Re: Classic PDML moment!
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 17/5/04, YEFEI, discombobulated, offered: > >>Wow, PDML digest Vol. 04 Issue 345, this is a classic moment! >>All 13 posts are titled "Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?"! >>What unison! What conformity! Aesthetically pleasing:-) > >Let's be really subversive and introduce a Pentax element to that thread!! Or even several! How about 7 elements in 5 groups? :-P -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Classic PDML moment!
On 17/5/04, YEFEI, discombobulated, offered: >Wow, PDML digest Vol. 04 Issue 345, this is a classic moment! >All 13 posts are titled "Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?"! >What unison! What conformity! Aesthetically pleasing:-) Let's be really subversive and introduce a Pentax element to that thread!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Antonio Aparicio wrote: Ahhh, the security through obscurity myth. But surely statistically there shold be at least some viruses for OSX by now? Personally I beleive that it is because OSX is better by design. Do we have a new troll on our hands or what? /Henri
PAW: Different Tastes
A fun grab in a candy shop: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2369082 Comments are always welcome! cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
I run your suggested google search and did not find anything that was either bogus or has been addressed/was a minor non issue. Ahhh, the security through obscurity myth. But surely statistically there shold be at least some viruses for OSX by now? Personally I beleive that it is because OSX is better by design. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 23:05, alex wetmore wrote: They are plenty of published exploits for OS/X (google for "exploit os/x" if you want to see them). OS/X is largely built on top of FreeBSD which also has had it's fair share of exploits. No one has written a virus for it because it just isn't a very common platform. It wouldn't be hard to write a worm or virus which used the known exploits in FreeBSD (or the default services that install with it) but that hasn't been done yet either because it is even less common than OS/X.
Re: Antonio please stop it now!
Jostein, I can asure you that I take regular keyboard breaks and thought breaks! Thanks for you advice. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 23:26, Jostein wrote: Antonio, You're supposed to stop typing your keyboard, and pause for thought. In fact, this is one of the least inflammable photo lists around today. We would _very_ much appreciate your contribution to keep it that way. Of course we all disagree with each other all the time. The clue is on another level; the _ways_ you forfeit your points. Disagreement can be either constructive or a way to make your discussion partners pissed off. It's all in the language. Choose words you would use among strangers you want to befriend. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: Antonio please stop it now! What is it I am supposed to stop Markus? I feel quite relaxed and I am enjoying the discussion here. Is there somthing I am missing. I am releatively new to the list, am I not supposed to disagree with people. Or is there some unwritten rule about something I am not aware of. Please enlighten me. Antonio
Anyone using an Image Tank?
I'm now looking for storage for digital images in the field (other than carrying two dozen CF cards around) and the 20 gigabyte Image Tank looks like the most affordable option. Anybody using one or heard anything about it? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Myself and 19 other guys... - I just went through that. Port 25 was blocked by my firewall was their response (I do not have a firewall). Finally, I got someone who could think for himself. If the problem is our smtp server, you should be able to connect to another one, he said. Gave me the address of their Tennessee mail server. My problem solved, after 4-5 calls and 120 cel-phone minutes, but theirs is not the NC smtp server is still refusing my connection. Like you, I figure I may just have missed something. A pass through their knowledge base is worthwhile. But 3-4 times? Personally I think the second time around you should be connected to a sys-admin instead of a customer dis-service tech. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found over the years, just dealing with technical support people on the phone, for instance, that it is better not to reveal that I sometimes know more than they do (or maybe more than sometimes). I just let them do their memorized spiel. If I don't, if I interrupt with then with intelligent questions, I usually throw them off track (or they can't answer). And sometimes what they have memorized? Sometimes it includes a step that I have overlooked and that turns out to be the problem right there. Sometimes it's just better to play dumb. Marnie aka Doe But hindsight is marvelous. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Antonio please stop it now!
Antonio, You're supposed to stop typing your keyboard, and pause for thought. In fact, this is one of the least inflammable photo lists around today. We would _very_ much appreciate your contribution to keep it that way. Of course we all disagree with each other all the time. The clue is on another level; the _ways_ you forfeit your points. Disagreement can be either constructive or a way to make your discussion partners pissed off. It's all in the language. Choose words you would use among strangers you want to befriend. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: Antonio please stop it now! > What is it I am supposed to stop Markus? I feel quite relaxed and I am > enjoying the discussion here. Is there somthing I am missing. I am > releatively new to the list, am I not supposed to disagree with people. > Or is there some unwritten rule about something I am not aware of. > Please enlighten me. > > Antonio
OT: There May Be Trouble Ahead...
But while there's moonlight, and music and love and romance, Let's not discuss computers, and dance! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Hi Jostein, Thanks for the welcome. Nice to meet you. I have been lurking for a few months and finally subscribed a week ago. Lively place! Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 23:12, Jostein wrote: Hi Antonio, Don't think I've noticed your name before. Welcome to the PDML, and apologies if the greeting is late. The only problem with vulnerable OS'es is those untermensch programmers writing malicious code. Get rid of them, and you've solved the problem. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:20 PM Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME? No it is not. That is the whole point of why I have argued that Microsoft Windows is substandard - it is riddled with holes and weaknesses that are the direct result of the way it was designed. Antonio Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 21:55, John Francis wrote: Sure. But, and I repeat, that's nothing to do with the underlying OS. OSX is just as vulnerable as XP.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Oh God, no, not again. Argh >Hi Peter, I dont want to get into a flame situation here, but I do not >think that I have ever heard of OSX being either hacked nor a problem >for developers. Can you support you statement with an example? >Certainly I do not think any OS is totally imune from a determined >hack, but all the information I have to date on the subject lead me to >beleive that OSX is about as stable and hack proof as they come. Is >there something I have been missing? Please say more. > >Antonio > >Antonio >On 17 May 2004, at 17:51, Peter J. Alling wrote: > >> Don't kid yourself, OS-X is based on a Unix version that's that's a >> hackers wet dream and a developers nightmare. >> >> Cotty wrote: >> >>> On 17/5/04, HENRI, discombobulated, offered: >>> >>> Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard for operating systems. However crappy it may be, it's still the standard. >>> >>> Gee it's nice to know that I use an above standard OS ;-) >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Cotty >>> >>> >>> ___/\__ >>> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >>> ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps >>> _ >>> Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Hi Antonio, Don't think I've noticed your name before. Welcome to the PDML, and apologies if the greeting is late. The only problem with vulnerable OS'es is those untermensch programmers writing malicious code. Get rid of them, and you've solved the problem. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:20 PM Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME? > No it is not. That is the whole point of why I have argued that > Microsoft Windows is substandard - it is riddled with holes and > weaknesses that are the direct result of the way it was designed. > > Antonio > > Antonio > On 17 May 2004, at 21:55, John Francis wrote: > > > > > Sure. But, and I repeat, that's nothing to do with the underlying OS. > > OSX is just as vulnerable as XP. >
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
graywolf wrote: Interesting comment! I am running Thunderbird for the spam filtering and the fact I can see all my email accounts at the same time, but I find it buggy as hell. I have gotten to where I load my email, close Thunderbird so it save it to disk, then reopen it just so I will not lose my mail when it crashes. Lots to like about it but it needs work. Wha? My Thunderbird hasn't crashed a single time yet. That is, _Zero_. Try reinstalling the latest version again. Remove all old shiznit first. /Henri
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Interesting comment! I am running Thunderbird for the spam filtering and the fact I can see all my email accounts at the same time, but I find it buggy as hell. I have gotten to where I load my email, close Thunderbird so it save it to disk, then reopen it just so I will not lose my mail when it crashes. Lots to like about it but it needs work. -- Henri Toivonen wrote: Haven't used IE for a long long time. I've been using firefox since it was called Phoenix, which makes it a couple of years now. If you like firefox, try thunderbird. It's a great mailclient with a good spamfilter, and it's all i've been using for about a year now. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the > merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly > virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere > PRECISELY because of the design of that OS. To date there have been > Zero, thats right a 0 viruses on Mac OSX for example. They are plenty of published exploits for OS/X (google for "exploit os/x" if you want to see them). OS/X is largely built on top of FreeBSD which also has had it's fair share of exploits. No one has written a virus for it because it just isn't a very common platform. It wouldn't be hard to write a worm or virus which used the known exploits in FreeBSD (or the default services that install with it) but that hasn't been done yet either because it is even less common than OS/X. You do get additional security by using these less popular platforms, but in a odd catch-22 any additional use of them makes it more likely that they will be targetted by security vulnerabilities. I don't know what any of this has to do with pentax cameras. My *ist D doesn't run Windows, OS/X, or Linux to my knowledge. alex
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Well, there are certainly less chance of deliberate security holes. -- Anders Hultman wrote: graywolf: How can any open source operating system be hack proof, except in the sense that you do not need to hack it as you can just read the source? Having the source code is like having the blueprints to the fortress. If the walls really are impenetrable and there are no abandoned tunnels to sneak in through, well, then you can't get in, with ever so detailed a map in your hands. Nothing is hack proof of course, but open source software is more secure since there is a bigger chance that security holes are discovered by "white hat hackers" reading the source code, and then fixed. And if the software vendor doesn't bother to fix it, someone else will. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt! -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Hi, >>Why is it that programmers always want to blame ordinary >>people and call them stupid? > Partly because they are. Ordinary people are not trained in computer > security like they are trained in locking their home doors and cars, > and avoiding hot stoves and falling down from ladders and stuff. this is not stupidity, it's lack of education > Another reason for programmers to call users stupid is that users do > very unpredicted things that are so totally outside the programmer's > scope of imagination. this is not the users' stupidity, it's lack of imagination on the programmer's part. > "It's hard to build systems fool proof, because > idiots are so inventive." this is sheer arrogance which betrays the programmer's lack of education, lack of imagination and, yes, stupidity. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
