM
http://WWW.REAL-CASH-DREAMS.COM
http://WWW.REAL-CASH-DREAMS.COM
http://WWW.REAL-CASH-DREAMS.COM
*
*
*
comment gagner argent facilement gagner de la argent
football joueurs comment gagner argent facile
etre devenir www comment devenir riche
jouer en ligne monopoly devenir riche en bourse
jouer au monopoly en ligne comment devenir riche sans rien faire
jouer a carcassonne en ligne science de devenir riche
gagner de l argent cash devenir riche livre
devenir riche en peu gagner de l argent par internet
faire devenir jouer a vice city en ligne
echecs jouer en ligne jeux gratuits
jouer risk en ligne gewinnen sie
riche femme gagner de l argent
devenir riches jouer au risk en ligne
comment devenir follement riche rapidement devenir riche en afrique
gagnez des cadeaux riche fille
gagner de l argent cash jouer a gta4 en ligne
gagner argent sur jouer au monopoly gratuitement en ligne
jouer au rami en ligne jouer a puissance 4 en ligne
jouer au football en ligne gagner de l argent google
jouer poker gagner argent google
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Filters!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6ca44008ad5d3083?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:50 am
From: Annika1980
On May 13, 12:16 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Annika can't figure out what a visual pun is, and we're stuck with
> "filters"? What's the mandate for July? Infra-red photos of
> Tennessee osprey?
Oooh, great idea!
The filter mandate is a brilliant idea. Kudos to the genius that
thought of it.
It should certainly open up more opportunites for submissions than a
visual pun, which is an oxymoron .... unlike the regular type of moron
who came up with that stupid mandate.
Don't forget that you don't have to use the filter on your lens.
There are lighting filters as well.
That's all I'm sayin.
==============================================================================
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