From: Dudley Hanks on

"Ghett Rheel" <grheel(a)> wrote in message
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dhanks(a)> wrote:
>>"Ghett Rheel" <grheel(a)> wrote in message
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <dhanks(a)> wrote:
>>>>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:011120091453097799%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>>>>>> In article <4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>>>>>> Harrington <secret(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be
>>>>>>> > used
>>>>>>> > during
>>>>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing
>>>>>>> > phases
>>>>>>> > of
>>>>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
>>>>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg
>>>>>>> > room
>>>>>>> > and so
>>>>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
>>>>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
>>>>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> door
>>>>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
>>>>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
>>>>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
>>>>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
>>>>> flying
>>>>> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using
>>>>> a
>>>>> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
>>>>During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
>>>>concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.
>>>>For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
>>>>which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I
>>>>use it during the flight.
>>>>But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying
>>>>or of scenic shots out the window.
>>> You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next
>>> to
>>> your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
>>> the
>>> full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone
>>> how
>>> you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?
>>> Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
>>> cars.
>>> I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look
>>> bad
>>> in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of
>>> dollars
>>> of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
>>> manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
>>> expense,
>>> of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
>>> with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first
>>> place.
>>> <major eye-roll>
>>> Grow up, and ...
>>> Ghett Rheel
>>Jealous? :)
>>You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
>>next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
>>unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
>>your understanding of the human condition.
>>Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?
>>FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed
>>as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
>>provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
>>visit it, and what they are looking for.
>>The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the
>>old, same old.
>>Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations
>>closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?
>>If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
>>demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
>>highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
>>philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?
>>Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.
>>Get Real, get with the times...
>>Take Care,
> Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because
> you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet
> connection today is a "web master".
> But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the
> question.
> Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
> products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can
> see
> the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
> market their cars to blind people."
> Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from
> all
> tax-payers will bail them out again.
> And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
> because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.
> It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.
> Why should you be any different in the course of history.
Wow, so dramatic...

Once again, you are demonstrating your limited understanding of the real

First of all, I have very few blind visitors to my site. Most of the people
who visit it are:

* Corporate types who have a passion for photography, and a curiosity
about how a blind person deals with his / her challenges in the pursuit of
capturing good images.

* Corporate types who love animals (dogs in particular), and who are
interested in how a blind human / sighted canine team copes with day-to-day

* Corporate types who enjoy what I write, about whatever subjects I write

The key here is "corporate types."

You see, I actively market my site to higher income, "corporate types" who
visit it looking for something different, something real, to which they can
click to once and a while to offset their daily grind.

If these folks have any of the above noted interests , my site is hard to
pass up, even though it isn't exactly the most glitzy web production out

The key is "interest." It doesn't matter how good a site is, if the web
designers have to manufacture interest, they are not going to keep people
coming back on a regular basis. But, if the individual is genuinely
interested in the individual(s) who run the site, they will be much more
likely to keep coming back, and they will pay a lot more attention to what
is posted -- a genuinely good mix for corporate sponsors, the web surfer,
and the content provider.

Oh, and one other thing. While Ford isn't exactly marketing cars to blind
guys, at the moment, how long do you think it'll take before GPS brained
vehicles are chauffeuring blind guys around with absolute ease and accuracy?

Given that cars can park themselves now (unheard of a decade or so ago),
self-brake when approaching hazards (another recent innovation), and warn
the driver of unseen dangers, need I say more?

Once again, Get Real, get with the times...

Take Care,

From: Ray Fischer on
Ghett Rheel <grheel(a)> wrote:
>Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
>products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can see
>the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
>market their cars to blind people."
>Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from all
>tax-payers will bail them out again.

Ford didn't get any TARP funds.

Like most rightards you're pretty short on facts and long on opinion.