No, the key is to not read threads that upset you. Threads are not inflamatory, only people are. Those who do not want to ever be upset really need to look for another mailing list. The most interesting thing about this list, at least to me, is how controversial it can become before it deteriates to "You are stupid". Only when it does that do I usually start using the delete key heavily. Of the 600 or so, folks reading this list I will bet 100 of them learned something useful to them by reading this suposedly useless thread. We always tend to think our reactions are the "right and proper" reaction. That is often not true. Treads die when they are no longer of interest, just because you lose interest before others does not mean it should not go on, it just means you should drop out of it. Next is the thing about, who owns a thread. No one. Threads have a life of their own. Just because you started it does not make you responsible for where it goes. No one high jacked it, as one posted claimed about his. If a thread takes off, be proud. It only did so because you hit, at least peripherally, upon something that touched a response in many people. As for ME, my understanding is that it works pretty well in store-bought systems where the manufacturer is responsible for making sure everything is has the proper drivers, but it is pretty much a nightmare for roll-your-own systems like mine tend to be. This was the scuttlebutt even before ME hit the streets and seems to have proven true over and over again. (So, an aside for Mark, you may need to find a distribution from a laptop very similar to yours.) -- Christian wrote: The key on this list is to NEVER bring up the subject of computer operating systems. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Christian, With the digital darkroom playing such a prominent role in the new workflow, dont you think that computer OS stability is at all relevant, not to mention other aspects of computer OS functionality? I for one would like to feel that computer OS issues are not taboo as fars as this list is concerned. If you were that put off buy the topic why did you contribute to it so much? Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 22:35, Christian wrote: Dude, It's a frigging PHOTOGRAPHY, specifically PENTAX, frigging mailing list! No one should ever bring up computer OS questions for crap sake! Argue about Photoshop VS The Gimp for F*** sake. At least it's F***ing relevant. No one is saying you can't disagree, just lay off the F***ing OS question. Sheesh! Christian - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME? Or have debates in which everyone shares the same opinion, and where nobody really wants to say anything that is going to be different. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 21:57, Christian wrote: Mark; The key on this list is to NEVER bring up the subject of computer operating systems. Christian
Re: OT: Help! with Stuffit
Hi, Frantisek. Google is your friend. :-) Searching for "unstuffit" I found this page: http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/www/download_depot/download_depot-w95nt.html >From this page there are links to the FTP-server which apparently have two versions available: ftp://newftp.hartford.edu/stuffit32_50.exe Version 5.0 dated march 2000. The download is 1.4 Mb. and: ftp://newftp.hartford.edu/stuffit32_10.exe which is version 1.0 dated 1997, a download of ca. 340 Kb. HTH, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Frantisek Vlcek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:25 AM Subject: Re: OT: Help! with Stuffit > SH> Unstuffit is totally free, not licensed. It has been that > SH> way from the beginning 15 years ago. The newer versions > > Unfortunately, the company seems to have taken a bad course now (see > various comments on the 8.01 version and its bundling). You have to > download Stuffit Standard (which is shareware and 13MB in size) to get > the freeware utility Stuffit Expander which is packaged inside. I am > not gonna fall for that trap if I can help it. > > SH> Definitely worth looking for, it is a very handy tool. > > A handy tool is a commandline decompresser which is 200kB in size, which is > freeware, or a maximum 1MB decompresser with graphical interface, also > released as freeware. I looked on their website and all I found was a > 13MB archive with version 8 including all the other unnecessary files. > When I see software which should be built simple built this way, it stinks. > That's bloatware by definition. It's unfortunate their previous market > acceptance made them de facto standard. > > SH> I could send you a copy, but I suspect you don't want the > SH> Mac OS-X version... > > No thanks > > but thank you for the reply :-) > > Best regards, >Frantisek Vlcek >
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Amita Guha wrote: I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus software, no firewalls. Nothing. And not a single problem for 2 years straight. Henri, you are obviously a man who likes to live dangerously! ;) Well, his router serves as a hardware firewall :) If he has that and doesn't run Outlook as an email client he's pretty safe. Yeah, but not running antivirus software*shiver* I have a router and a software firewall, Norton Antivirus, and I switched to Mozilla Firefox as my main browser. I run Outlook but the minute a virus is discovered, I update Norton. Haven't used IE for a long long time. I've been using firefox since it was called Phoenix, which makes it a couple of years now. If you like firefox, try thunderbird. It's a great mailclient with a good spamfilter, and it's all i've been using for about a year now. I haven't had a virus since -99 (CIH thingy, went to a lan-party, everyone had it). I manage fine without antivirus software, norton just slows the system down. /Henri
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Why? I have no interest in changing HW as well as OS at this point in my life. see my last line. Christian - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Christian, > > Try OSX. > > Antonio > > On 17 May 2004, at 21:07, Christian wrote: > > ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS SUCK
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Dude, It's a frigging PHOTOGRAPHY, specifically PENTAX, frigging mailing list! No one should ever bring up computer OS questions for crap sake! Argue about Photoshop VS The Gimp for F*** sake. At least it's F***ing relevant. No one is saying you can't disagree, just lay off the F***ing OS question. Sheesh! Christian - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME? > Or have debates in which everyone shares the same opinion, and where > nobody really wants to say anything that is going to be different. > > Antonio > > On 17 May 2004, at 21:57, Christian wrote: > > > Mark; > > > > The key on this list is to NEVER bring up the subject of computer > > operating > > systems. > > > > Christian
Re: OT - help with "autorun"
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Sherburne) wrote: > There is a bit of technical info on Autorun on the Apple website; it > may be worth a try: Ta! --- John Dallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
RE: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
> >> I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus > >> software, no firewalls. Nothing. > >> > >> And not a single problem for 2 years straight. > > > >Henri, you are obviously a man who likes to live dangerously! ;) > > Well, his router serves as a hardware firewall :) > If he has that and doesn't run Outlook as an email client > he's pretty safe. Yeah, but not running antivirus software*shiver* I have a router and a software firewall, Norton Antivirus, and I switched to Mozilla Firefox as my main browser. I run Outlook but the minute a virus is discovered, I update Norton.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Or have debates in which everyone shares the same opinion, and where nobody really wants to say anything that is going to be different. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 21:57, Christian wrote: Mark; The key on this list is to NEVER bring up the subject of computer operating systems. Christian - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME? OK, enough arguing! I didn't mean to start such a fuss! ;-) Anyone willing to risk the wrath of Microsoft and the feds and let me borrow an install CD so I can *try* it on my laptop? (Yes, I have a full hard drive backup already done. Just in case.:-P ) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
William, neither of the examples you mention are viruses. One is a piece of applescript (like a batch file) the other justa non harmfull file. Niether could self propagate. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 21:28, William Kane wrote: Antonio, I hate to correct you on this, but there have been 2 recent Mac OSX viruses/trojans. The first was a file that appeared to be a music file. When the media file was played through a program (such as iTunes) nothing bad happened, but when the file was double clicked on, it popped up a message box indicating it's presence. As I said, not really that malicious. However, the more recent virus is fairly nasty, though I think it's also just . . . It's a file that is circulating around the various warez programs and sites . . . basically it's an AppleScript file that advertises itself as a fully usable version of Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac. Upon clicking on the ridiculously small file, the script is run which removes the home directory of your account (analogous to the My Documents folder for Windows users). This one is a bit more nasty on first look, but upon reflecting upon it, I think I like it. After all, the people who get this trojan loose their own mental property as they were attempting to rip off others mental properties . . . IL Bill On Monday, May 17, 2004, at 01:59 PM, Antonio Aparicio wrote: John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere PRECISELY because of the design of that OS. To date there have been Zero, thats right a 0 viruses on Mac OSX for example. Your "security through obscurity" explaination for this is just a sign of how much some poeple seem to be in denial about this. I use both Windows and OSX for work and play, and it doesnt take a genius to realise that there is a big difference in quality between the two. If an 18 year old can sit in his bedroom and write a virus capable of spreading to millions of Windows PCs in a matter of minutes doesnt that raise your suspiicion about the secirity of that OS at all? Arent you just a bit concerned? Antonio a myth to explain why that is the case On 17 May 2004, at 20:39, John Francis wrote: Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my contribution to this thread began. Antonio Do you think we could take the mindless Microsoft bashing somewhere else, please? The main reasons why viruses and spyware are more prevalent on Windows is not because of any underlying inferiority of the OS (the NT-based OSes are at least as secure as Linux or OS-X in that regard): rather, it's because most of the virus and adware writers target the Windows platform because it is where most of the payback can be found. It's not worth attacking the small Mac part of the marketplace, nor Linux. The main weakness come with the applications. And that's because the inherent design of the protocols underlying the web, email, etc. were crafted in the days before trusting your neighbour became impossible. Viruses, spyware, etc. propagate in such an environment, just as spam does. Why? Because it's not easy to set up a secure system. And as the marketplace seems to value connectivity and flashy graphics more than security, that's where the development effort is going. It's just as hard to run a secure Linux box as it is to run a secure Windows box (possibly even harder; there are less tools available). In fact many of the compromised email servers on the net are Linux systems; sendmail buffer overrun attacks aren't aimed at Windows. The biggest weakness in the whole setup is the stupidity of users. That wouldn't change, even if everybody switched to Linux overnight. People would *still* download Trojan Horse programs disguised as pornography, and they'd still click on virus-laden email links.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
No it is not. That is the whole point of why I have argued that Microsoft Windows is substandard - it is riddled with holes and weaknesses that are the direct result of the way it was designed. Antonio Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 21:55, John Francis wrote: Sure. But, and I repeat, that's nothing to do with the underlying OS. OSX is just as vulnerable as XP.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Antonio, I hate to correct you on this, but there have been 2 recent Mac OSX viruses/trojans. The first was a file that appeared to be a music file. When the media file was played through a program (such as iTunes) nothing bad happened, but when the file was double clicked on, it popped up a message box indicating it's presence. As I said, not really that malicious. However, the more recent virus is fairly nasty, though I think it's also just . . . It's a file that is circulating around the various warez programs and sites . . . basically it's an AppleScript file that advertises itself as a fully usable version of Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac. Upon clicking on the ridiculously small file, the script is run which removes the home directory of your account (analogous to the My Documents folder for Windows users). This one is a bit more nasty on first look, but upon reflecting upon it, I think I like it. After all, the people who get this trojan loose their own mental property as they were attempting to rip off others mental properties . . . IL Bill On Monday, May 17, 2004, at 01:59 PM, Antonio Aparicio wrote: John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere PRECISELY because of the design of that OS. To date there have been Zero, thats right a 0 viruses on Mac OSX for example. Your "security through obscurity" explaination for this is just a sign of how much some poeple seem to be in denial about this. I use both Windows and OSX for work and play, and it doesnt take a genius to realise that there is a big difference in quality between the two. If an 18 year old can sit in his bedroom and write a virus capable of spreading to millions of Windows PCs in a matter of minutes doesnt that raise your suspiicion about the secirity of that OS at all? Arent you just a bit concerned? Antonio a myth to explain why that is the case On 17 May 2004, at 20:39, John Francis wrote: Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my contribution to this thread began. Antonio Do you think we could take the mindless Microsoft bashing somewhere else, please? The main reasons why viruses and spyware are more prevalent on Windows is not because of any underlying inferiority of the OS (the NT-based OSes are at least as secure as Linux or OS-X in that regard): rather, it's because most of the virus and adware writers target the Windows platform because it is where most of the payback can be found. It's not worth attacking the small Mac part of the marketplace, nor Linux. The main weakness come with the applications. And that's because the inherent design of the protocols underlying the web, email, etc. were crafted in the days before trusting your neighbour became impossible. Viruses, spyware, etc. propagate in such an environment, just as spam does. Why? Because it's not easy to set up a secure system. And as the marketplace seems to value connectivity and flashy graphics more than security, that's where the development effort is going. It's just as hard to run a secure Linux box as it is to run a secure Windows box (possibly even harder; there are less tools available). In fact many of the compromised email servers on the net are Linux systems; sendmail buffer overrun attacks aren't aimed at Windows. The biggest weakness in the whole setup is the stupidity of users. That wouldn't change, even if everybody switched to Linux overnight. People would *still* download Trojan Horse programs disguised as pornography, and they'd still click on virus-laden email links.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Check out AVG. http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marnie aka Doe :-) I used McAffe at first when it was new on this machine (under ME), then it expired. So I removed it. I don't like having software on my machine that insists I BUY an upgrade. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Christian wrote: You know, I've always stayed out of these stupid OT OS bashing threads since I joined this list 4 years ago. For some dumb reason I feel like getting involved. Antonio, what's the alternative? Unix? I've been a Unix (Solaris/Linux) sys-admin for 6 years. Have I spent hours of aggravation patching common OS-related security problems? You bet. Did I shake my head in disbelief when OpenSSL and SSH were exploited last fall? SSL and SSH for crap sake. Is Sendmail "secure"? not without having educated people running it. Out of the box, Linux and Solaris have so much crap running (like Windows) that unless you are smart and turn off unused services, you are going to get compromised. Granted, Unices are less likely to be compromised by "standard" e-mail worms that are targeted at Outlook/Outlook Express. Mac? I have 0 experience with Macs. The newer OS X is based on Berkley Unix and will suffer from common Unix problems (see above). Is Windows "substandard"? Ask the people that run it in an enterprise environment. I said education goes a long way to prevent problems. Case in point: My last company ran Windows 2000 desktops with MS Office including Outlook as the only office suite/e-mail app. MS Exchange was our mail server with Postfix running our relay on Solaris and Linux (we had two relays for redundancy). There were about 30 employees that were educated by our company in best practices for use of their computers. We had no (0, ZERO) compromises from e-mail or other viruses in the 3 years I worked there. On top of that, we were a managed services (hosting) company with several hundred servers running W2K, Solaris and Linux hosted in a data center built on a security foundation. We built all of our systems using best practices for security. Not once, never, 0, not ever, was one of our customers compromised. Current employer has 500 people working here and lets the employees do whatever they want. We get viruses all over the place. Yeah, education and knowing the products you use can prevent problems. To close, I'd like to let you in on a little secret I've learned in my 6 years of Unix and Windows administration: ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS SUCK Christian Amen to that too. I usually just say, an operating system is as secure as the user makes it. You need a be educated to drive a car, about certain security matters, nobody complains about that. But when someone says that you should have some skills in securing a operating system they say that it's not their problem. Blame the OS. Ofcourse, it's nothing but stupidness (IMO) to make an OS that is targeted for a Workstation enviroment and then make it run a crapload of services in the background as default. If say Linux or Solaris does that, it's not that bad since you need some general computer knowhow even to install the OS. And then, it's usually not used on the desktop. If you ask me as to why Windows is more targeted than other operating systems, I would say it's because they are an easy target. Windows dominates the workstation market, hence there are billions of computer running 24/7 in offices with a no-clue-person behind the keyboard. Windows is far from perfect, but you can't just blame everything on the product. It has holes, but hell, so does almost every OS out there. If OS X runs OpenSSH and they find an exploit for it, OS X will have the hole too. But Apple realized that this OS will not be used on the server market as much, and doesn't run a lot of services in the background. That's where the two differ. /Henri
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
- Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples > of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my > contribution to this thread began. > Antonio You know, I've always stayed out of these stupid OT OS bashing threads since I joined this list 4 years ago. For some dumb reason I feel like getting involved. Antonio, what's the alternative? Unix? I've been a Unix (Solaris/Linux) sys-admin for 6 years. Have I spent hours of aggravation patching common OS-related security problems? You bet. Did I shake my head in disbelief when OpenSSL and SSH were exploited last fall? SSL and SSH for crap sake. Is Sendmail "secure"? not without having educated people running it. Out of the box, Linux and Solaris have so much crap running (like Windows) that unless you are smart and turn off unused services, you are going to get compromised. Granted, Unices are less likely to be compromised by "standard" e-mail worms that are targeted at Outlook/Outlook Express. Mac? I have 0 experience with Macs. The newer OS X is based on Berkley Unix and will suffer from common Unix problems (see above). Is Windows "substandard"? Ask the people that run it in an enterprise environment. I said education goes a long way to prevent problems. Case in point: My last company ran Windows 2000 desktops with MS Office including Outlook as the only office suite/e-mail app. MS Exchange was our mail server with Postfix running our relay on Solaris and Linux (we had two relays for redundancy). There were about 30 employees that were educated by our company in best practices for use of their computers. We had no (0, ZERO) compromises from e-mail or other viruses in the 3 years I worked there. On top of that, we were a managed services (hosting) company with several hundred servers running W2K, Solaris and Linux hosted in a data center built on a security foundation. We built all of our systems using best practices for security. Not once, never, 0, not ever, was one of our customers compromised. Current employer has 500 people working here and lets the employees do whatever they want. We get viruses all over the place. Yeah, education and knowing the products you use can prevent problems. To close, I'd like to let you in on a little secret I've learned in my 6 years of Unix and Windows administration: ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS SUCK Christian
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Hi, >> >>The biggest weakness in the whole setup is the stupidity of users. >> > Amen to that. amen to some of that, but I do not think it is predominantly user stupidity. Why is it that programmers always want to blame ordinary people and call them stupid? Here are my culprits, in descending order of guilt: 1. the people who write viruses, trojans and other naughtyware 2. systems that are shipped with all the doors open 3. systems that make it difficult for ordinary people to recognise that the doors are open 4. systems that make it difficult for ordinary people to lock the doors 5. lack of developer education in basic principles of security and trailing a long, long way behind all the rest: 6. lack of user education -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
