rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Anything for the Perfect Shot - 13 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* Running OS X on my PC!!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:08 pm
From: John Navas
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:55:55 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h1p9a0$l1n$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:41:49 -0400, Alan Browne
>
>
>>> All we say is we don't waste money, effort and tears on AV software.
>>> [SNIP]
>>
>> Mac fans campaign incessantly for Macs and against PCs.
>> Mac advocacy is one of the biggest noise sources on the Internet.
>
>That's rubbish, John.
>
>However........
>
>By your protestations, I can see you really, deep down, desire a nice
>new Mac. You'll deny it of course, just as Alan did until I talked him
>into buying one. (He'll deny that, too!) :-)
That's childish, John.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:28 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:220620091123024927%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <p7idnRfXWIF_tqLXnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@giganews.com>, Bill Graham
> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. And we live in a world where 95% of everything isn't what its,
>> "claimed
>> to be".
>
> maybe you do, but i certainly don't live in such a world.
You must not watch the same TV ads that I watch.......
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:33 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:220620091657280123%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <615045lmc8iml1ncoq5pomk4ldlfb3so9d@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't go outside in urban areas? ;)
>
> frequently. what does that have to do with anything?
>
>> >however, i wasn't referring to ads.
>>
>> In other words, you define away the misleading stuff. ;)
>
> i was referring to buying a product and it being what it says it is on
> the label. in fact, there are laws regulating that. i expect that the
> food i buy is healthy and not rancid. if i go into a restaurant, i
> expect that it's safe to eat there and that i won't be visiting the
> hospital for food poisoning or that a cockroach will crawl out from
> under my sandwich.
>
> as for ads, they imply quite a bit but they cannot lie.
You must be kidding, right? - Ads imply but don't lie!!? - Give me a
break......Whatever government agency is supposed to be protecting us from
false advertising is certainly a huge waste of taxpayers money......If I
were in charge, I would fire them all as soon as I took the oath of
office....They cost us a bundle, but do absolutely nothing. (Like most
government agencies)
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:39 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:j97045hid42tk0pkf0ngn86d5mvjn2m307@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:57:28 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <220620091657280123%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>
>>In article <615045lmc8iml1ncoq5pomk4ldlfb3so9d@4ax.com>, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't go outside in urban areas? ;)
>>
>>frequently. what does that have to do with anything?
>
> No ads where you live? How far to the nearest town? ;)
>
>>> In other words, you define away the misleading stuff. ;)
>>
>>i was referring to buying a product and it being what it says it is on
>>the label. in fact, there are laws regulating that.
There may be, but they are seldom enforced. I sit in front of the TV and get
a continuous stream of lies about 1/3 of the time. And the labels are
confusing, and impossible to read and/or understand, unless you are a
chemist as well as a lawyer with microscopic vision. And the credits that go
by after a film!! - What a waste of bandwidth!! - I wonder why they bother.
>
> We're talking marketing here, not labels.
>
>>i expect that the
>>food i buy is healthy and not rancid. if i go into a restaurant, i
>>expect that it's safe to eat there and that i won't be visiting the
>>hospital for food poisoning or that a cockroach will crawl out from
>>under my sandwich.
>
> Laws here in the USA are pretty lax, and enforcement even laxer (largely
> due to budget issues), so you'd be well advised here to scale back those
> expectations here.
>
> Expert assessment is that food poisoning is way underreported and quite
> common. I got food poisoning myself this weekend, which was fortunately
> relatively mild, probably from some undercooked meat.
>
>>as for ads, they imply quite a bit but they cannot lie.
>
> Of course they can, here in the USA at least, thanks to Pres Ronnie.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:46 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:220620091740556531%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <j97045hid42tk0pkf0ngn86d5mvjn2m307@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >i was referring to buying a product and it being what it says it is on
>> >the label. in fact, there are laws regulating that.
>>
>> We're talking marketing here, not labels.
>
> 'we' ? i was talking labels, since the post to which i responded was
> about software that wasn't what it claimed to be, installing malware
> rather than what the label said it was.
>
> assuming one gets their software from legitimate sources, the risk of
> malware is essentially zero. on the other hand if one procures it from
> warez servers, then the risk is quite a bit higher. and as far as ads
> go, i've yet to see malware take out an ad.
The worst is the "free" software offers. First, they aren't free. (the
really free ones are the most likely to work as advertised) They say they
are free, but after leading you on for 20 or 30 minutes, they want too much
money, and either do nothing that you want or need, or infect your machine
with pop-ups, or both. I have wasted many hours getting rid of software that
I downloaded innocently expecting it to do something I needed, and just
ended up getting stuff that made my machine slower, and or more difficult to
use. And windows VISTA makes it almost impossible to get rid of most of this
stuff.....I have to change the names on the program folders in order to
disable most of it. I can't even log onto my own machine as the
administrator.....Even though I am its only user!