Ray Fischer

From: No spam please on
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
> "No spam please" <me(a)> wrote in message
> news:hckso8$1pcf$3(a)
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)
>>> "No spam please" <me(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:hck4q7$d90$2(a)
>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4aed24d3$1(a)
>> W
>> Hello again Neil.
>> I flew several years ago on a Dash 8-400 and was told not to use any
>> digital
>> equipment during the take-off and landing phases. More recently I flew on
>> an
>> A320 and was told not to use digital equipment at all.
>> In both cases the cabin crew took my requests courteously and seriously
>> and
>> checked with the captain.
>> On the Dash 8-400 we were not far away from landing at Birmingham when
>> one
>> of the cabin crew confiscated a mobile phone from one of the passengers
>> who'd been trying to use it.
>> This may well be different in North America. It seems that whatever the
>> North American airlines permit to-day so the European airlines will
>> permit
>> in a few years time.
>> Regards, Rog.
> Rog, I knew about cell phones, because my sister -- who flies quite a lot,
> including internationally -- had told me they couldn't be used during
> takeoff or landing (or in flight either, if I understood her correctly).
> She mentioned that often after landing, as soon as the seat belts light
> went out you could hear cell phones snapping open all over the cabin.
> (*She* could hear that I suppose, but I never did, probably because my
> hearing is very poor.) I can understand prohibiting the use of cell
> phones. And I can understand prohibiting the use of laptops too, since
> probably most of them now in use have WiFi.
> But I'd be surprised if "digital equipment" was taken to include cameras,
> for this purpose, since as far as I know they don't generate any sort of
> external RF. I never even thought to ask, just took out my little Coolpix
> and snapped away through the window. On my last flight in fact, a short
> hop in a small Embraer 145, I was seated within about a yard of the flight
> attendant's station and in plain view of her when I was using the camera.
Hello again.

The chance of a DSLR upsetting any of the aircraft systems is very, very
small but I'd prefer to play safe.
A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she went on a
commercial flight she switched on her airband radio receiver to listen to
ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's systems.

Regards, Rog.

From: No spam please on
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
> No spam please wrote:
>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4aed24d3$1(a)
>>> PaddleHard wrote:
>>>> I have a question about lenses, Canon in particular. I have a Digital
>>>> Rebel 300D and am looking to purchase a 50D in the next year. I'm
>>>> looking at a EF 28-135mm IS USM lense. Will this work with both
>>>> cameras?
>>> Yep.
>>>> What's the rule of thumb for Canon lenses and their
>>>> 'compatibility' with older and new cameras?
>>> Any EF (not EFS) lens should work fine on any Canon DSLR.
>>> --
>>> W
>> I believe it is also true that any EF lens should work on any Canon EF
>> mount body including their 35mm and APS bodies.
> No doubt. I was assuming that because the OP asked the question here, they
> were interested in DSLRs specifically.
>> Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used
>> during flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing
>> phases of the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on
>> digital equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg
>> room and so on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
> You know that all the Canon EF film bodies also have digital electronics
> in them? Strictly speaking, they should ban EF film bodies as well. ;^)
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Bob.

Yes, I know the EF film bodies have electronics in them but nothing like as
much as in the EF DSLRs.

I suspect that the chances of domestic digital equipment upsetting aircraft
systems is actually very, small.
The catch is that there is a lot of equipment which could be used and no-one
can test all the combinations of equipment and aircraft.

I recall reading a book documenting a 747 flight over the pond. When one of
its radio transmitters was used then one of the fuel gauge sensors lost
track of how much fuel was in the tank.

I know that my cordless landline phone upsets my FM radio - not when I'm
talking over the phone but when it is being charged.

Regards from a very sunny UK,

From: No spam please on
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)> wrote in message
> "No spam please" <me(a)> wrote:

>>Hello again Floyd.
>>The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying
>>other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of
>>film and processing was getting quite high.
>>The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for
>>photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to
>>as cheap as possible.
>>Hope this clarifies things.
> It does indeed. If you buy the wrong camera for the
> right reasons, it is still the *wrong* camera. That
> doesn't mean there is something wrong with the camera,
> it simply means *you* made a mistake.
> If you buy a 2-door sedan today thinking it will allow
> you to drive to work, is it the dealer or the
> manufacturer's fault if it turns out a month later that
> you now have a need for something that will haul all 6
> kids on your block to a soccer game every weekend? They
> do make and sell vans, you know...
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)

Hello again Floyd.
Thanks ever so much for your postings. I appreciate and enjoy your comments.

The D50 met my friend's needs for her work photography.

The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to the
user's changing needs.

In my part of the UK, many families have a sedan for leisure and a 4x4 to
take the kids to school.
I doubt many people would buy an SLR with a wide-angle lens for work and
another SLR with a telephoto lens for bird shots.

Best wishes from a very sunny UK,