You clearly have no idea what open source is, nor how it is developed. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 20:35, graywolf wrote: How can any open source operating system be hack proof, except in the sense that you do not need to hack it as you can just read the source? Luckily the so called hackers (being of the old school I do hate this misuse of that term as used by the media, but I guess there is nothing I can do about it) usually don't have a hatred of open source companies like they do for mickey-shit. -- Antonio Aparicio wrote: Hi Peter, I dont want to get into a flame situation here, but I do not think that I have ever heard of OSX being either hacked nor a problem for developers. Can you support you statement with an example? Certainly I do not think any OS is totally imune from a determined hack, but all the information I have to date on the subject lead me to beleive that OSX is about as stable and hack proof as they come. Is there something I have been missing? Please say more. Antonio Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 17:51, Peter J. Alling wrote: Don't kid yourself, OS-X is based on a Unix version that's that's a hackers wet dream and a developers nightmare. Cotty wrote: On 17/5/04, HENRI, discombobulated, offered: Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard for operating systems. However crappy it may be, it's still the standard. Gee it's nice to know that I use an above standard OS ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere PRECISELY because of the design of that OS. To date there have been Zero, thats right a 0 viruses on Mac OSX for example. Your "security through obscurity" explaination for this is just a sign of how much some poeple seem to be in denial about this. I use both Windows and OSX for work and play, and it doesnt take a genius to realise that there is a big difference in quality between the two. If an 18 year old can sit in his bedroom and write a virus capable of spreading to millions of Windows PCs in a matter of minutes doesnt that raise your suspiicion about the secirity of that OS at all? Arent you just a bit concerned? Antonio a myth to explain why that is the case On 17 May 2004, at 20:39, John Francis wrote: Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my contribution to this thread began. Antonio Do you think we could take the mindless Microsoft bashing somewhere else, please? The main reasons why viruses and spyware are more prevalent on Windows is not because of any underlying inferiority of the OS (the NT-based OSes are at least as secure as Linux or OS-X in that regard): rather, it's because most of the virus and adware writers target the Windows platform because it is where most of the payback can be found. It's not worth attacking the small Mac part of the marketplace, nor Linux. The main weakness come with the applications. And that's because the inherent design of the protocols underlying the web, email, etc. were crafted in the days before trusting your neighbour became impossible. Viruses, spyware, etc. propagate in such an environment, just as spam does. Why? Because it's not easy to set up a secure system. And as the marketplace seems to value connectivity and flashy graphics more than security, that's where the development effort is going. It's just as hard to run a secure Linux box as it is to run a secure Windows box (possibly even harder; there are less tools available). In fact many of the compromised email servers on the net are Linux systems; sendmail buffer overrun attacks aren't aimed at Windows. The biggest weakness in the whole setup is the stupidity of users. That wouldn't change, even if everybody switched to Linux overnight. People would *still* download Trojan Horse programs disguised as pornography, and they'd still click on virus-laden email links.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
John Francis wrote: Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my contribution to this thread began. Antonio Do you think we could take the mindless Microsoft bashing somewhere else, please? The main reasons why viruses and spyware are more prevalent on Windows is not because of any underlying inferiority of the OS (the NT-based OSes are at least as secure as Linux or OS-X in that regard): rather, it's because most of the virus and adware writers target the Windows platform because it is where most of the payback can be found. It's not worth attacking the small Mac part of the marketplace, nor Linux. The main weakness come with the applications. And that's because the inherent design of the protocols underlying the web, email, etc. were crafted in the days before trusting your neighbour became impossible. Viruses, spyware, etc. propagate in such an environment, just as spam does. Why? Because it's not easy to set up a secure system. And as the marketplace seems to value connectivity and flashy graphics more than security, that's where the development effort is going. It's just as hard to run a secure Linux box as it is to run a secure Windows box (possibly even harder; there are less tools available). In fact many of the compromised email servers on the net are Linux systems; sendmail buffer overrun attacks aren't aimed at Windows. The biggest weakness in the whole setup is the stupidity of users. That wouldn't change, even if everybody switched to Linux overnight. People would *still* download Trojan Horse programs disguised as pornography, and they'd still click on virus-laden email links. Amen to that. /Henri
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
How can any open source operating system be hack proof, except in the sense that you do not need to hack it as you can just read the source? Luckily the so called hackers (being of the old school I do hate this misuse of that term as used by the media, but I guess there is nothing I can do about it) usually don't have a hatred of open source companies like they do for mickey-shit. -- Antonio Aparicio wrote: Hi Peter, I dont want to get into a flame situation here, but I do not think that I have ever heard of OSX being either hacked nor a problem for developers. Can you support you statement with an example? Certainly I do not think any OS is totally imune from a determined hack, but all the information I have to date on the subject lead me to beleive that OSX is about as stable and hack proof as they come. Is there something I have been missing? Please say more. Antonio Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 17:51, Peter J. Alling wrote: Don't kid yourself, OS-X is based on a Unix version that's that's a hackers wet dream and a developers nightmare. Cotty wrote: On 17/5/04, HENRI, discombobulated, offered: Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard for operating systems. However crappy it may be, it's still the standard. Gee it's nice to know that I use an above standard OS ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
> > Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples > of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my > contribution to this thread began. > Antonio Do you think we could take the mindless Microsoft bashing somewhere else, please? The main reasons why viruses and spyware are more prevalent on Windows is not because of any underlying inferiority of the OS (the NT-based OSes are at least as secure as Linux or OS-X in that regard): rather, it's because most of the virus and adware writers target the Windows platform because it is where most of the payback can be found. It's not worth attacking the small Mac part of the marketplace, nor Linux. The main weakness come with the applications. And that's because the inherent design of the protocols underlying the web, email, etc. were crafted in the days before trusting your neighbour became impossible. Viruses, spyware, etc. propagate in such an environment, just as spam does. Why? Because it's not easy to set up a secure system. And as the marketplace seems to value connectivity and flashy graphics more than security, that's where the development effort is going. It's just as hard to run a secure Linux box as it is to run a secure Windows box (possibly even harder; there are less tools available). In fact many of the compromised email servers on the net are Linux systems; sendmail buffer overrun attacks aren't aimed at Windows. The biggest weakness in the whole setup is the stupidity of users. That wouldn't change, even if everybody switched to Linux overnight. People would *still* download Trojan Horse programs disguised as pornography, and they'd still click on virus-laden email links.
Re: GFM Question
I almost said there is no such thing as bad pizza, but then I remembered those cardboard tasting things Little Caesar's sold in the 70's. -- Steve Desjardins wrote: Speaker as an experienced consumer, the only problem with this pizza is that eventually we run out of it. ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/04 11:13AM >>> The best way to reheat pizza is with a commercial convection oven. It just so happens we have access to the one in the GFM restaurant. Also, these pizzas are "half-baked". The pizza restaurant we get them from cooks them halfway, so when we bake them they'll more or less be fresh. Furthermore, this pizza is a slightly unusual recipe, having a crust that you could almost call a pastry crust. tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GFM Question An iron works pretty good too. Get two pieces of Pizza and press them against each other. Make sure the toppings are on the inside. Then press the iron against the outside. Heat to the desired temperature. /college trick ~Alejandro Best way to re-warm it, toaster oven. But it's great cold too... Cotty wrote: On 14/5/04, CHILLI BILLIE, discombobulated, offered: whoa - what about the pizza??? Ain't that for Friday night? Nope, Saturday lunch. Bill c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-old??? I wonder if it's possible to toast pizza... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ --- End of Original Message --- -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: GFM Question
Oh..! They have green olives. I love green olives on my pizza. For some reason they don't believe in green olives on pizza in North Carolina. Green olives, green peppers, and bacon. Yum, tangy tasting. -- tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 16 May 2004 11:13:26 -0400, tom wrote: Also, these pizzas are "half-baked". The pizza restaurant we get them from cooks them halfway, so when we bake them they'll more or less be fresh. Where is this place, Tom? Ledo's http://www.ledopizza.com/ The first (and still best) one is in College Park MD. My dad ate there when he was at UMCP, which was quite a while ago... tv -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: OT: PayPal question
Or just stick cash inside a greeting card. That doesn't work well if the guy is likely to claim he never got the money though. -- Cotty wrote: On 17/5/04, BORIS, discombobulated, offered: I need to transfer a small sum of money, something like $30 to the person who does not have PayPal account. However, according to PayPal anyone with e-mail address can receive money. How is that done? Anyone has first hand experience with receiving money through PayPal without having account there? Does the fact that the person in question lives in Moscow makes issue more complicated? The person receiving the money will have to register with Paypal and lodge a credit card and/or a bank account. Don't forget the fees. If I were you I would bung 30 bucks in an envelope and go for it. If you're worried about theft, try this: I sent a few hundred dollars to our dear South American PDMLer Albano using the following method. I printed off a couple of pics and place them in an A4 sized reinforced envelope. Within that envelope I also created a small space inside where the cash was concealed, sort of like an envelop taped inside an envelope. But it was done so in a way that if someone unsealed the main envelope, the hidden envelope could not be seen. It was hidden behind stiffening, ostensibly for the enclosed pics :-) The main envelope was very thick anyway, and what with all the extra padding and stiffening, any mail-thief would have opened it up, seen the pics, nothing else, put it back, carried on. The envelope needed to be carefully destroyed to retrieve the cash. Counterfeiting, smuggling, espionage, you name it. Cotty's your man ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Survey: Shoot Alone or in Groups?
Hi! I should say that I cannot answer this question ... I never actually shot in a company. Once or twice I've been invited to the studio where I shot with another guy. Once or twice I went for a walk with the friend and he or she had a camera. But this does not count, as it was more or less random. So my answer is - I've been shooting alone until now, not by choice though. Boris
Re: transporting my kit...
Hi, > I'm curious about this - considering getting a Pelican case myself. > Wouldn't the rough handling (such as a toss of the case onto a > conveyer belt) still be hard on the equipment? I realize this is > better than no protection, but is the foam that good that the camera > gear feels no impact? The case itself takes most of any impact. The foam holds the goodies in place and stops them rattling around. You can also buy configurable dividers for the Pelican cases. Although I don't have any real doubts about the protection offered by the foam, I think the dividers probably offer more. They have the additional advantage of being re-configurable; once you've plucked the foam it stays plucked, so you have no real options about different arrangements for different sets of gear. The dividers cost, of course. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
In a message dated 5/17/2004 10:31:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my contribution to this thread began. Antonio -- No argument that Windows OS is not, hmmm, up to snuff. I've never been a fan of Microsoft. Ever. I just use it because 90% of the world does. Marnie aka Doe Sigh.
