Backlit sensors
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David J Taylor on 8 Mar 2010 07:14 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hqn9p5h2me83jg0hc5mbgheoaef581u8lf(a)4ax.com... [] > You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you > take every little disagreement personally? If so, why? > > This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of > the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that > they are disagreeing with. Bruce, I felt that Alfred's comment: "it looks that you don't know what you are talking about." was uncalled for, and he offered no justification. It's not the same as saying: "I don't agree with you" or "you misunderstood what I wrote". For example, I know that we don't agree on choice of equipment, but that's because we have different aims and objectives. I don't say that "you don't know what you are talking about" just because you have different ideas. I don't take insults in my personal life, so I see no reason to do so here, and I use my kill-file accordingly. Banter between friends in one thing, a public accusation of incompetence is something else. Cheers, David
From: John McWilliams on 8 Mar 2010 11:08 David J Taylor wrote: > > "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:hqn9p5h2me83jg0hc5mbgheoaef581u8lf(a)4ax.com... > [] >> You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you >> take every little disagreement personally? If so, why? >> >> This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of >> the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that >> they are disagreeing with. > > Bruce, > > I felt that Alfred's comment: "it looks that you don't know what you are > talking about." was uncalled for, and he offered no justification. It's > not the same as saying: "I don't agree with you" or "you misunderstood > what I wrote". > > For example, I know that we don't agree on choice of equipment, but > that's because we have different aims and objectives. I don't say that > "you don't know what you are talking about" just because you have > different ideas. > > I don't take insults in my personal life, so I see no reason to do so > here, and I use my kill-file accordingly. Banter between friends in one > thing, a public accusation of incompetence is something else. Well said. -- john mcwilliams Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed should be shown in public.
From: Alfred Molon on 8 Mar 2010 14:47 In article <hn2ago$rir$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... > You posted: > > _________________________________________________ > In article <hmucu8$eke$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, paul-@- > edgehill.net says... > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp > > "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures, > > back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark > > current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image > > degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio." > > Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise, > not more. > _________________________________________________ It was Paul who mentioned those problems, not me. > Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the problems > to which DP Review referred. > > Why the personal insult? "you don't know what you are talking about" is not an insult. Besides, somebody who repeats what he has read somewhere without having understood this and being able to explain this, does not know what he is talking about. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: David J Taylor on 8 Mar 2010 15:47 "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25ff72b6511e0cd598c255(a)news.supernews.com... [] > It was Paul who mentioned those problems, not me. Indeed, but it was you who asked what the problems were. >> Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the >> problems >> to which DP Review referred. >> >> Why the personal insult? > > "you don't know what you are talking about" is not an insult. I consider it to be so, when it is not backed up by reasoned and cited refutation of what I said. But if I get something wrong, I do appreciate it being pointed out so that I can learn for the next time. > Besides, somebody who repeats what he has read somewhere without having > understood this and being able to explain this, does not know what he is > talking about. > -- > > Alfred Molon That's not necessarily true if an adequate explanation has already been given - unless phrasing something in a different way helps understanding. I saw no need to give further explanation in this case. If you would like something explained further you only need to ask politely. If I can explain, I will, if not, I will say that I don't know. Cheers, David
From: John McWilliams on 8 Mar 2010 23:07
Alfred Molon wrote: > In article <hn2ago$rir$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, david- > taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says... >> Why the personal insult? > > "you don't know what you are talking about" is not an insult. You don't know what you are talking about, Alfred. -- john mcwilliams |