Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 25 2009 11:43 pm
From: Bob Larter

ribbit wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> Drew Lawson wrote:
>>> In article <2aVrAgDDPIQKFAFS@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
>>>> This is the real point. Viruses were originally on Unix (ie OSX) and
>>>> them moved to windows when it became popular.
>>>
>>> Refresh my memory of those.
>>
>> The only one that I'm aware of was the infamous Morris Worm.
>>
>>> The first I recall being called "viruses" were the boot-sector
>>> viruses in the DOS world, mid to late '80s. TSR turned evil.
>>>
>>> The DOS world was crawling with viruses long before Windows became
>>> the default MS interface.
>>
>> It sure was. A relative of mine made his fortune in the antivirus
>> industry, starting with a fix for the 'Stoned' boot-sector virus.
>>
>
> That was an easy thing to fix.
> Just use the back-up sector to overwrite the primary and re-boot the PC.
> kiddie tech stuff.

Boot from a clean floppy & "fdisk /mbr" is how I used to do it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 12:41 am
From: Chris H

In message <7mk8459oinbtct2gjf5o7su21kvaji5ig1@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
>[...]
>>To me, its still up in the air
>>weather or not it is worth all the trouble it gives me. To be sure, it does
>>do, or is at least capable of doing some miraculous things, but at the same
>>time, it generates so many problems that most of the time I find that I am
>>behind schedule trying to keep up with it.
>
>Would you drive a car without receiving proper instruction first?

Many do.

Also ride horses, shoot guns, ride off road bikes, sub-aqua, sail boats,
drive power boats.

> Would
>you pilot an airplane without proper training?

Some have....

>A computer is many, many times more complex than a small airplane

Absolute crap Most small aeroplanes have several computers in them,...
also engines that also have computers on them.

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 2:39 am
From: "Larry Thong"

Savageduck wrote:

> Since you do not seem to actually RTFM to use what is available to you
> and any user, on any computer, PC, Mac or Linux machine, it is
> probably best that you continue to march to your different drum.
>
> ...but then live with the consequences of that, and don't complain
> even after you have been presented with solutions.
> It is appears you live to complain, and having whatever you use
> functioning optimally is not something you would put any effort into,
> as you would not be able to complain about it.

LOL! Well said!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Shot Seen 'Round the World
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15107f2ca666bb2e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 12:37 am
From: Chris H

In message <4A445D01.67BFFFB1@concentric.net>, John Turco
<jtur@concentric.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>>
>> In message <4A3F3E7C.CD50C6E3@concentric.net>, John Turco
>> <jtur@concentric.net> writes
>> >Chris H wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message <4A39BF13.AAF53A01@concentric.net>, John Turco
>> >
>> ><edited for brevity>
>> >
>> >> >Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
>> >> >popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
>> >> >fact.
>> >>
>> >> Not compared to football
>> >
>> >
>> >Hello, Chris:
>> >
>> >All right...read it and weep. <g>
>>
>> Why? Wiki is notoriously unreliable.
>
>Hello, Chris:
>
>It >is<? Then, why did you, yourself, quote Wikipedia, in a later post?

IT was one of several quotes but the point was my wiki page was mutually
exclusive to yours... one of them had to be wrong. This is why I also
put in a lot of other cites.

>> Basket ball is a minority sport outside the USA. It is hardly played in
>> many countries
>
>That's a very dubious claim.

I posted the cites to back it up. Having travelled on 4 continents and
many countries with friends who have travelled on 6 contents I know it
to be true.

I do not know of a country outside N.America where there basketball or
baseball is plying in significant numbers compared to football.

>> Football is the national sport of many nations. It is played where every
>> there is something kickable. I have not see a country that does not
>> play football and it is the normal first choice for kids everywhere.
>
>You've answered three of my other responses, within this thread; but, this
>shall be my sole reply.
>
>Suffice to say, basketball and soccer are both quite popular, worldwide.
>However, in the U.S.A., "gridiron" type football is king, currently -- and
>ice hockey has long been Canada's "national sport."

Whereas the national sport of very many countries is football.

>In these respects, North America may be an "anomaly," as you're previously
>stated.

It is. In my experience most Americans take what they see in the USA and
extrapolate it world wide. Whereas in fact most of the time the US is an
anomoly and the rest of the world (which is a bit larger than the USA
:-) is different.

> Albeit, that doesn't diminish its worthiness, or that of the NFL
>or NHL, in any way.

Only in N. America outside N.America it is a minority (or non-existant)
sport.

