Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 4 Jul 2010 23:45 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:v0l236h30hfgjeuppa76sneu0153131s2a(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 22:37:34 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:81b236hnqeko42fcti688l6evm22mafg7k(a)4ax.com... >> >>> >>> Phone conversations are fine. Long phone conversations are >>> unnecessary. Especially unnecessary are the conversations that run >>> long because the other person is driving, bored, and makes calls just >>> alleviate the boredom of being in traffic. >>> >> >>They are very annoying when some person is revealing the most intimate >>details of her latest sexual adventure on a commuter train. > > Particularly when you're only hearing one side of the conversation. ;) All too often, the side I hear leaves no time for response. -- Peter
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 23:55 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:40:53 -0400, in <v0l236h30hfgjeuppa76sneu0153131s2a(a)4ax.com>, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 22:37:34 -0400, "Peter" ><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:81b236hnqeko42fcti688l6evm22mafg7k(a)4ax.com... >> >>> Phone conversations are fine. Long phone conversations are >>> unnecessary. Especially unnecessary are the conversations that run >>> long because the other person is driving, bored, and makes calls just >>> alleviate the boredom of being in traffic. >> >>They are very annoying when some person is revealing the most intimate >>details of her latest sexual adventure on a commuter train. > >Particularly when you're only hearing one side of the conversation. ;) And not the good side! ;) -- John "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 00:03 In article <slk236pj37v1vdckqqqcgpcu8jfqoip47t(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > John likes to defend his little camera by saying that you can't > compare results unless you've used his specific brand and model and > have his specific skills. don't forget that he's a trained cellular phone operator now. :) > In this specific area, T-Mobile has slightly better coverage than > Verizon. However, for some reason, T-Mobile has a great deal of > trouble making connection if you are inside a building. All providers > are blocked by some buildings, but T-Mobile has more trouble in > buildings where other services do not. every cell carrier has good and bad coverage areas. if you live in an area that is well served by t-mobile and never travel outside that area, t-mobile might be a good solution. this is apparently john's situation. what john likes to forget is that not everyone lives in the same area that he does, and that coverage varies a lot. however, t-mobile is deploying hspa+, which is faster than what at&t, verizon and sprint offer, so if you happen to live in one of those cities (and it's not that many just yet), it can be good. on the other hand, almost no hardware can take advantage of it, so it's academic. t-mobile's coverage is not as good as sprint, verizon and at&t, as has been noted in a few surveys. where i live and the areas i visit most often, sprint is the most reliable, followed by at&t although it can be overloaded at times, especially airports. > When my wife worked, one of her office mates had T-Mobile and my wife > has Verizon. The office mate's husband would call his wife on my > wife's phone because his wife's phone would not pick up the call. > When the office mate would walk outside of the building, her T-Mobile > phone worked fine. that could be due to any number of things. maybe you should take after the iphone 4 lawsuits, and sue :)
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 00:04 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:42:26 -0400, in <slk236pj37v1vdckqqqcgpcu8jfqoip47t(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:04:54 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >wrote: >>tmobile 3g coverage is worse than at&t, which is worse than >>sprint/verizon. and yes, i've tried them all. So have I, and that's not what I've experienced. >John likes to defend his little camera by saying that you can't >compare results unless you've used his specific brand and model You like to bash my "little camera" by saying (with pejoratives) it can't do things it actually does quite nicely for me. What I actually say is you can't make valid criticisms if you have no experience with that particular product. >and >have his specific skills. What I actually say is if you have a problem with a particular product that others don't have, then you have less skill with that product than they do. Both statements are patently true. But never let a little thing like facts get in the way of bashing when you have nothing more persuasive to say. >In this specific area, T-Mobile has slightly better coverage than >Verizon. However, for some reason, T-Mobile has a great deal of >trouble making connection if you are inside a building. All providers >are blocked by some buildings, but T-Mobile has more trouble in >buildings where other services do not. > >When my wife worked, one of her office mates had T-Mobile and my wife >has Verizon. The office mate's husband would call his wife on my >wife's phone because his wife's phone would not pick up the call. >When the office mate would walk outside of the building, her T-Mobile >phone worked fine. One anecdotal example does not a proof make. T-Mobile might well be better in other buildings. And the problem might be the particular mobile devices you've tried -- some are much better than others on weaker signals. Or T-Mobile might simply be worse in your particular building. There are building around here where T-Mobile works and other carriers do not, and vice versa. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 00:07
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:27:46 -0400, in <e2k2365j1i8v616hhtab9ndrmnuperq372(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:58:01 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> >wrote: >: In your opinion and style. Not in mine. Yes, I have used both a great >: deal, and do have the experience to back that up. And it's a bit >: arrogant to call somebody "wrong" just because they don't agree with >: you. > >How much photography of young children have you actually done? I suspect the >answer is "not much". Otherwise I don't see how you could possibly think a >DSLR isn't better than a P&S for that kind of photography. According to my >daughter, P&Ses may be catching up, but I don't believe they're there yet. For you. Not for me. I've actually done lots, both of my own child and of other children. I prefer a good compact digital. You prefer dSLR. "DIfferent strokes for different folks." -- John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |