rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Christian Louboutin Boots - Fashionable - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/162244d81db40ce4?hl=en
* SEEK: utility to add file date to name - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3aa9b04f6d7f26f0?hl=en
* Best online retailer? - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3453aaf486e8bab8?hl=en
* Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?) - 9 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/29afe4bf434fb93b?hl=en
* Software for Kodak DC 210 Does Not Work With Windows XP? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8db30129a3d69f09?hl=en
* How to get a life! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/917c008d960f47b1?hl=en
* I think it's time to vomit - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/076f75769778eb41?hl=en
* ViewNX - Adnormal Terminations? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/07ec255688ae91d8?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christian Louboutin Boots - Fashionable
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/162244d81db40ce4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 7:28 am
From: ppxingpu@gmail.com
Where can to buy cheap and fine quality Christian Louboutin boots,
please view our Affliction store.
Our Affliction Mens Hoodies all are the fine quality
Please see them :
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Shoes/Christian-Louboutin-Shoes-20.html
Brand : Christian Louboutin
www.luxury-fashion.org
Welcome check our other pages or feel free contact us.
You can find what do you want here!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: SEEK: utility to add file date to name
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3aa9b04f6d7f26f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 7:32 am
From: Dave Cohen
jasper wrote:
> I want to date stamp my image files (JPEG, GIF, etc).
>
> Is there a free utility for WinXP which renames a file by adding
> the file's Modified Date to it's file name?
>
> ---
>
> For example, a file called "DIAGRAM.GIF" modified on 15 June
> 2008 gets renamed as "DIAGRAM 15-JUNE-2008.GIF"
The freeware program renamemaster.exe will do what you want. It's a
standalone program, just save and create a shortcut to it.
Dave Cohen
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 8:23 am
From: "Kartnin"
"Susan Bugher" <sebugher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:717l0vFjl748U1@mid.individual.net...
> jasper wrote:
>>> On 04 Mar 2009 in rec.photo.digital, jasper wrote:
>
>>>> I want to date stamp my image files (JPEG, GIF, etc).
>>>>
>>>> Is there a free utility for WinXP which renames a file by
>>>> adding the file's Modified Date to it's file name?
>
>>>> For example, a file called "DIAGRAM.GIF" modified on 15
>>>> June 2008 gets renamed as "DIAGRAM 15-JUNE-2008.GIF"
>
>> I want to rename the files to make the name include the file's Modified
>> Date as displayed in XP's file properties.
>
> THE Rename can do that. See the "FileDateEx" topic in the help file.
>
> Program: THE Rename
> Author: Hervé Thouzard
> Windows 95; 98; ME; 2000; XP; Windows Server 2003
> Ware: (Donationware) (free)
> http://www.herve-thouzard.com/
> http://www.herve-thouzard.com/therename.zip
>
> Changing the subject. The Rename (primarily a file renamer) can also
> change the file date. Photographers take note. . .
>
> <Q>
> Change files date and time
>
> This option allows you to modify creation's date, last access date and
> the last modification's date for a file. You can also modify the
> timestamp.
>
> <snip>
>
> The EXIF option is very usefull if you have photos you have made with
> your digital camera. Recent cameras add information about date and time
> (and many other things) inside the photos. You can use this date and
> time (if they are available) to change the file's date and time.
>
> </q>
>
> Susan
Looks good. It's not exactly "intuitive" is it?
Can't find how to change to another folder!
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 8:30 am
From: me@mine.net
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:33:39 +0000 (UTC), in rec.photo.digital jasper
<jasperdoesnotwantmail@com.invalid> wrote:
>I want to date stamp my image files (JPEG, GIF, etc).
>
>Is there a free utility for WinXP which renames a file by adding
>the file's Modified Date to it's file name?