I would bet that there is more soccer played in the USA than American
Football (or basball or basketball) is played outside the USA.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 3:48 am
From: ASAAR

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:30:41 -0500, John Turco wrote:

>> Basket ball is a minority sport outside the USA. It is hardly played in
>> many countries
>
> That's a very dubious claim.
> . . .
>
> Suffice to say, basketball and soccer are both quite popular, worldwide.

If basketball wasn't so popular, worldwide, NBA teams wouldn't
have signed so many players from so many countries, worldwide.

Even extremely good athletes won't attain the necessary skills
unless they spend many years developing their skills by playing at a
relatively high level in a large talent pool. The development of
that skill requires much more than a backyard basketball net.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1415c1c3e6a92134?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:09 am
From: Ron Hunter

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:50:14 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote
>>> properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left...
>>>
>> Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the
>> clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and
>> select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much
>> faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old. More power to you.
>
> No, I can't do _that_ in two seconds, but that would be a very foolish way
> to select the text you want to quote.
>
> In any case, you can just delete the quotes you're _not_ replying to from
> the 'old quoted data'. And in most newsreaders, you can select the desired
> quotes first, press "reply" (or something similar) next, and your reply-
> window will open containing just the selected quotes.
>
> If I say I can cross the street in three seconds, that doesn't mean I can
> do it on hands and knees.
>
Just remember, some of us have trouble getting across the street before
the light changes, and don't honk!

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:11 am
From: Ron Hunter

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:38 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote in <YPidnR-cV-JaY97XnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>> We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
>>> save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
>>> That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
>>>
>> Chances are they have more time that I do.
>
> What a lame excuse.
>
>> I'm not going to take the
>> time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it
>> takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my
>> multi-button pointing device.
>
> So screw them.
>
>> Hardly an imposition.
>
> This just might quality you for my twit filter.
>
> When you act like a dick, expect to get treated like one.
>
Feel free, John, but then you have acted even worse from time to time.

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:16 am
From: Ron Hunter

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <YPidnR-cV-JaY97XnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> writes
>> Chances are they have more time that I do.
>
> Dear Ron,
> YOU are an arrogant CUNT!
>
> Regards,
>
> PS. Sorry I don't have enough time to explain my conclusion.
> No doubt you have enough time to debate it. ;-)
>
> PPS. I apologise to regular readers for my misuse of Anglo-Saxon
> language - a CUNT is a very useful and pleasurable piece of human
> anatomy, whilst Ron certainly is not!

Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately, I don't have that particular
anatomical part, so your description is inappropriate, and inaccurate.
Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to
insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments?

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:22 am
From: Ron Hunter

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:29:05 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> Is it too late to try, Ron?
>>>
>>>
>> Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results
>> in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we
>> talking about? Sigh.
>
> Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly.
> You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting
> hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or
> a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of
> your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup
> newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to
> your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're
> just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and
> I may have a touch of it myself. :)
>
> BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird),
> I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective
> quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your
> computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's
> a will there's a way.
>
>
The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader. Perhaps the
real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.
Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.
I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
add me to your 'twit list'. Life is way too short to waste doing
something you don't need to do, and which gives you no pleasure.

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:24 am
From: Ron Hunter

JustaTroll wrote:

>>
>
> Or a kill-file... I get the impression he doesn't care one way or the
> other.
>
>
> - JT
>
>

You have it!

Now, notice that I have substantially changed the import of your message
by snipping. That is another reason I don't do it often.

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:28 am
From: Ron Hunter

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:38 -0500, "Mean old" Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
>>> save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
>>> That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.
>> Chances are they have more time that I do. I'm not going to take the
>> time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it
>> takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my
>> multi-button pointing device. Hardly an imposition.
>
> That only shows how inconsiderate and self centered you are. You
> *incorrectly* assume that anyone reading your replies also assumes
> that your replies are always contained at the very bottom of your
> posts. Very often replies from others are scattered between long
> quotes, and immediately skipping to the bottom guarantees that most
> of the new text contained in the reply will never be seen. As I
> hinted in my previous reply, trimming the unnecessary quotes can be
> quick and easy if you're bright enough to figure out how to do it,
> no matter how limited your newsreader is. Mine may be easier, as it
> can quote only the text that's highlighted, but that's not the
> point. It's much quicker than scrolling down through hundreds of
> lines to make sure that any pertinent parts of your replies aren't
> missed, which is the burden you impose on those that are patient
> enough to read your replies. Had you been royalty, I suppose your
> adopted motto would be "Let them eat cake."

What you describe, interspersed posting, is especially difficult to
snip, and may lead to increased confusion about who said what. I really
hate that posting style, but it is sometimes better to do that than wait
until the end when many points are covered. I won't even consider
trying to snip an interspersed post as a long one can take a LONG time
to edit without losing all meaning.