Re: transporting my kit...
Marnie, Do a search for TSA approved locks - that will show you what you can use to lock suitcases without having the locks destroyed. I've been looking into a few myself. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, May 17, 2004, 10:29:25 AM, you wrote: Eac> In a message dated 5/16/2004 3:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, Eac> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eac> In most U.S. airports you relinquish control of the luggage Eac> and are not present when they inspect. In fact, in most Eac> instances you are not allowed to be present. So if they Eac> don't like the x-ray scan or have a slow day or you just Eac> happen to be the 1 out of x that gets a random inspection, Eac> then your case will be opened. If there is a lock, the lock Eac> will be destroyed in order to open the case. Eac> It is now possible to buy locks which have a small symbol Eac> indicating that the security folks (and selected thieves) Eac> have master keys. Such locks they will open rather than destroy. Eac> Stan Eac> - Eac> Been a while since I have flown so I did not know this. Eac> So you are saying DON'T LOCK a suitcase? Eac> And do you have a url or a picture or something of the kind of lock you that Eac> mean? (I have never traveled with an unlocked suitcase). Eac> Marnie aka Doe
Re: Pentax film future?
On Monday 17 May 2004 15:11, Chaso DeChaso wrote: FJW> I've been off the list for a while. Is there any news FJW> on any future Pentax film cameras? Is Paal still on FJW> the list? FJW> FJW> Chaso FJW> FJW> = FJW> Chaso DeChaso Film future? What is that? -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: Survey: Shoot Alone or in Groups?
In a message dated 5/16/2004 5:27:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've really never seen this discussed around here before. So, what do you think or prefer? Shoot alone or with groups? What's your preference, if you have one? thanks, frank -- Alone. I enjoyed the one PDML meet I have been on so far, but I find it distracting to shoot in a group. I also enjoyed the studio portrait lighting class I took, but I had to wait my turn to take photos. Maybe I am just a retarded photographer or super slow, but I can't always decide what I want in the frame in a few seconds. Sometimes I need to take longer to frame than others seem to. And/or I want to commune with nature or the scene or something before I start taking photos, and I really find that impossible to do in a group. But a group is fun for other things -- camaraderie, shared experiences, learning. So I don't expect to get any really good photos at GFM, but I do plan to enjoy the people. Or maybe I just don't get that many decent photos anyway, but I seem to get slightly more when alone. Marnie aka Doe ;-) In other words, I find other people fun, but artistically distracting.
Re: Image stacker and *ist D
I would not switch it off, can you got to say 1 sec instead off 30 sec? Then you will have less interruption of the trails. So instead of 13 times 30 sec, you take 390 times 1 sec. Well, actually, as you take a lot of pictures, changes are that random noise of one picture is canceling out the noise of another. That doesn't work well with just two pictures, but with a lot it might work very well. Just some ideas, trial and error makes the master. On Sunday 16 May 2004 10:24, Herb Chong wrote: FJW> Bill, it's having noise reduction on that is causing the long delay, not the FJW> writing. i'm not sure what the right solution is. you can try turning it off FJW> to see how bad it is. FJW> FJW> Herb FJW> - Original Message - FJW> From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FJW> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FJW> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 11:29 PM FJW> Subject: Image stacker and *ist D FJW> FJW> FJW> > My first attempt at using Image Stacker with the *ist D. FJW> > FJW> > FJW> http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=75 FJW> > FJW> > There are 13 30 second exposures in this shot, but I've got a small FJW> problem. FJW> > It seems that at 30 seconds, it takes quite awhile for the buffer to clear FJW> > enough to release the shutter again. Next time I'll try shorter exposures FJW> > to hopefully get smooth star trails instead of a line of dots. FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my contribution to this thread began. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 19:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/17/2004 10:07:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Try tunning some sypware detection software on your machine - you may be surprised. I know I was and I consider myself a very educated user with 15+ years experience. Antonio - Well, spyware and viruses aren't really the same thing. In my parlance, anyway. Spyware is usually to track spending habits, etc., often downloaded like cookies when buys something online. Viruses, as I understand the definition of the term, are deliberately designed to crash or corrupt someone's machine. I ran one of the spyware detection things once, it said it found three questionable things. So I removed them. I do run spyware detection programs that now and then. Marnie aka Doe
Re: transporting my kit...
In a message dated 5/16/2004 3:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In most U.S. airports you relinquish control of the luggage and are not present when they inspect. In fact, in most instances you are not allowed to be present. So if they don't like the x-ray scan or have a slow day or you just happen to be the 1 out of x that gets a random inspection, then your case will be opened. If there is a lock, the lock will be destroyed in order to open the case. It is now possible to buy locks which have a small symbol indicating that the security folks (and selected thieves) have master keys. Such locks they will open rather than destroy. Stan - Been a while since I have flown so I did not know this. So you are saying DON'T LOCK a suitcase? And do you have a url or a picture or something of the kind of lock you that mean? (I have never traveled with an unlocked suitcase). Marnie aka Doe
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
In a message dated 5/17/2004 10:07:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Try tunning some sypware detection software on your machine - you may be surprised. I know I was and I consider myself a very educated user with 15+ years experience. Antonio - Well, spyware and viruses aren't really the same thing. In my parlance, anyway. Spyware is usually to track spending habits, etc., often downloaded like cookies when buys something online. Viruses, as I understand the definition of the term, are deliberately designed to crash or corrupt someone's machine. I ran one of the spyware detection things once, it said it found three questionable things. So I removed them. I do run spyware detection programs that now and then. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
"Globally, about 64% of companies were hit by at least one virus in the past 12 months, up from 53% the year before. In the United States, viruses stung 69% of companies. Those figures are about four times as high as the next highest category of security breaches: unauthorized network entry." Source: http://www.securitystats.com/virusstats.html Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 18:29, mike wilson wrote: Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy. MR> That's pretty much what I've heard. The way I heard it, it's quite a hybrid. With many things inherited still from good old Dos and subsequent hybrids like W95/W98, while some things from the newer versions as well. No wonder it's unstable and bloated. I've been _using_ it for the last three years. No problems at all that could not be attributable to operator error. _Until_ I connected to NTL. Now it falls over in a draught from an open window. _But_ it's not susceptible to many of the worms and viruses floating about. For the moment, it's staying put. mike
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
In a message dated 5/17/2004 9:53:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not to be argumentative but... I've been using Outlook Express on various Windows platforms (still use ME on one of my systems and think it's great!) since '98 and have never had a virus. Never used a Virus program like Norton or McAffe, until I had DSL, never had a firewall. I think it's all about being an educated user. Christian No argument. I'd agree with that. Marnie aka Doe :-) I used McAffe at first when it was new on this machine (under ME), then it expired. So I removed it. I don't like having software on my machine that insists I BUY an upgrade.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Try telling that to all the banks, governments and offices around the world (not to mention educational establishments) that have been hit, and hit hard. There have even been cash machines taken offline! Try tunning some sypware detection software on your machine - you may be surprised. I know I was and I consider myself a very educated user with 15+ years experience. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 18:51, Christian wrote: . Never used a Virus program like Norton or McAffe, until I had DSL, never had a firewall. I think it's all about being an educated user.
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > - > Not sure, but think it helps if one doesn't use Outlook. Seems most viruses I > have heard of come through that. Also helps to not open emails with > attachments unless you know who they are from (which is just common sense). HTML > "attachments" can be enabled safely for most store ads, however. And it helps to not > download software (shareware and such) except from approved sites (sites > approved to release that shareware or freebie). > > I've been on the Internet since 1996, never used Outlook, don't have a > firewall, and have never had a virus. > > Marnie aka Doe I live dangerously. ;-) > Not to be argumentative but... I've been using Outlook Express on various Windows platforms (still use ME on one of my systems and think it's great!) since '98 and have never had a virus. Never used a Virus program like Norton or McAffe, until I had DSL, never had a firewall. I think it's all about being an educated user. Christian
Re: Survey: Shoot Alone or in Groups?
