As a developer I understand this. However there is a certain amount of
leeway allowed.
On 2/27/2017 10:30 AM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Tell it to Marketing.
Developers only do what they're told. :-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdm
Tell it to Marketing.
Developers only do what they're told. :-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
You should be able to disable that.
Go to the Tools menu & select Options. In the Option window select the
Composition tab & there should be a check box "Check for missing
attachments".
UN-check the box, click "Ok" and it should go away.
On 2/26/2017 9:44 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
So I've been u
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
>
> As for smartphone annoyances, I basically ignore any updates. If an app
> works the way I want, I leave it alone.
I find that's critical. If you let the phone update, not only do apps
change in annoying ways, but each update takes more and
As annoyances go, the attachment one doesn't bother me.
But, I agree with the sentiment. There are plenty of other software
'improvements' that have me looking for some heavy object to throw at
the computer monitor (fortunately I don't leave any within easy reach).
As for smartphone annoyances,
The problem is unless you have the word attach, attached, attachment or
some other keyword it recognizes you can still send an email without an
attachment when you intended to. The annoying part is it reminds you
when you use one of those words and you /don't/ want to send an attachment.
On
Boris probably sent you the same information. But just in case, on the
Menu, go to Tools->Options which opens a dialog box. Choose the
Composition tab, un-check "Check for missing attachments. Click OK.
The first time i did that I had to edit an ".ini" file, but of course
Thunderbird called
so I saw.. and replied.. of course it asked me if I forgot when I did
that reply!
and as I said privately, I probably should leave it on since I'm
actually quite likely to forgot to attach and attachment
ann
On 2/26/2017 1:28 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
AnnSan :-), I've just replied to you off-
Peter, I find it worth my while to spend the time and get to know the
marvels of modern engineering that I live with - be it a cell phone or
any other thing for that matter. Having said that, I do admit that if
I have to switch from one appliance to another, say the same cell
phone - I always feel
AnnSan :-), I've just replied to you off-list, as I had to include the
screen-shot that shows what has to be done in order to turn this
feature off.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:23 PM, ann sanfedele wrote:
> Yes.
> how did you turn it off ? I have Thuderbird too
>
> ann
>
>
> On 2/26/2017 9:44 AM, P
Yes.
how did you turn it off ? I have Thuderbird too
ann
On 2/26/2017 9:44 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
So I've been using Firefox for years as my email client, and suddenly
an annoyance from the past returned.
The attachment reminder. Use a word that includes the string "attach"
and Firefox use
Yes, but it's annoying when something you've used literally for years
starts working differently.
I was just forced by circumstance to get a smart phone. I've only had
it for about a month and already an update removed an "unimportant"
feature that I'd found to be amazingly convenient in one
Yes that's right Thunderbird. It's been divorced from Firefox for
years, but you still remember they were once family.
On 2/26/2017 10:18 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
It's really too bad that there isn't some part of the Internet made
out of metal and wood, like vintage cameras. Stuff that is well
Peter, this attachment things exists like forever... It saved my arse few
times. Though if course I manage to forget to attach the attachment anyway.
Speaking of UX in general, it's mostly improving with some occasional
hiccups...
Just my cents...
On 26 Feb 2017 16:45, "P. J. Alling" wrote:
>
It's really too bad that there isn't some part of the Internet made
out of metal and wood, like vintage cameras. Stuff that is well built
and made to last, that you learn how to use and then they become
automatic in your hands.
The older I get, the more I agree with your complaint, PJ.
btw, I as
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2011/1/20 David J Brooks :
>> I'm now in back up heaven.
>
> Must be better than backup hell, at least?
> Hope you retrieve the images smoothly.
>
> Jostein
Retrieving smoothly, but my early archives are not as organized as my
recent ones, if you
2011/1/20 David J Brooks :
> I'm now in back up heaven.
Must be better than backup hell, at least?
Hope you retrieve the images smoothly.
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdm
From: Jack Davis
It's my understanding (in some cases I know to be correct) that in
USA civil cases, court costs and attorney's fees are included in the
award. How common this is, is not known to me.
Jack
I believe that applies to some cases brought in federal courts. May also
apply in some
From: Walter Gilbert
It's my understanding that, in the British system, unlike in the US,
the loser of the case is responsible for the legal fees and court costs
of the winner. That would tend to make their system more workable, an d
would almost certainly make them more likely to foot the bi
fees are included in the award. How common
this is, is not known to me.
Jack
--- On Sat, 12/11/10, Walter Gilbert wrote:
From: Walter Gilbert
Subject: Re: I Wish
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Date: Saturday, December 11, 2010, 10:16 AM
It's my understanding that, in the
British
It's my understanding (in some cases I know to be correct) that in USA civil
cases, court costs and attorney's fees are included in the award. How common
this is, is not known to me.
Jack
--- On Sat, 12/11/10, Walter Gilbert wrote:
> From: Walter Gilbert
> Subject: Re: I Wi
John Sessoms wrote:
[...]