>
>---
>
>For example, a file called "DIAGRAM.GIF" modified on 15 June
>2008 gets renamed as "DIAGRAM 15-JUNE-2008.GIF"
Use the batch rename function of Irfanview.
http://www.irfanview.com
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 8:46 am
From: Susan Bugher
Kartnin wrote:
> "Susan Bugher" <sebugher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:717l0vFjl748U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Program: THE Rename
>> Author: Hervé Thouzard
>> Windows 95; 98; ME; 2000; XP; Windows Server 2003
>> Ware: (Donationware) (free)
>> http://www.herve-thouzard.com/
>> http://www.herve-thouzard.com/therename.zip
> Looks good. It's not exactly "intuitive" is it?
<grin> It is a bit daunting at first. Persevere and things will get easier.
> Can't find how to change to another folder!
Look at the tabs that are shown on top of the right pane - select
"folders" to see the folder navigation tree.
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best online retailer?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3453aaf486e8bab8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 7:34 am
From: George Kerby
On 3/4/09 6:14 AM, in article ihrsq45rvcubbg8oeb8m3056lee9hl08eo@4ax.com,
"Unglued" <notrollz@nunya.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the replies on Broadway photo. I am leaning toward Amazon
> for my camera purchase, but I have also seen some larger camera
> retailers that also have good reviews (B&H, Abe's, etc).
>
> What are the favorites in this group?
>
> Thanks in advance.
Amazon is good. And if you use their CC, you will either get extra time to
pay w/o finance charges and/or 3-5% back in coupons. Their return policy is
very favorable, as well.
Others that are positive B&H, Adaorama and KEH (Atlanta).
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 7:38 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:26:42 -0600, Don Stauffer
<stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:14:08 -0600, Unglued <notrollz@nunya.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the replies on Broadway photo. I am leaning toward Amazon
>>> for my camera purchase, but I have also seen some larger camera
>>> retailers that also have good reviews (B&H, Abe's, etc).
>>>
>>> What are the favorites in this group?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Any of these: Adorama, Abe's of Maine, B&H, or Ritz.
>>
>
>We just read yesterday that Ritz may be going under :-(
Ritz has filed for Chapter 11. That allows them to continue to do
business. It shouldn't really affect a would-be purchaser of a
camera. Any long term warranty is a warranty of the camera's US
distributor.
In most cases, if the supplier has the camera in stock, at a good
price, and ships it...the dealer's future has little bearing on the
purchase. Actually, this would be the time to look for good deals at
Ritz.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 8:13 am
From: Irwell
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:34:58 -0600, George Kerby wrote:
> On 3/4/09 6:14 AM, in article ihrsq45rvcubbg8oeb8m3056lee9hl08eo@4ax.com,
> "Unglued" <notrollz@nunya.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the replies on Broadway photo. I am leaning toward Amazon
>> for my camera purchase, but I have also seen some larger camera
>> retailers that also have good reviews (B&H, Abe's, etc).
>>
>> What are the favorites in this group?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
> Amazon is good. And if you use their CC, you will either get extra time to
> pay w/o finance charges and/or 3-5% back in coupons. Their return policy is
> very favorable, as well.
>
> Others that are positive B&H, Adaorama and KEH (Atlanta).
Amazon, their return policy is great, also a good place to
safely sell your used gear.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 8:54 am
From: "Ron Recer"
"Unglued" <notrollz@nunya.net> wrote in message
news:ihrsq45rvcubbg8oeb8m3056lee9hl08eo@4ax.com...
> Thanks for the replies on Broadway photo. I am leaning toward Amazon
> for my camera purchase, but I have also seen some larger camera
> retailers that also have good reviews (B&H, Abe's, etc).
>
> What are the favorites in this group?
>
> Thanks in advance.
I have used B&H for a number of years. They will sell you the item at their
posted price with no hassle or requirement to also purchase some related
items at inflated prices or pay exhorbanate shipping and handling fees.
They have always shipped within the time the told me and I have received
everything in great shape.
Ron
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 9:21 am
From: ASAAR
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:13:38 -0800, Irwell wrote:
>> Others that are positive B&H, Adaorama and KEH (Atlanta).
