Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Jul 2010 14:34 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:41:12 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 08:16:23 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>There is no recurring charge after the initial outlay for a camera. >> >>There's no recurring charge for the camera in my phone either. > >You have a camera phone? Oh, no. That means we are in for months of >posts from you telling us how your camera phone is superior to anyone >else's camera phone, and anyone who doesn't get good photographs on a >camera phone does not have the skills you do with a camera phone. >That, and a bunch of whining. You have that backward. We have to incessantly hear the base-amateurs' whining from each and every DSLR-Troll, how they (wrongly) believe that their camera is superior to every other imaging device known to man. The very same way that they'd believe that buying the most expensive cookware would automatically turn them into Master Chefs, yet they still wouldn't be able to boil water. But hey! They don't have to! Their cookware means they are Master Chefs now! The blatant idiocy of those who buy and promote DSLRs says it all.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Jul 2010 14:39 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:22:12 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >. Thanks, Outing, for making a jackass out of me. > >Bob You do that all on your own. With every post you ever make. Haven't you been paying attention? I have.
From: Peter on 4 Jul 2010 18:03 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:233036djem4k0v55c6j3dfp6kci9t1kk8t(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:18:20 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:m0mv26dqgsohl1hkoga5r55de2sn56ne7c(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Jul 2, 7:42 am, Vance <vance.l...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On 02 Jul 2010 05:25:38 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pi...(a)spam.shaftnet.org> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry <bfeinst...(a)spamblocked.com> >>>>> > >wrote: >>>>> > >> Why does it bother you so much that the majority of >>>>> > >> photographers, >>>>> > >> amateur >>>>> > >> and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more >>>>> > >> cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly >>>>> > >> accepted, and >>>>> > >> more important than DSLRs today? >>>>> >>>>> > >Bzzt, wrong. >>>>> >>>>> > >The majority of photographers now use cell phone cameras. More >>>>> > >cost-effective, portable, adaptable, and definitely more publically >>>>> > >accepted. >>>>> >>>>> > >As you like to point out, sales figures don't lie. >>>>> >>>>> > > - Solomon >>>>> >>>>> > Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the >>>>> > sales of >>>>> > microwave-ovens as clocks. >>>>> >>>>> A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due. >>>>> >>>>> Vance >>>> >>>>But my phone cost me less than my P&S. >>> >>> Is that really correct? The cost of your phone was subsidized by the >>> requirement to subscribe to a provider. The real cost of your phone >>> is the amount you paid for the phone itself *plus* the monthly connect >>> fees for the term of your contract. Your P&S was a one-time cost. >>> >> >> >>You would be correct if you were analyzing the total cost of telephone >>service, including the phone. to figure the true cost of just the phone, >>factor in the cost of the service, if no subsidy was given. > > You have to factor in the service. The phone has no function without > the service. A camera has function without a service requirement. My Android has a WiFi, GPS, music and camera functions. None of which require any servce agreement. It is only the 3G network and telephone functions that require any third party service, > >> In a supermarket >>are placement incentives income or a cost reduction. > > I have no idea what you mean here. > Simply obtusely distnguishing gross income from cost reduction. -- Peter
From: Peter on 4 Jul 2010 18:09 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:q07036ho3pt068n8r35d3kmvka11nqjlb7(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:17 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >>In article <8i2036daaj5pqc78j3abbrpu1n9kjpuhje(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> >That said, I paid $180 for my Android phone with no contract or >>> >subsidy, >>> >considerably more for my compact digital camera. >>> >>> Your phone is no more than a paperweight if you do not have - and pay >>> for - a carrier. You will pay someone something to use that phone. >>> Every month. >> >>it depends on the phone. some are very functional without service, they >>just can't make or receive calls. > > I would consider a phone that doesn't make or to receive calls to be > somewhat limited in function. >> > Of course, my phone - an old Nokia - *only* receives and places calls. > No camera, no internet connections, no gps. I don't think it has > games, but I've never checked. Just checked. Nope, it doesn't. It > sends texts, supposedly, but I've never done it. > Time to upgrade <G> -- Peter
From: Peter on 4 Jul 2010 18:20
"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:713136l8r26b1p2ue9brjkb6g55qm162nf(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:08:33 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> > wrote: > : "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > : news:i0l22e$vfm$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > : > Vance wrote: > : >> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> > wrote: > : >>> Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the > sales > : >>> of > : >>> microwave-ovens as clocks. > : >> > : >> A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due. > : > > : > Yes, a good'un. My cameras, and cars, TVs and telephones also have > clocks > : > in them. Over clocked I am! > : > : > : IOW you never actually know hat time it is. > > My most reliable time source is still my old quartz Seiko (never off by > more > than a few seconds a month). But the next best is my cell phone, because > the > service provider downloads the time. It doesn't read in seconds, but I > don't > have to worry about changing time zones or going on or off of daylight > time. > ;^) It was a reference to the old saw: "A man with one clock always know what time it is. A man with two clocks is never sure." :-) -- Peter |