> I've really never seen this discussed around here before. So, what do you > think or prefer? Shoot alone or with groups? What's your preference, if > you have one? > > thanks, > frank Hi Frank. As you mentioned in the opening paragrah,other than when the TOPDML gets together,i usually shot my my self. If for only one reason,no one in my household has any interest in this hobby at all.Other than looking at the pictures when i'm done,thats it. To do my non horse work,is best done by vehicle,as you have seen on your Stouffville trip,its a long way between things.LOL I have the front seat full of bodies lenses and stuff,so a passenger would have to sit very gingerly. I noticed on a few of our downtown walks,we get some pretty wierd looks and comments,however if i walk alone,now with the 6x7,i seem to blend in.Only when that mirror flaps.lolBut then i could take out the yashica-mat,but i would make a poor weapon if accosted Dave
Re: Revised link to Paw:My offering this week
Thank you.Glad you liked it. Dave > Spectacular bokeh - and a nice photograph: > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PAW - News by the wall
Ji. Was that intentional,the woman standing still ,next to the Rush sign.That was the first thing i noticed.That part alone makes it an interesting shot. I like the lines of the wall,the stepping effect n the bottom and the slightly curving top. Dave > News by the wall, > > http://fotof.wz.cz/paw > > A grab shot on the street. Could have chosen a little better moment though. The > woman is reading a big newspaper. > > Frantisek >
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy. MR> That's pretty much what I've heard. The way I heard it, it's quite a hybrid. With many things inherited still from good old Dos and subsequent hybrids like W95/W98, while some things from the newer versions as well. No wonder it's unstable and bloated. I've been _using_ it for the last three years. No problems at all that could not be attributable to operator error. _Until_ I connected to NTL. Now it falls over in a draught from an open window. _But_ it's not susceptible to many of the worms and viruses floating about. For the moment, it's staying put. mike
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
In a message dated 5/17/2004 9:04:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus software, no firewalls. Nothing. And not a single problem for 2 years straight. /Henri - Not sure, but think it helps if one doesn't use Outlook. Seems most viruses I have heard of come through that. Also helps to not open emails with attachments unless you know who they are from (which is just common sense). HTML "attachments" can be enabled safely for most store ads, however. And it helps to not download software (shareware and such) except from approved sites (sites approved to release that shareware or freebie). I've been on the Internet since 1996, never used Outlook, don't have a firewall, and have never had a virus. Marnie aka Doe I live dangerously. ;-)
RE: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
> I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus > software, no firewalls. Nothing. > > And not a single problem for 2 years straight. Henri, you are obviously a man who likes to live dangerously! ;) Amita
RE: transporting my kit...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:54:45 +0800, Shaun Canning wrote: >If you make sure that when you 'pluck out' the foam inserts you keep the >space for each item on the small and snug size, the items in the case >don't move at all. Umm, actually you should hope they DO move inside the case, otherwise you might as well pack them in a concrete block :-) The whole point is to allow some movement of the gear when the case is suddenly accelerated or stopped, reducing the G-forces on the stuff more or less freely moving in the foam ... The ideal case would be if the foam compresses up to the point that the gear ALMOST hits the case shell. Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Amita Guha wrote: I've been running XP for almost a year and a half, I've never had a virus, never had any problems at all. Ditto. I'm finding XP to be quite stable. I run 2 firewalls and keep my antivirus software up to date, take the usual precautions, and I'm fine. I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus software, no firewalls. Nothing. And not a single problem for 2 years straight. /Henri
RE: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
> > Much worse than Xp - thats an interesting way of putting it! Bug > > ridden POS. Xp is not much better - in fact as far as virus, > spyware > > and the like are concerned it is 1,000 times worse! They should > have > > named it VXp for Virus Experience! > > > > Gosh, I've been running XP for almost a year and a half, I've > never had a virus, never had any problems at all. Ditto. I'm finding XP to be quite stable. I run 2 firewalls and keep my antivirus software up to date, take the usual precautions, and I'm fine.
Re: OT: PayPal question
Hi! Counterfeiting, smuggling, espionage, you name it. Cotty's your man ;-) Your idea is cool. But I've found a person, you can think of them as of an agent, who'd pass the money directly... Boris
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Hi Peter, I dont want to get into a flame situation here, but I do not think that I have ever heard of OSX being either hacked nor a problem for developers. Can you support you statement with an example? Certainly I do not think any OS is totally imune from a determined hack, but all the information I have to date on the subject lead me to beleive that OSX is about as stable and hack proof as they come. Is there something I have been missing? Please say more. Antonio Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 17:51, Peter J. Alling wrote: Don't kid yourself, OS-X is based on a Unix version that's that's a hackers wet dream and a developers nightmare. Cotty wrote: On 17/5/04, HENRI, discombobulated, offered: Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard for operating systems. However crappy it may be, it's still the standard. Gee it's nice to know that I use an above standard OS ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: PayPal question
Cotty wrote to Boris: > If I were you I would bung 30 bucks in an envelope and go for it. I was going to suggest the very same thing. Just to let you know that at least two of us think so. :-) (snip Cotty's detailed description of sending lots of money) ERN
RE: transporting my kit...
Mine also accepts a decent sturdy padlock, not one of those pissy little suitcase padlocks that a three year old could bite off. I heard something about you shouldn't lock your luggage any more since it may have to be opened for inspection??? Dave
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Don't kid yourself, OS-X is based on a Unix version that's that's a hackers wet dream and a developers nightmare. Cotty wrote: On 17/5/04, HENRI, discombobulated, offered: Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard for operating systems. However crappy it may be, it's still the standard. Gee it's nice to know that I use an above standard OS ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: PayPal question
Boris lives in Israel ... Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/17/2004 5:56:52 AM > Subject: Re: OT: PayPal question > > Hi Boris, > > Russian Federation is not on the list of countries approved by Paypal. > Therefore, no paypal there. You yourself can't use paypal, judging > from your .ru email. So why do you ask ;-) It seems you are both in > the same country? Definitely, even with Putinization of the life in RF, there should be > ways to send money reasonably securely inside the country? If you are > in fact living abroad and just have a .ru address, I can't help you > much but point to Western Union. It will be more costly though. > > Best regards, >Frantisek Vlcek
Re: 18-35 vs 20-35 questions
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Chaso DeChaso wrote: > Also... I have a PZ-1p, ZX-50, and K1000; I know I can > use the FAJ on the PZ-1p and not on the K1000 - but > what about on the ZX-50? (I assume I can use the FA > on all three with full functionality except of course > for the lack of AF on the K1000.) The ZX-50 does aperture control with the rocker switch. You will have no probs with the FAJ on this body. Kostas
Re: OT: Help! with Stuffit
On 16/5/04, FRA, discombobulated, offered: >Dear Mac & Win friends, > >can you help me with StuffIt please? The dumb bastards at Alladinsoft, >who created this piece of sh*t, require me to download the whole trial >version (10MB) of StuffIt just to get the little Expander. All I want >is to open some downloaded ICC charts which the poor unknowing soul >compressed with this idiotic product (when there are much better ones >like Bzip2 or Tar/Gzip)... Software peculiarities are the curse of the >Macs, but Windows have their share as well... > >Is there any small program to just open the damn .SIT and .HQX files? >I do not want to install a whooping 10MB "suite" which I am sure will >just sh*t in my system registry and folders not properly uninstalling >itself afterwards. Or, if the license allows it, could somebody just >mail me the small Expander which was still for download as standalone >in older versions of StuffIt? > >Thanks and good night! > >Good light, > Frantisek Vlcek I find Stuffit very useful and it is the default compression method for Macs. It decompresses just about any file that anyone has ever sent me, and I personally find it very useful - wouldn't be without it. I will gladly mail you the Expander component. Are you on a Mac or a PC? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: GFM Question
> -Original Message- > From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Sun, 16 May 2004 11:13:26 -0400, tom wrote: > > > Also, these pizzas are "half-baked". The pizza restaurant > we get them > > from cooks them halfway, so when we bake them they'll more > or less be > > fresh. > > Where is this place, Tom? Ledo's http://www.ledopizza.com/ The first (and still best) one is in College Park MD. My dad ate there when he was at UMCP, which was quite a while ago... tv
RE: Revised link to Paw:My offering this week
Thanks for the feedback Frank. When i was reviewing the shots,as soon as i came to this one,i knew it was a keeper,in my mind anyway.and felt like sharing. Believe it or not she was almost in panic mode,but she hides it well. The horse was a complete arse in warm up and she was just hoping it would just get in the ring..lol As for the shack,i quess i was looking at the tree more,and did not notice it.Good thing you did.Again back ground is an issue at these things,but this is more of a park,so i do get some nice ones now and then. I;ll pass the looks comment n.:-) BTW she placed in all 4 classes,so she was very happy. Dave > Dave, > > First comment: Thank God your daughter takes after your lovely wife and not > you in the looks department!Seriously, she's a lovely young woman. > > Okay, now the photo. Very, very strong photograph! I like the way the > horse and your daughter are both looking the same way; nice symmetry there. > I know you call it "Concentration", but the feel I get with it is a quiet > confidence. She seems to absolutely know what she's doing, and seems very > calm and deliberate about her next move. I really like the look: she's a > pro! > > The horse seems to have that same feel about it, which is pretty cool. > > You know what? I didn't notice the tree growing out of her head until I > read your text (I looked at the pic first). It's so nicely OOF that it > really isn't noticeable - I know you notice it, but I think you're being > overly critical of your own work. No problem at all with the tree from me. > > What I did notice is the grey building or shack or whatever on the left. > It's not a huge deal. Maybe not even a small deal, but it's about the only > slight distraction I noticed, moreso than the tree. To me it would have > been a little more pleasing to see that lovely green bokeh behind them on > all sides. > > But, like I said, only a teeny thing, that shack, and it doesn't take away > from what I think is a wonderful photo. > > Now, if only you could capture those moments for paying customers, eh?!? > > > Sweet grab, Dave. > > thanks, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Revised link to Paw:My offering this week > >Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 10:03:32 US/Eastern > > > > Revised link: > > > > Taken at my daughters first official A horse show > > > Saturday. > > > I say official as she has done the odd show just for something different > >in the > > > past,however this year > > > she is making a serious run at the big time.Her division will not go to > >the Royal Winter > > > Fair show > > > finals,but is a good training division for next years cash > >depletion. > > > > > > I title this "Concentration".She is about to go in for the first round. > > > > > > http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/erin_calyn.jpg > > > > > > BTW A shows would be the same as playing in the NHL,Trillium equivilent > >to Jr. B and > > > Schooling > > > equivilent to house league. > > > > > > Hope you enjoy it. > > > > > > Comments welcome.Weather was +8 C and very cloudy and windy. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > (ya i know she has a tree growing out of her head.):-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en- ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines >
Re: PAW - "There heeere.."