>
> Amazon, their return policy is great, also a good place to
> safely sell your used gear.
I haven't used Amazon that much, only 4 times, but returns were
needed twice when suppliers substituted a cheaper item for the one
that was ordered. No change in price though. One was a B+W filter
that arrived as a Tiffen filter, with the glass filter element
rattling since it wasn't glued or crimped properly. I've ordered
more times from B&H and Adorama and never had a problem.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:13 am
From: SMS
Unglued wrote:
> Thanks for the replies on Broadway photo. I am leaning toward Amazon
> for my camera purchase, but I have also seen some larger camera
> retailers that also have good reviews (B&H, Abe's, etc).
>
> What are the favorites in this group?
>
> Thanks in advance.
I bought my SLR from Amazon at a time when B&H was more expensive and
did not offer free shipping. Now B&H is usually the same price as Amazon
and offers free shipping, so I'd rather give the business to them. Help
them keep their brick and mortar store open so you can visit it when you
go to NYC!
One advantage of Amazon is that if you sign up for their credit card you
get a 3% rebate (in Amazon gift certificates) on Amazon purchases which
is better than any standard Visa card (I get 2% on one Visa card and
it's being discontinued at the end of March). So on the XSi kit, it'd be
$20.40 back in an Amazon gift certificate.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/29afe4bf434fb93b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 8:00 am
From: ray
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:49:57 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
> ray wrote:
> []
>> I don't know - there may be some info on the panasonic web site. I use
>> a Kodak P850 which, as I recall, is about 330k - it's fine. I've also
>> looked at e.g. a canon s31s and it's so blocky I know I could not stand
>> it. I know that several makers have done a decent job - there was a
>> Minolta that was pretty decent, too. I've read that although Minolta
>> claimed 1mp for the EVF they were counting all of the red, green and
>> blue pixels separately so the res was only about 330k.
>
> That was the Minolta A2 - nice viewfinder but I returned mine for other
> reasons.
>
> The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have
> called it 4.2M <G>) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks like
> in practice.
>
> David
Or, are they doing the same thing and it's really 450k? In either event
that should be adequate.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 8:01 am
From: ray
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:07:14 +0000, Bruce wrote:
> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at a Kodak P series?
>
>
> I can't imagine ever wanting to use a Kodak digicam, so no.
If you could ever lower yourself, you might find that the 330k EVF in the
Kodaks is quite useable.
>
>
>>I find
>>the EVF on it to be quite usable - has about three times the pixels of
>>the lesser ones.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:00 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
In rec.photo.digital Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|
| http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Why was this originally crossposted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? It is
not an SLR. I deleted that newsgroup from my followup.
I'll be interested when a truly pro model comes out with a full line of lenses.
As discussed in other threads a while back, it would be possible to make this
kind of camera work compatibly with an SLR system. It will need either a leaf
shutter in the lens (preferred) or a focal plane shutter. A hybrid system with
leaf shutters in most or all lenses could have camera bodies with optical view
(e.g. SLR, or classic rangefiner) or digital view (LCD, either on the back on
in the viewfinder, or even both). Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
plane shutter in SLRs).
While having the option for lightweight consumer grade cameras is good, for the
more intense photography, a serious camera, with at least enough size to hold
on to effectively, is desired. Having them use the same lens mount would be a
plus.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:04 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
In rec.photo.digital Ron Recer <RonRecer@aol.com> wrote:
| "Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
| news:l-qdna1Eseey2THUnZ2dnUVZ_gyWnZ2d@giganews.com...
|> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|>
|> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
|
| Might be fine for some folks, but I would hate to try and hold it steady
| while I looked at the LCD to frame a photo using a 300mm or 400mm lens. Of
| course you could always use a tripod, but I would think that would be more
| awkward to carry around than a camera with a mirror box. <g>
There is a viewfinder on it. You can see it in the picture. If it has no
mirror, what would you see through there? I do not see a rangefinder opening
on the front. How about a 2nd LCD inside that is optically mated with the
viewfinder?