Perhaps, when the next release of my software comes out (it's supposed
to have the ability to quote only selected text, but then they have
promised that before, so....) I will do more snipping, or maybe not.

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:30 am
From: Ron Hunter

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-06-25 15:53:02 -0700, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> said:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:31:19 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>> wrote in <NqSdnaXe86wFQ97XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it
>>>> easy, but I have neither.
>>> Your headers say Thunderbird, which can do it easily. Would you like
>>> some help?
>>>
>>>> Skipping to the end is vastly easier, and
>>> For you.
>>>
>>>> unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for
>>>> newsgroup access, why bother?
>>> Because it's both wasteful and rude to others, who may be paying for
>>> metered Internet access, and who may have to manually scroll down to see
>>> your response -- I'll often not bother, especially when I'm on a small
>>> screen device.
>>> If you don't care about your audience, why bother posting at all?
>>>
>>> Come on, Ron, you're better than that.
>>>
>> Actually, I don't care if you, or anyone else reads my posts, likes my
>> posts, or likes the way I post. I express my opinion, or I give
>> advice, or provide information. What you chose to do with it is your
>> business.
>
> Then why waste your time posting anything?
>
> You might as well stand on a street corner and rail at the World.
>
>
I have felt like doing that more than once, but haven't gotten that far
yet.

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 2:11 am
From: bugbear

Ron Hunter wrote:
> JustaTroll wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Or a kill-file... I get the impression he doesn't care one way or the
>> other.
>>
>>
>> - JT
>>
>>
>
> You have it!
>
> Now, notice that I have substantially changed the import of your message
> by snipping. That is another reason I don't do it often.

Because you're incompetent? Most people can improve skills
with practice.

BugBear

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 2:20 am
From: Bob Larter

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results
> in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we
> talking about? Sigh.

So you quote a few lines & trim the rest. Really, it's not exactly
rocket science.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 2:36 am
From: Bob Larter

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>> OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote
>> properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left...
>>
> Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the
> clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and
> select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much
> faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old.

You what? You're running T/bird, as am I. It automatically puts the
cursor at the bottom of the quoted text. You simply cursor up to the
start of the text you wish to quote, hold SHIFT, & cursor up to the
attributions, then hit DELETE. It might have taken me an entire 5
seconds to do it in this post.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 3:40 am
From: ASAAR

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly.
>> You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting
>> hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or
>> a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of
>> your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup
>> newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to
>> your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're
>> just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and
>> I may have a touch of it myself. :)
>>
>> BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird),
>> I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective
>> quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your
>> computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's
>> a will there's a way.
>
>
> The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
> through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
> end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.

You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
useful context should be trimmed. You also completely missed the
point about quoting entire threads. You've never been so out of
touch as to do that (nor have I ever seen anyone else do that in
newsgroups) so what put into your head the idea of reading back
through previous messages in a thread? The point was simply that
you often quote *much* more material than is necessary to provide
sufficient context for your replies, and if you feel that there's a
need to quote even the unnecessary bits, why not take it to an even
more absurd extreme and provide the supposed context provided by
earlier replies in the thread. You show that you're trying only to
find some way to justify your egregious quoting without taking an
extra second or two to understand what you're replying to.

> Perhaps the
> real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.

Yes, just as you're expected to stop your car at red lights, even
though it's at your expense (time and wasted gas). You think that
you're making a logical argument, but it's completely unreasonable,
unless perhaps you have some anarchist genes, and have no truck with
the Golden Rule.

> Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
> times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.

That's nonsense, but after repeating it for many years you may
even believe it by now.

> I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
> and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
> editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
> add me to your 'twit list'.

I don't generally use twit lists even though I recognize twits
when I see them.

> Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
> do, and which gives you no pleasure.

Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone. :)

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 4:17 am
From: "DRS"

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h20nnt$u83$1@news.eternal-september.org
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> Is it too late to try, Ron?
>
>> Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and
>> results in little information for the person who reads the post. What
>> were we talking about? Sigh.
>
> We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you
> will save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or
> two. That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.

Ten seconds? Two, more like. The problem isn't the time it takes, the
problem is the unfortunately large number of posters who have no
consideration for others.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Running OS X on my PC!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 1:58 am
From: Bob Larter

Larry Thong wrote:
> Bowser wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> What? Couldn't troll enough people on camera BS so you've branched
>> out? Pathetic...
>
> There's not much of a challenge with "camera BS" as there's not any
> worthy opponents that are capable of taking a decent picture or giving
> me a rise.

Why don't you take on the P&S troll? - That ought to be good for a laugh
or two.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 2:38 am
From: "Larry Thong"

Annika1980 wrote:

>>> How do you like that new i7?
>
> I love it. I'd love it even more if I had one.
>
> Someday ...