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:49 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"Semi-Yawning" <sy@here.com> wrote in message
news:e4b045lfs9voaniik2dubidmubvb585bdk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:14:53 -0700, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:57:28 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>in <220620091657280123%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>>
>>>In article <615045lmc8iml1ncoq5pomk4ldlfb3so9d@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't go outside in urban areas? ;)
>>>
>>>frequently. what does that have to do with anything?
>>
>>No ads where you live? How far to the nearest town? ;)
>>
>>>> In other words, you define away the misleading stuff. ;)
>>>
>>>i was referring to buying a product and it being what it says it is on
>>>the label. in fact, there are laws regulating that.
>>
>>We're talking marketing here, not labels.
>>
>>>i expect that the
>>>food i buy is healthy and not rancid. if i go into a restaurant, i
>>>expect that it's safe to eat there and that i won't be visiting the
>>>hospital for food poisoning or that a cockroach will crawl out from
>>>under my sandwich.
>>
>>Laws here in the USA are pretty lax, and enforcement even laxer (largely
>>due to budget issues), so you'd be well advised here to scale back those
>>expectations here.
>>
>>Expert assessment is that food poisoning is way underreported and quite
>>common. I got food poisoning myself this weekend, which was fortunately
>>relatively mild, probably from some undercooked meat.
>
> Don't take this personally, just "typing out loud".
>
> "Food Poisoning" is the sign of a really weak body. Did you know that E.
> coli is a naturally occurring bacterium in your own gut? That's where it
> originated and why it is even named E. coli. (hint: coli = colon, used to
> stain samples of that strain in high-school bio-lab long ago, where we
> learned of its totally SAFE origin) Yet they spin that into some media
> scare regularly just to sell shares, and you all fall for it. The weakest
> of you succumbing to the suggestion, mostly mentally implanted into
> children by their paranoid and amazingly stupid parents. I guess there's a
> reason that their genetics shouldn't survive.
Yeah, but its supposed to stay at the back end, and not get reintroduced
into the front end......
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:53 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:220620091123035008%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <524v35lj2hn3753fvach8nvqbkbbq0a7h6@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm reminded of a guy I used to know who says, "I've been smoking all my
>> life, and I'm fine!" Think about that. Seriously.
>
> ok i thought about that, and i realize that it's not at all relevant.
Well, I amaze my doctors when I tell them that my mother smoked for 75
years......15 to 90. And she only quit at 90 because they were too
expensive! (She went on to live until she was 97, when she died of liver
cancer)
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:00 am
From: "Bill Graham"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:nsydnQ6bPujQb6LXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 22-06-09 10:09, John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:22:22 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
>> <4-6dnX3_7Y6zzaPXnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> On 21-06-09 04:59, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:43:16 -0700, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<ka7r351gmpij94ba7f20f7ugqu8vvco97p@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>>>> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
>>>>>> That site doesn't agree with you.
>>>>> that's because it's wrong.
>>>> You can't prove that.
>>> It doesn't matter. Ask around whatever mac users you know and see if
>>> they have AV s/w or have ever had a virus do anything to their system.
>>
>> I'm reminded of a guy I used to know who says, "I've been smoking all my
>> life, and I'm fine!" Think about that. Seriously.
>
> "I don't have a shotgun by my bed and I've never been burgled and
> attacked. Think about that. Seriously."
>
> "I don't buy flight insurance and I've never been in an airplane accident.
> Think about that. Seriously."
>
> My computer is backed up. It's not a health issue.
>
> I would only get AV for a Mac when I hear that it's a _real_ issue as it
> is for Windblows boxes.
>
> That's the joy of Mac OS X. Everything is compartmented and the OS itself
> is unassailable from a user session. Installing anything that can run
> requires permission.
>
> The users files might get damaged or destroyed, but not the system.
> Backups are really all you need. A 'bot cannot get installed such that it
> begins exporting data (or using the system as a vector for spam or
> fraud) - unless the user willingly and deliberately does so - or so
> unwittingly that he is truly witless.
>
> Viruses have been been successfully attacking PC's since the 80's - unless
> AV s/w is installed.
>
> Since Jobs took Apple into Open BSD (foundation for Max OS X) there has
> been no damage to Mac OS X systems from viruses in even slightly
> significant numbers.
>
> Hate to say so, but since I bought a Mac 18 months ago, I've turned into
> one 'them'.
The only reason there are so few Mac viruses is because there are so few
Macs, that the hackers and virus developers don't bother with them.....This
will change if they ever start to sell in significant numbers......I won't
buy one because I can't read the writing on the Apple sites....It's too
small and has no contrast.....(Dark grey on light grey just doesn't cut it
with my weak vision) I have an iPod sitting right here on my computer desk
that I can't use.....$150 blown to hell......It's the first and last thing I
will ever buy from Apple.
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:04 am
From: "Bill Graham"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:fPCdnb5_ZZkgi93XnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 22-06-09 19:32, John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:58:42 -0700, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> in<220620091158423343%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>>
>>> In article<m5kv359pb7g060090hs07pf2a3h4btrdqs@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Mac users are so defensive. I guess they have to be.