I want to find the JTAG port.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:07 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
In rec.photo.digital Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
| In article <l-qdna1Eseey2THUnZ2dnUVZ_gyWnZ2d@giganews.com>, Rich says...
|> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|>
|> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
|
| Does it take interchangeable lenses and if so what lens mount does it
| use? Is it perhaps compatible with the micro 4/3 standard?
Article says APS-C sensor. That's larger than 4/3. That means better than 4/3.
That means not as good as full frame. OTOH, many cameras do reasonably well in
APS-C size.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:12 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
| On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:52:04 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
|
|> On 2009-03-02 20:26:36 -0800, ray <ray@zianet.com> said:
|>
|>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:40:15 -0600, Rich wrote:
|>>
|>>> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|>>>
|>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
|>>
|>> Geez! What will they think of next!! A digital camera with an
|>> Electronic ViewFinder!!! Absolutely REVOLUTIONARY!!!!!
|>
|> CoolPix 5700 redux
|
| For one thing - I see no information on the resolution of the EVF. That
| has been the downfall of many an EVF, IMHO. Most of them are of such low
| resolution that the image is far too 'blocky' to do any decent
| photography - I think, typically, they are around 100k - 300k or more
| seems to be adequate.
If it includes an electronic zoom just for viewing, which lots of cameras
do already have in some form for viewing from the back LCD, then it can be
a reasonably convenient way to verify the focus was on the right part of
the scene, or for manual focusing (don't know if this camera can do that).
For more critical work, you would be on a tripod, using the back LCD, and
probably not this camera.
No LCD is going to have the resolution of the sensor without being a monster
in size (think of hauling around a big 42" widescreen TV with computer display
pixel size). If you want to see individual sensor pixels while composing, you
will need the zoom.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:12 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <Foqrl.2536$Lc7.2412@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...
> The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have called
> it 4.2M <G>) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks like in
> practice.
Isn't it 800x600 full colour pixels, i.e. 0.48MP?
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:18 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
In rec.photo.digital Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
| OK, thanks. I haven't seen a good EVF yet. I don't expect that the
| Samsung will have one.
By the time Canon and Nikon release professional versions of this camera style,
I suspect the EVF designs will be better and more usable for the kinds of uses
that need viewfinder composing. I don't think it needs to actually have as
much resolution in the EVF as in the back. Neither needs as much as the sensor
itself. There needs to be a convenient button for zooming the view for focus
confirmation/setting. A contrast enhancer on the view could also assist the
focusing effort.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:19 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
In rec.photo.digital MG <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
|
| "Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
| news:l-qdna1Eseey2THUnZ2dnUVZ_gyWnZ2d@giganews.com...
|> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|>
|> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
|
|
| Why did they only half way?
|
| They should go all the way and shape it like a digicam. With a LCD that
| flips out to the side, and the EVF at the back.
For people that like that style, yes, they should make a version like that.
I, for one, do not want it.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Software for Kodak DC 210 Does Not Work With Windows XP?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8db30129a3d69f09?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 9:25 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER <gtohio9073@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
| upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
| software for the camera no longer works.
|
| Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
| this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
| reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
| the images, but maybe there is a better way.
1.
I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a full
set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the computer
via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This camera is so old
I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.
Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add software
to support the USB ports. This software would have at least included a driver.
It often includes other things to let you browse pictures, edit them, etc.
But this software will definitely NOT succeed at installing on XP if it is
trying to install a USB driver. That is because XP already has USB drivers
in it.
If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for presenting its
memory to the computer in the form of a small disk storage (just like a USB
key/stick does ... and just like every camera I have used does), then you do
not need ANY software on XP to at least get the pictures from the camera via
the USB cable. You would then need to use other software to work with those
pictures. But XP has more such software included than previous versions of
Windows. Vista has even more if you want to go that route.
