Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 18:36 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:03:54 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"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, > I can't get my mind around this. Your "phone" has WiFi, GPS, music, and camera functions. A phone should have phone functions. Without the phone functions, it's an electronic device but it's not a phone. >>> 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. Still not getting it. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 18:46 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:09:01 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"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> I can think of no possible reason that I would want to. All the other bells and whistles mentioned in other posts are completely without interest to me. I am particularly uninterested in a phone that uses one of those things about the size of a banana that clips on the ear. As far as I'm concerned, the telephone peaked in ergometric design when the single handset replaced the "candlestick". Phones could then be held in one hand as one walked around within the limited range of the cord. The cordless phone was a welcome improvement, but it only encouraged longer phone conversations. I don't like long phone conversations. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John McWilliams on 4 Jul 2010 19:08 John A. wrote: > I wonder how many people use their computers to do computations. Here's one. But, frequency? About 3 times a year. Not including spread sheets, excel, etc. Also have used iPhone for same, once or twice a year. -- john mcwilliams
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 19:13 In article <gs2236t9l6h3oq0fsvq4mj4qi1vf5o5cmi(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > I can't get my mind around this. Your "phone" has WiFi, GPS, music, > and camera functions. A phone should have phone functions. Without > the phone functions, it's an electronic device but it's not a phone. call it what you want, but the device is still functional if you don't pay for phone service, other than the phone portion.
From: Peter on 4 Jul 2010 18:49
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:p73236t9p46tecv44c0o3p6qpf8vtji90n(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:09:01 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"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> > > I can think of no possible reason that I would want to. All the other > bells and whistles mentioned in other posts are completely without > interest to me. > > I am particularly uninterested in a phone that uses one of those > things about the size of a banana that clips on the ear. > > As far as I'm concerned, the telephone peaked in ergometric design > when the single handset replaced the "candlestick". Phones could then > be held in one hand as one walked around within the limited range of > the cord. The cordless phone was a welcome improvement, but it only > encouraged longer phone conversations. I don't like long phone > conversations. > Just pulling your leg. -- Peter |