I thought you bought that a while back. How are you editing your HD videos
from the 5D?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 2:39 am
From: "Larry Thong"

Bob Larter wrote:

>> There's not much of a challenge with "camera BS" as there's not any
>> worthy opponents that are capable of taking a decent picture or
>> giving me a rise.
>
> Why don't you take on the P&S troll? - That ought to be good for a
> laugh or two.

Naw, you guys are doing just fine stimulating it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Luddite
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d79a7fc04955e696?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 2:39 am
From: "Larry Thong"

tony cooper wrote:

> I went online and bought a replacement phone - an old Nokia 3589i -
> for $35. I like Nokias because the batteries hold their charge longer
> for me, and get better reception in my area. My "new" phone has no
> camera, no GPS device, no ring tones, no games, no keyboard, and no
> special bells or whistles. It places calls and receives calls.
> That's all I want.

You should have got yourself a Jitterbug, Tony. I hope you can see the
numbers on that new fangled phone you bought?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Online Electronics Stores Caught in Consumer Fraud
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/31692311a9283a58?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 3:20 am
From: Don Wiss

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/online-electronic-stores-caught-in-consumer-fraud/

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 4:37 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2009 10:02:52 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
> in <7ah0acF1v1pocU1@mid.individual.net>:

>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>> A-GPS units can use tower triangulation to supplement GPS signals.
>>
>>They can't use triangulation since the towers don't know angles.

> Not precise angles, but usually a sector.

>>They
>>could do trilateralisation by using signal strength as a rough
>>approximation to distance. ...

> Wireless position systems actually include:
> * Angle of arrival (AOA)
> * Time difference of arrival (TDOA)
> * Location signature
> * GPS
> * Assisted GPS (A-GPS)
> * Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (A-FLT)
> * Timing Advance/Network Measurement Report (TA/NMR)
> * Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD)

I keep asking you what the actual phone location system you have in
your hand does, and how well, and you persist in replying with general
specifications of what it might be able to do if everything possible
had been implemented, which may not be the case with whatever you
have. Is what your phone actually does compared to what some other
phone somewhere else might be able to do so embarrassing?

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 4:57 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <7ah4jeF1veu0sU4@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> How accurately did it locate your basement? :-)

> very accurately. it was exactly where i expected it to be, i.e., inset
> from the street.

> even more impressive, when it got a fix inside the steel framed store,
> it was also about the right distance from the road, given where i was
> inside the store.

That is impressive! My models are the earlier less sensitive ones.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:13 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2009 11:28:04 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
> in <7ah5a4F1veu0sU6@mid.individual.net>:

>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:10:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>> <u93ah6-rd6.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>>
>>>>I understand that cell phone reception is spotty in the jungle.
>>>>Where, granted, GPS reception is not that easy. Still, people
>>>>are effectively using GPS in the tropical rain forrests, as a
>>>>quick google will show you.
>>
>>> Only with difficulty. Tree cover is an issue.
>>
>>It's very difficult if you don't understand how to use a GPS under
>>canopy. It's much easier if you do. Many of those who rely on GPS in
>>heavily wooded places have taken the trouble to find out how to best
>>use them under tree cover.

> Thank you, but I'm thoroughly familiar with how to use GPS -- I'd even
> be willing to bet that I have far more hours of experience than you do,
> since I routinely use it for marine navigation.

There aren't many trees in the sea :-)

> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this
> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking
> pictures, so would have to make a new fix when the camera is turned on.

Not necessarily. You seem to be unaware of the way such long batterey
life instant response GPS systems can work. They can for example run a
cycle of turning on briefly to maintain lock, so that they can do an
instant hot start when required, without having to be on all the time.

> Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by
> keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be
> expected to manually acquire new birds from time to time?

It's also the case that the very latest GPS chip sets consume very
much less power than their predecessors, and wouldn't add much extra
drain to a camera if left fully active all the time the camera was on.

There are plenty of technology options now available to solve these
problems, and sufficient well-established demand for low power fast
response GPS in other applications to fund their development outside
of in-camera market demands.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Future of the megapixel race
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 10:53 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <250620092124514719%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...

> it's not guessed, it's precisely calculated,

It's *wrongly* calculated. It's called "interpolation".

> and human vision is not
> that sensitive to colour resolution so you can't see the difference
> anyway.

Nonsense. Just enlarge the image and you will see the errors.

> it does depend on the implementation, but absent a breakthrough in
> physics or manufacturing, it remains true. there's no free lunch.

There is no law of physics stating that a full colour sensor must have
more noise than a Bayer sensor.
--

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

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

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