So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without adding any
software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is connected.
2.
I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to computer
by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It doesn't run down the
camera battery (or require yet another cable to power the camera). And it is
faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF has the ability to be faster than
other kinds of memory cards because of its 8-bit data path, but that does not
mean every device that works with CF achieves such speeds.
Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good investment.
If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer, AND if yours has
an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a front panel slot, then
an internal memory card adapter might be an option. Both of my main desktop
computers have them (but then, I build my own computers). All new computers
I see in Best Buy and Walmart have them already integrated. Many laptops
seem to have at least one memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.
Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in the
future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the USB
adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC) protocol, and
as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and the effective
limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made to work with the
SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to 2GB due to programmer
errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory card adapter, don't pay more
than about $12 for it unless you see that it really has SDHC.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to get a life!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/917c008d960f47b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 10:26 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Don't emulate Nomen Nescio, who wrote:
> This poor soul thinks if she beats all Flickr staff to answer all
> help questions that is as good as a resume to get a job with them
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/colleenm/3304637809/
>
> 230 posts in the help forum in the last 7 days and no photo uploads.
> Poor deluded kid, hasn't he seen the yahoo stocks going down, Flickr
> constantly having failures everyday and less people paying to use a
> service that devotes 150mb to videos and only 20mb to photo. 5D MKII
> users can't upload photos from camera to Flickr.
>
> FLICKR = WORST PHOTO SITE ON THE INTERWEB
> The "I comment on your shot and you comment on my shot" site of choice
>
>
>
> Check out how many times she refers to the Flickr ToS when someone
> puts crap on Flickr
>
> http://www.flickr.com/search/forum/?s=act&q=ColleenM%2C+tos
>
> Someone wants to work for Flickr and thinks the best way to do this
> is suck up and answer all help topics in a positive light for Flickr.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I think it's time to vomit
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/076f75769778eb41?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 10:34 am
From: Father Guido Sarducci
In message
news:Mencken-42BC2C.07222204032009@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net, Ockham's
Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
> In article <Xns9BC44EB011F3AFatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
> Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>
>> In message news:Mencken-774581.15500803032009@news.dsl, Ockham's Razor
>> <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9BC379D90ED97FatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
>> > Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message news:Mencken-903263.07525403032009@news.dsl, Ockham's
>> >> Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns9BC2CCE63E282FatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
>> >> > Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In message
>> >> >> news:Mencken-98237B.15540502032009@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net,
>> >> >> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article <Xns9BC2BC569AD31FatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
>> >> >> > Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> S&P 500, November 3, 2008: 966.30
>> >> >> >> S&P 500, March 2, 2009: 700.82
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 27.5% decline.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Vomit we can believe in.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And most of it caused by ten stocks, including Merril Lynch,
>> >> >> > connoco and Time Warner.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Only 60 days into 2009 and we have our Stupidest Post of the
>> >> >> Year winner.
>> >> >
>> >> > Quoted from CBS Marketwatch web site.
>> >>
>> >> The article fails to differentiate between earnings and stock
>> >> prices.
>> >
>> > The discussion was about the S&P 500 which is based on stock prices
>> > not earnings.
>>
>> The article is wrong. Its premise is "a few companies are losing
>> money, therefore the S&P is down 27%." That premise is wrong.
>
> OK. Their web site takes feed-back and publishes it. Tell them how
> wrong they are and demand a retraction and apology.
>
> Waiting....
Rather than being the 2,411th comment on the article, I wrote the author,
Kate Gibson: ====
I'm troubled with your thesis that the precipitous decline in the stock
market can be traced to the earnings reports of 10 companies. First off,
the market trades more on the ANTICIPATION of FUTURE earnings than on the
report of poor earnings news. Second, this selloff has been fueled by
deleveraging, over-extension of non-repayable debt, and manipulative
naked CDS trades. Third, the selloff has been broad, hardly limited to
10 or 50 or even 100 companies out of the S&P 500.