I didn't even catch that from Bruce. Got your joke, however, Shel... ;-) Christian - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christian Skofteland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 11:15 PM Subject: Re: PAW - "There heeere.." > Hey Bruce, > > Your comment is so appropriate for the subject > > Shel Belinkoff > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Man, you're macro shots are getting better and better. > >
Re: transporting my kit...
Hello Shaun, I'm curious about this - considering getting a Pelican case myself. Wouldn't the rough handling (such as a toss of the case onto a conveyer belt) still be hard on the equipment? I realize this is better than no protection, but is the foam that good that the camera gear feels no impact? Thanks for your thoughts, Bruce Sunday, May 16, 2004, 3:02:40 AM, you wrote: SC> Tan, SC> If your budget will stretch for it before the GFM trip, get yourself a SC> Doskocil or Pelican hard case. They are dustproof, waterproof, just SC> about everything proof. They can go through the baggage handler's SC> barrage no sweat. I have a Doskocil case which is roughly the same size SC> as a Pelican 1550 case. The pull-apart foam inserts hold your gear like SC> a glove. Mine also accepts a decent sturdy padlock, not one of those SC> pissy little suitcase padlocks that a three year old could bite off. SC> I use a Lowepro Phototrekker as my carry on bag (sans camera gear), and SC> check all my gear through the checked luggage in the hard case. SC> I paid about 250.00 for mine, but this was some years ago. The prices SC> are probably scary by now. SC> Here's a shot of it with most of my gear ready to go! SC> www.heritageservices.com.au/images/_IGP0171.jpg SC> The empty slot is where my *ist D with battery grip slots in. SC> Cheers SC> Shaun SC> Dr. Shaun Canning SC> Cultural Heritage Services SC> 11 Lawrence Way SC> Karratha, Western Australia, SC> 6714 SC> 0414-967644 SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SC> http://www.heritageservices.com.au SC> -Original Message- SC> From: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SC> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 5:02 PM SC> To: Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] SC> Subject: transporting my kit... SC> I am a little worried about bringing my kit overseas SC> When I fly within Australia, I generally don't have any problems as I SC> take SC> my Lowepro Nova 5 as carry-on luggage, and my laptop in my Targus Laptop SC> backpack, also as carry-on luggage. Then I usually take one suitcase SC> with SC> my makeup kit, tripod, clothes etc in it. My suitcase usually weighs in SC> at SC> around the 27kg mark, my camera bag around 8kgs and my backpack around SC> 7kgs. SC> However... SC> Just reading the international allowances for Qantas, and I am only SC> allowed SC> to take ONE piece of carry-on luggage and it can't exceed 7kg in weight! SC> I SC> am also allowed TWO checked in luggage pieces which may weigh up to 32kg SC> (70lb) each. SC> So, NOW I have a problem! My suitcase will be fine. I'm not taking my SC> makeup kit, so that will bring the weight down and it will easily be SC> within SC> the 32kg mark. And I had planned to bring my camera bag in another SC> suitcase, so that it was "disguised" and hopefully would be safe on the SC> conveyor belt. Then I was just going to take my laptop/backpack on SC> board SC> with me as carry-on, and also just put my *istD in the backpack "just in SC> case". So, it all should have been ok. BUT, my hubby's friend is a SC> baggage SC> handler for Qantas and he showed me today how he literally picks the SC> suitcases up from the truck thingy, and THROWS them over his shoulder SC> onto SC> the next trucky thingy to transport them. They then get THROWN onto the SC> conveyor belt, sometimes from as far away as 2 metres! He kind of SC> swings it SC> around to give it momentum and then just throws it on there! OMG, I was SC> so SC> stunned! The thought of all of my babies being thrown around like that, SC> despite the fact that they will be packed within TWO padded bags, well, SC> it SC> scares me to death! SC> SO, I've been looking at TAMRAC and Lowepro backpacks that fit both a SC> camera SC> kit and a laptop in them, and that fit within the carry-on size SC> requirements, BUT with a 7kg limit, that would be impossible. My entire SC> kit, in a backpack, with a 3.3kg laptop, would probably weigh in at SC> almost SC> double that! SC> The only other thing that I can think of is to actually dispense with my SC> camera bag completely, and bubble wrap my kit and stow it in individual SC> pieces amongst my clothes etc in the suitcases, just taking my laptop SC> backpack on board as carry-on (with the *istD as well), and hope for SC> the SC> best. SC> All of the bags that I have been looking at area US auctions and it SC> would be SC> impossible for them to get here in time now anyways, and the bags that I SC> am SC> looking at are around the US$130 mark, but the same models sell for well SC> over AUD$350 here! SC> I was thinking that maybe, I could stow my stuff away in my suitcase on SC> the SC> way over, and buy a case via Ebay and have it delivered to tv, so that SC> at SC> least I will have a bag to carry everything in together whilst I am at SC> GFM, SC> and then just try my luck out for the journey home? SC> I was wondering what you will be doing Cotty, Jostein etc? And also SC> what SC> those who have done international travel in the past
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Not when you realize their main interest is selling support contracts to corporations. -- Antonio Aparicio wrote: What windows software isnt? Its amazing that a company with so so so much money at its disposal continues to put out such shoddy substandard products. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 13:50, Mark Roberts wrote: Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Survey: Shoot Alone or in Groups?
I like to shoot alone. It gives me more time to concentrate on getting the results I want and not worry about keeping up or getting too far ahead. Noise is for me less the issue than time and schedules. The expectation of how much should be covered in one day varies greatly in any group. I find it distracting. Collin --- 'The duck with 3 wings and a loaf of bread is brother to the turkey.' -- a Polish proverb from Banacek Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Agfa: news straight from the source (fwd)
Nice! But I would petition that Olympus and Konica users get something less than $3 - something closer to the Pentax rate. This could be offset by increasing the Canon rate to $15. >GRIN. Pentax film $0.01, Nikon film $5.00, Canon film >$10.00. For all other cameras $3.00. [graywolf] > >>Let's pull our resources together and buy Agfa! Free >>film for us. Double the price for everyone else, >>except Nikon users. They are charged triple for the >>film. ;-) [Alejandro] = Chaso DeChaso "Less is more cheap" - Osvaldo Valdes, Architect __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
RE: transporting my kit...
Yep, It's worth every cent I reckon... Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 0414-967644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Leon Altoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 8:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: transporting my kit... On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:37:11 +0800, Shaun Canning wrote: >I know how you feel Leon. We just joined the Qantas Club (only because I >got a 60% corporate discount), mainly for extra baggage (and free beer!) >The priority baggage is kinda neat too, first bags off the plane, so you >don't have to wait around for hours at the carousels. > >We really only joined because we are 5,000 kilometres from (which is >where all our families are) and it takes about a days worth of flying >and sitting around terminals to get to Melbourne. It's nice to have >somewhere quiet to go and relax (and did I mention that I can drink free >beer?) Hopefully, they don't change the policy where I work in the near >future... My wife gets a discount on the Qantas club (so do I but she decided to spend the money first). The extra baggage saved us when we did an around Australia trip - we were about 5 kg off the maximum baggage limit when we returned and that is taking into account business class seats and Qantas club additions and not actually weighing the cabin luggage. The same thing happened when we came back from Europe. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Pentax film future?
I've been off the list for a while. Is there any news on any future Pentax film cameras? Is Paal still on the list? Chaso = Chaso DeChaso "Less is more cheap" - Osvaldo Valdes, Architect __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
Re: PAW - That Darn Ball!
Hello Shel, I like this a lot. The expression on his face is priceless. I was nowhere back in 1969, but it still reminds me of my childhood. You made me smile:) A boy with a ball is timeless I think. We played football wherever we could; in the street, parks, yards, etc. Oh, just as I write it I realize that is soccer for you:) Attila Saturday, May 15, 2004, 2:32:27 PM, you wrote: SB> It's that ball again ... it's appeared in so many photos of the kids from SB> the old neighborhood in San Francisco. SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/paw/boy_with_ball.html SB> As always, comments, criticisms, and the tossing of tomatoes are welcome. SB> Shel Belinkoff
Any no-mail option available for PDML?