>>>>> ignoring your insult, it's the constant onslaught of detractors who
>>>>> claim things that are simply not true over which mac users comment.
>>>> Just an observation and a guess.
>>>> A wee bit defensive, are we? ;)
>>> not really. a better question is why people care so much about what
>>> other people buy and enjoy and insist on proving why that product is
>>> flawed in some way, usually with bogus claims.
>>
>> Good question. Let us know what Mac fans say about that.
>
> All we say is we don't waste money, effort and tears on AV software.
>
> I have nothing against Windows. Will just never buy one for myself ever
> again. I have a WinXP physical machine and it will be running (XP) for
> the foreseeable future. I have WinXP virtual machine (on the Mac) and it
> will also be around at least as long as the physical XP machine is around.
> After that ...
>
> In fact I'm buying a Mac laptop for my son next month (shhh).
Question: Do Macs that run Windows software get windows software viruses in
their windows software? And, if not, then why not?
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:09 am
From: "Bill Graham"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:220620091740586764%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <8k7045tfhsjb8clcgupemq7rdpcqvloavd@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Mac fans campaign incessantly for Macs and against PCs.
>> Mac advocacy is one of the biggest noise sources on the Internet.
>
> nonsense. it's mainly windows trolls who instigate the flame fests. i
> rarely see mac users visit windows forums and berate the products and
> users, but i often see windows users do exactly that, and not just on
> usenet but on other venues too.
Hey! - If Apple developed an iPod website that I could see and use, I'd buy
a Mac in a New York minute! - I can't help it if they are too obtuse to
develop software that I can actually use to download songs on my
iPod........Their bad! I also notice that they are impossible to contact by
email, so I can't even complain to them about their poor iTunes site.......I
need software people like that about as much as I need a hole in the
head.....NO THANKS!!!
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:10 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-23 00:04:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> said:
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:fPCdnb5_ZZkgi93XnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 22-06-09 19:32, John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:58:42 -0700, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> in<220620091158423343%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> In article<m5kv359pb7g060090hs07pf2a3h4btrdqs@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Mac users are so defensive. I guess they have to be.
>>>>>> ignoring your insult, it's the constant onslaught of detractors who
>>>>>> claim things that are simply not true over which mac users comment.
>>>>> Just an observation and a guess.
>>>>> A wee bit defensive, are we? ;)
>>>> not really. a better question is why people care so much about what
>>>> other people buy and enjoy and insist on proving why that product is
>>>> flawed in some way, usually with bogus claims.
>>>
>>> Good question. Let us know what Mac fans say about that.
>>
>> All we say is we don't waste money, effort and tears on AV software.
>>
>> I have nothing against Windows. Will just never buy one for myself
>> ever again. I have a WinXP physical machine and it will be running
>> (XP) for the foreseeable future. I have WinXP virtual machine (on the
>> Mac) and it will also be around at least as long as the physical XP
>> machine is around. After that ...
>>
>> In fact I'm buying a Mac laptop for my son next month (shhh).
>
> Question: Do Macs that run Windows software get windows software
> viruses in their windows software? And, if not, then why not?
They are just as vulnerable as any other machine running Windows
XP/Vista/W7 and those users should take appropriate precautions.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:12 am
From: nospam
In article <T_KdnWHaF6nN593XnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Bill Graham
<weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
> The worst is the "free" software offers. First, they aren't free. (the
> really free ones are the most likely to work as advertised) They say they
> are free, but after leading you on for 20 or 30 minutes, they want too much
> money, and either do nothing that you want or need, or infect your machine
> with pop-ups, or both. I have wasted many hours getting rid of software that
> I downloaded innocently expecting it to do something I needed, and just
> ended up getting stuff that made my machine slower, and or more difficult to
> use. And windows VISTA makes it almost impossible to get rid of most of this
> stuff.....I have to change the names on the program folders in order to
> disable most of it. I can't even log onto my own machine as the
> administrator.....Even though I am its only user!
ah, the joys of windows. :)
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:12 am
From: nospam
In article <e0s045hrham9b1vo0q1ordmfu054cl94qm@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >assuming one gets their software from legitimate sources, the risk of
> >> >malware is essentially zero. ...
> >>
> >> That's both dead wrong and dangerously naive -- there have been quite a
> >> few cases of malware-infected software from legitimate sources.
> >
> >none with mac os x. ...
>
> That you know of.
that anyone knows of.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Running OS X on my PC!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:23 pm
From: ASAAR
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:09:10 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Bored?
>>
>> Trolled?
>>
>> :)
>>
> Yowza.
>
> 'Ceptin' Rita is usually too intelligent to resort to such unvarnished
> fishing, so I thought he'd take leave of his brain.
There's usually a bit of both, but more often the former, such as
with the familiar fertilizing fido fotos.
==============================================================================
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