I patiently await seeing the math and metrics you used to draw your
conclusions. ====
I will paste her response, should one be forthcoming.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:16 am
From: Father Guido Sarducci
In message news:Xns9BC48A2AEDEA8FatherGuido@198.186.190.61, Father Guido
Sarducci <don@novello.com> said:
> In message
> news:Mencken-42BC2C.07222204032009@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net, Ockham's
> Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
>
>> In article <Xns9BC44EB011F3AFatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
>> Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In message news:Mencken-774581.15500803032009@news.dsl, Ockham's Razor
>>> <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
>>>
>>> > In article <Xns9BC379D90ED97FatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
>>> > Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In message news:Mencken-903263.07525403032009@news.dsl, Ockham's
>>> >> Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
>>> >>
>>> >> > In article <Xns9BC2CCE63E282FatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
>>> >> > Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> In message
>>> >> >> news:Mencken-98237B.15540502032009@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net,
>>> >> >> Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net> said:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > In article <Xns9BC2BC569AD31FatherGuido@198.186.190.61>,
>>> >> >> > Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> S&P 500, November 3, 2008: 966.30
>>> >> >> >> S&P 500, March 2, 2009: 700.82
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> 27.5% decline.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Vomit we can believe in.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > And most of it caused by ten stocks, including Merril Lynch,
>>> >> >> > connoco and Time Warner.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Only 60 days into 2009 and we have our Stupidest Post of the
>>> >> >> Year winner.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Quoted from CBS Marketwatch web site.
>>> >>
>>> >> The article fails to differentiate between earnings and stock
>>> >> prices.
>>> >
>>> > The discussion was about the S&P 500 which is based on stock prices
>>> > not earnings.
>>>
>>> The article is wrong. Its premise is "a few companies are losing
>>> money, therefore the S&P is down 27%." That premise is wrong.
>>
>> OK. Their web site takes feed-back and publishes it. Tell them how
>> wrong they are and demand a retraction and apology.
>>
>> Waiting....
>
> Rather than being the 2,411th comment on the article, I wrote the author,
> Kate Gibson: ====
> I'm troubled with your thesis that the precipitous decline in the stock
> market can be traced to the earnings reports of 10 companies. First off,
> the market trades more on the ANTICIPATION of FUTURE earnings than on the
> report of poor earnings news. Second, this selloff has been fueled by
> deleveraging, over-extension of non-repayable debt, and manipulative
> naked CDS trades. Third, the selloff has been broad, hardly limited to
> 10 or 50 or even 100 companies out of the S&P 500.
>
> I patiently await seeing the math and metrics you used to draw your
> conclusions. ====
>
> I will paste her response, should one be forthcoming.
Kate Gibson's response:
====
Hi Guido, sorry to disappoint you, but that story was based on the
findings of the S&P analyst quoted, not on any thesis I devised. I'd
also say that the lead sentence of the story included the phrase "helped
fuel the worst two-month start ever for the S&P," and I certainly was
not trying to say that other factors weren't involved.
Sincerely,
Kate Gibson
====
So, the author admits she:
a) reported numbers from S&P without any critique (S&P being one of the
ratings agencies that still thinks toxic mortgages are AAA);
b) used "wiggle words" in the lead para (she notes "helped fuel"; the
sentence also contains the phrase "the bulk of".
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ViewNX - Adnormal Terminations?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/07ec255688ae91d8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 10:51 am
From: "William Jones"
I need help.
My copy of ViewNX (version 1.2.2) regularly and abruptly terminates without
reason when trying to simply browse through subfolders on my hard drives.
I have ALL of the latest Nikon updates, Microsoft XP Pro updates, Norton AV
2009 updates, Windows Defender updates, etc.
This has happened repeatedly over the past year or so, in spite of
reinstalling ViewNX (and all other Nikon software) a number of times.
ViewNX is the ONLY application on my computer that terminates abnormally
like this.
Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
Bill
==============================================================================
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
