Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 01:34 On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 21:44:21 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-07-03 21:34:35 -0700, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: > >> 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. >>> >>> for example, an iphone without service is basically an ipod with a >>> camera and gps. >> >> Aren't there some phones that can do VOIP via WIFI? > >Yup, I can use Skype with my Android via WiFi or (for now)3G with Verizon. >GPS, Email, web browser, all work without issue. So you pay nothing for monthly service? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 02:02 In article <q07036ho3pt068n8r35d3kmvka11nqjlb7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> 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. for some people, calls are a tiny portion of what they do with a smartphone. as i said, an iphone with no service is an ipod with a camera. it has wifi, has a web browser, can send/receive email and run any of the zillions of apps as well as be configured to use voip, so it can actually make/receive calls. > 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. without service, any cellphone can make calls to 911 and the carrier's support line (611, *2, etc.).
From: Savageduck on 4 Jul 2010 02:03 On 2010-07-03 22:34:40 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 21:44:21 -0700, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-03 21:34:35 -0700, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: >> >>> 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. >>>> >>>> for example, an iphone without service is basically an ipod with a >>>> camera and gps. >>> >>> Aren't there some phones that can do VOIP via WIFI? >> >> Yup, I can use Skype with my Android via WiFi or (for now)3G with Verizon. >> GPS, Email, web browser, all work without issue. > > So you pay nothing for monthly service? Well I do my bit to keep Verizon running. Just a small contribution to the octopus. It has proved handy to have Skype available via WiFi approximately 4 times when I didn't have my laptop nearby, when not at home. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Rich on 4 Jul 2010 02:25 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in news:nmqv26d7ufees4ndp20ppnm94mj4c8ev48(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:09:58 -0400, in > <V-KdnTeBFMbETLLRnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "tcroyer" > <tom(a)solidus-ts.com> wrote: > >>I agree with Bob very much. >> >>At the risk of paraphrasing an old saw: "The best camera is the one >>you have with you when photo opportunity arises." > > Amen. > No, it's predicated on that camera being able to capture that opportunity. If it can't, you get junk.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Jul 2010 02:49
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:25:35 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in >news:nmqv26d7ufees4ndp20ppnm94mj4c8ev48(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:09:58 -0400, in >> <V-KdnTeBFMbETLLRnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "tcroyer" >> <tom(a)solidus-ts.com> wrote: >> >>>I agree with Bob very much. >>> >>>At the risk of paraphrasing an old saw: "The best camera is the one >>>you have with you when photo opportunity arises." >> >> Amen. >> > >No, it's predicated on that camera being able to capture that opportunity. >If it can't, you get junk. No, it's predicated on the operator being able to use the camera properly to capture that opportunity. If you can't, you're a pathetic crapshooter who shouldn't be handing out advice to ANYONE. In the hands of a true PRO even a Brownie Box camera is a fully capable camera. You reveal the depths of your lack of talent, skill, expertise, and experience each and every time that you blame the camera. How many more DSLR crapshots, and how many more excellent P&S images, are we going to see posted to these newsgroups before you start to realize this to be true? Until then you're nothing but a pathetic low-life DSLR-Troll without even one clue. |