Is there still a no-mail option for this list? Thanks, Chaso = Chaso DeChaso "Less is more cheap" - Osvaldo Valdes, Architect __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
18-35 vs 20-35 questions
I am considering purchasing either the FAJ 18-35 or the FA 20-35. Does anyone have any comments on how much worse the FAJ is optically and mechanically, or how much wider 18 is than 20? Also... I have a PZ-1p, ZX-50, and K1000; I know I can use the FAJ on the PZ-1p and not on the K1000 - but what about on the ZX-50? (I assume I can use the FA on all three with full functionality except of course for the lack of AF on the K1000.) Thanks, Chaso = Chaso DeChaso "Less is more cheap" - Osvaldo Valdes, Architect __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
RE: transporting my kit...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:37:11 +0800, Shaun Canning wrote: >I know how you feel Leon. We just joined the Qantas Club (only because I >got a 60% corporate discount), mainly for extra baggage (and free beer!) >The priority baggage is kinda neat too, first bags off the plane, so you >don't have to wait around for hours at the carousels. > >We really only joined because we are 5,000 kilometres from (which is >where all our families are) and it takes about a days worth of flying >and sitting around terminals to get to Melbourne. It's nice to have >somewhere quiet to go and relax (and did I mention that I can drink free >beer?) Hopefully, they don't change the policy where I work in the near >future... My wife gets a discount on the Qantas club (so do I but she decided to spend the money first). The extra baggage saved us when we did an around Australia trip - we were about 5 kg off the maximum baggage limit when we returned and that is taking into account business class seats and Qantas club additions and not actually weighing the cabin luggage. The same thing happened when we came back from Europe. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: OT: PayPal question
Hi Boris, Russian Federation is not on the list of countries approved by Paypal. Therefore, no paypal there. You yourself can't use paypal, judging from your .ru email. So why do you ask ;-) It seems you are both in the same country? Definitely, even with Putinization of the life in RF, there should be ways to send money reasonably securely inside the country? If you are in fact living abroad and just have a .ru address, I can't help you much but point to Western Union. It will be more costly though. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Expressions of Interest
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:25:37 +0800, you wrote: >Hi Gang, > >I am thinking about lightening the load in my camera bag, and changing >the way I do things a little bit, so I have some gear I am interested in >selling. All items are AS NEW. I will consider offers on the following: > >1. Tokina 300mm ATX F2.8 SD (MF) with case, carry bag, original lens >hood and original box. Alsocomes with 112mm filter on front, and >rear cap (I think Cotty will vouch for how good these things are?). >Comes with valuation from OEM importer for insurance purposes. > I don't mind an unsolicited comment on the Tokina 300/2.8 AT-X SD - it is one fine lens. I've had two of them, both were sharp as tacks, I almost regretted selling the first one because it was so good I was afraid maybe it was one-of-a-kind, but when I got my second one it was optically excellent also. The first I sold to Cotty, who later sold it as he forayed into DSLR country. The real strength of this lens comes out when it is coupled with the Pentax 1.7x AF adapter - it becomes a fine semi-autofocus 510/f5 (actually f5.047003 according to fCalc) *which is only a tad larger than a 300/2.8*. This lens, with or without the AF Adapter, compares well with the Pentax FA* 600/f4 in optical quality at f4, and as a bonus it focuses much closer than the 600/4. I know the price range for this lens, and for the money there is no better KA mount long lens solution anywhere. Plus it has a nice deep sturdy hood, which reverses and the whole thing fits in a protective bag which I've taken into ballparks looking unobtrusively like a 2-liter water bottle bag. Yes, it is a little heavy, because it takes a lot of glass to make a long fast lens like a 300/2.8, but its sturdy rotating tripod collar helps make it balance nicely on a monopod even with a light duty head. All in all, the Tokina AT-X SC 300/2.8 was one of my best lens purchases ever. Both times. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Antonio Aparicio wrote: What windows software isnt? Its amazing that a company with so so so much money at its disposal continues to put out such shoddy substandard products. Well, it's much worse than say, Win Xp. Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard for operating systems. However crappy it may be, it's still the standard. /Henri
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
What windows software isnt? Its amazing that a company with so so so much money at its disposal continues to put out such shoddy substandard products. Antonio On 17 May 2004, at 13:50, Mark Roberts wrote: Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy
2 Lenses, et. al.
It was a good shopping weekend. Online, a Ricoh 55/1.2 for $50. So I grabbed it. Also, @ Dayton this weekend I got to see the infamous Canon 50/0.95 lens. It's an impressive piece of glass. Even included a "c" mount adapter. (But more expensive than my tastes would allow for.) Also, got (another) Canon G-III for $20. There were a number of camera vendors @ Hamvention. Some selling retail; others just dumping old (some useful) stuff. Steven recently picked up an old black Pentax hard case. Unfortunately the strap is broken. This would be the type of case used before the modern soft cases from Lowe, etc., for holding a body, lenses, etc. He'll part with it pretty reasonably if anyone is in need of such for a collection. Next year I go for HAM gear. Collin --- 'The duck with 3 wings and a loaf of bread is brother to the turkey.' -- a Polish proverb from Banacek Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Hi Mark. I have ME on my onsite computers.They came that way from the photog that sold me his stuff.So far only one problem since 2001, July.I run PS 6, AcDc,Corel 7,but no internet. The problem seemed to fix itself after a day of being shut off,so i'm not sure what happened there. Not sure if i can help technically,but i'll try. Dave Now knocking on wood) > I have some technical questions regarding Windows ME. I don't have it > and so can't verify a few things. If anyone who has this operating > system would be willing to answer some (Pentax-related) questions, I'd > appreciate an off-list email. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: OT: PayPal question
"Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I need to transfer a small sum of money, something like $30 to the >person who does not have PayPal account. However, according to PayPal >anyone with e-mail address can receive money. How is that done? Pay Pal sends the recipient an email saying they can have your $30.00... if they sign up with Pay Pal. >has first hand experience with receiving money through PayPal without >having account there? Does the fact that the person in question lives >in Moscow makes issue more complicated? Oh yeah... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy. > >MR> That's pretty much what I've heard. > >The way I heard it, it's quite a hybrid. With many things inherited >still from good old Dos and subsequent hybrids like W95/W98, while >some things from the newer versions as well. No wonder it's unstable >and bloated. What Microsoft did was discontinue all support for real-mode drivers. If Windows ME is given any real-mode drivers it won't install them but will install its own default drivers for the hardware in question. And there's no way to prevent it from doing so or substituting any drivers other than the ones it thinks you need. If its chosen drivers don't work (as is often the case) you're left with a very flaky system indeed. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Survey: Shoot Alone or in Groups?
Hello Frank, Well, I'm just a lone wolf, I always shoot alone. I like to take my time, but I would feel uncomfortable seeing all the others waiting for me to fire that damned shutter at once. In those moments I'm very concentrated, you may shoot a cannon behind me, and I likely wouldn't notice... Some people may interpret this wrongly as not paying attention to their presence, which is the last thing I want. There is not a single shop in the whole town where you can buy a new SLR. Only two shops which occasionally have used ones brought in by customers (half the cameras needs repairing). So going out with a camera bag and a SLR around my neck makes me look definitely like a geek. Not to mention the cases when I take my tripod. Even if it is a lightweight Velbon CX-300, definitely amateurish, I get many people staring at me. Just my cents. Attila
OT: PayPal question
Hi! I need to transfer a small sum of money, something like $30 to the person who does not have PayPal account. However, according to PayPal anyone with e-mail address can receive money. How is that done? Anyone has first hand experience with receiving money through PayPal without having account there? Does the fact that the person in question lives in Moscow makes issue more complicated? Thanks. Boris
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
DM> I'm not too worried about this as the results I've had have been quite DM> good despite some gamut clipping (particularly blues and yellows) as my DM> source images exceed the limits of sRGB. If I was looking for fine-art There is this webpage which has diagram of the gamut of Frontier and Noritsu printers compared to AdobeRGB and sRGB. I will look for it again, now I don't remember the address. From memory, the sRGB space was deficient in the area of blues. Another interesting link with info on all matters possible of disabling colour correction (and possibility of the frontier not defaulting to sRGB but just pouring in the raw data) is here: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printer_profiles.htm Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: transporting my kit...
I know how you feel Leon. We just joined the Qantas Club (only because I got a 60% corporate discount), mainly for extra baggage (and free beer!) The priority baggage is kinda neat too, first bags off the plane, so you don't have to wait around for hours at the carousels. We really only joined because we are 5,000 kilometres from (which is where all our families are) and it takes about a days worth of flying and sitting around terminals to get to Melbourne. It's nice to have somewhere quiet to go and relax (and did I mention that I can drink free beer?) Hopefully, they don't change the policy where I work in the near future... Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 0414-967644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Leon Altoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 6:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: transporting my kit... On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:14:50 +0200, Jostein wrote: >All the photo gear and laptop goes in the carry-on, which will certainly >weigh in at well above the mark. But to this day I have never seen anyone >actually checking the weight of a carry-on. And I'm definately not going to >encourage then...:-) I think that the only place in the world that weighs carry on luggage is Melbourne airport in Australia - my local airport! My wife and I use frequent flyer points to upgrade to the pointy end of the plane which gives us more leg room and more luggage allowance. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: transporting my kit...
On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:14:50 +0200, Jostein wrote: >All the photo gear and laptop goes in the carry-on, which will certainly >weigh in at well above the mark. But to this day I have never seen anyone >actually checking the weight of a carry-on. And I'm definately not going to >encourage then...:-) I think that the only place in the world that weighs carry on luggage is Melbourne airport in Australia - my local airport! My wife and I use frequent flyer points to upgrade to the pointy end of the plane which gives us more leg room and more luggage allowance. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
So don't buy PhotoShop. Do your RAW conversions with the crappy Pentax software. It won't hog memory, but your results will suck. But if you have nothing better to compare them to, you probably won't care. On May 16, 2004, at 9:19 PM, Shawn K. wrote: I'm going to be pissed, and in response to my being pissed, I wont be buying Photoshop in the future, that's what it amounts too. Ill probably send them an email too, and tell them what a POS program they have on their hands. I'm not old either (24) but really fucking bitter, yes, I'm sick of my hard earned money being wasted because of corporate greed or just the sheer ineptitude of others, money I make doing what I perceive to be a damn good job at what I do by the way. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Mark Roberts wrote: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:38:53 -0400, Shawn K. wrote: Whats the point of that??? Are you trying to say we can't be pissed about [memory hogging inefficient software]? who cares if thats why, all that matters is the state of things at the moment, not the pathetic reasoning behind it. BINGO! Bingo again! (I agree) So you guys plan to be pissed about every version of new software that comes out until the end of times? :-) Gee, you guys must be pretty old and bitter. /Henri
