Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 11:24 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:25:35 -0500, in <c5udnfk73PTCtK3RnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, 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. What you consider junk is better than no picture at all. -- Best regards, 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
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 11:41 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. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 11:47 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:41:12 -0400, in <doa136ltb6fdt2j2ud7q96s4m71h6gkflm(a)4ax.com>, 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 must feel very threatened and insecure. -- Best regards, John "Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgments of one another." -Desiderius Erasmus
From: Savageduck on 4 Jul 2010 11:57 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:37:03 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > 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. > How complete is its Wi-Fi capability? Can it, for example, handle WPA2 and get > authenticated by a RADIUS server? To get past the RADIUS servers in our shop, > it would have to be a member of an Active Directory domain. Even on my home > network, which uses WPA2-PSK, it would have to be able to supply the > pre-shared key. > Bob At home I have a WPA2 Personal set up with password protection & I connect without issue, after inital set up. I have got good WiFi connections with no problems at most hot spots, including the parking lot of the Sequoia Visitor's Center where there is no cell service. I am using my phone to make this response via WiFi. I don't know how things would work with a truly secure network, but I thilnk it would handle it if set up right. -- Regards, Savageduck --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: J. Clarke on 4 Jul 2010 11:50
On 7/4/2010 1:33 AM, tony cooper wrote: > 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. On this business of paying something every month, first, you should be able to use it for 911 calls even if there is no paid up plan in place, and second, there are prepaid phones where you pay x bucks up front and you're good to go until you've used up X, with no monthly fees. I use the cell phone so seldom that I'm thinking about going that way. |