Gateway2000 had the money, and were able to buy the court. Their lawyers
shopped around until they found a judge who would grant the injunction.
Bankrupted him. Gateway used their financial muscle to buy "justice"; or
more properly, to deny justice to my acquaintanc
It's my understanding that, in the British system, unlike in the US,
the loser of the case is responsible for the legal fees and court costs
of the winner. That would tend to make their system more workable, an d
would almost certainly make them more likely to foot the bill for the
highest-pa
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 09:39:07AM -0500, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: John Francis
>
> >It's a philosophical difference, and no more "indefensible"
> >than the US system of "one law for the rich, one for the poor"
> >which allows those with deep enough pockets to buy their way
> >out of just about
From: "Bob W"
It's a philosophical difference, and no more "indefensible"
> > than the US system of "one law for the rich, one for the poor"
> > which allows those with deep enough pockets to buy their way
> > out of just about any situation.
>
> My understanding is the British law in this case
> > It's a philosophical difference, and no more "indefensible"
> > than the US system of "one law for the rich, one for the poor"
> > which allows those with deep enough pockets to buy their way
> > out of just about any situation.
>
> My understanding is the British law in this case is sort of i
From: John Francis
It's a philosophical difference, and no more "indefensible"
than the US system of "one law for the rich, one for the poor"
which allows those with deep enough pockets to buy their way
out of just about any situation.
My understanding is the British law in this case is sort o
gt;> long.
>>> Awaiting a couple more reviews and additional feed back from the PDML.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 12/10/10, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Steven Desjardins
>>>> Subject: Re: I Wish
>>>&g
aughter as well as
> yourself is priceless. I completely get that the cost/funds imbalance was
> extremely unfair and difficult to understand.
>
> Jack
>
> --- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
>
>> From: paul stenquist
>> Subject: Re: I Wish
>> To:
ouch... what a long list of unhappened 645Ds. I'll add that I am one
behind because my insurance company gave me bad advice and my sick pay
was € 9900 too low over the past 11 months which pretty much makes
/my/ 645D a non-reality... grrr
Ecke
2010/12/11 David Mann :
> On Dec 11, 2010, at 5:58 AM,
On Dec 11, 2010, at 5:58 AM, paul stenquist wrote:
> I don't think continuous autofocus is predictive. It just continues to adjust
> focus as the shutter button is held down at least half way. I think that if
> it were predictive, it would work only for one rate of subject movement.
The Z-1p ha
Your success in "rescuing" your grand daughter for your daughter as well as
yourself is priceless. I completely get that the cost/funds imbalance was
extremely unfair and difficult to understand.
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
> From: paul stenquist
> Sub
t possible
outcome.
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
From: paul stenquist
Subject: Re: I Wish
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 3:37 PM
I could have had six 645Ds for what
it cost me to save Grace from her drunken wife-beating
father and t
legal action is
>> indefensible. And having to compete with the UK
>> s financial resources makes it less than a bargain.
>> Paul
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>>
>>> I know you agree that you got a real bargain and certainly the best
>&g
agree that you got a real bargain and certainly the best
> > possible outcome.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > --- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
> >
> >> From: paul stenquist
> >> Subject: Re: I Wish
> >> To: "Pentax-Discu
> I know you agree that you got a real bargain and certainly the best possible
> outcome.
>
> Jack
>
> --- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
>
>> From: paul stenquist
>> Subject: Re: I Wish
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Date
I know you agree that you got a real bargain and certainly the best possible
outcome.
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
> From: paul stenquist
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 3:37 PM
> I cou
om: Paul Sorenson
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 2:56 PM
> I feel your pain. Some time
> before the end of the year we're supposed to be getting new
> windows. That's *four* K-5s that could have be
>>>>
>>>> The only reason there won't be one under my Xmas tree this year is
>>>> that "we" are getting a new floor for the house. I could have
>>>> bought a 645D for what that's setting us back.
>>>>
>>>>
> >On 10-12-10 12:11 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> >>Not in the K20 manual.;) I hope to be reading the K-5 manual in
>> >>not too long.
>> >>Awaiting a couple more reviews and additional feed back from the PDML.
>> >>
>> >>Jack
>> &
x27;s setting us back.
>>>
>>> -bmw
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10-12-10 12:11 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>>>> Not in the K20 manual.;) I hope to be reading the K-5 manual in
>>>> not too long.
>>>> Awaiting a couple mo
bmw
> >
> >
> >On 10-12-10 12:11 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
> >>Not in the K20 manual.;) I hope to be reading the K-5 manual in
> >>not too long.
> >>Awaiting a couple more reviews and additional feed back from the PDML.
> >>
> >>Jack
> &
w
On 10-12-10 12:11 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
Not in the K20 manual.;) I hope to be reading the K-5 manual in not
too long.
Awaiting a couple more reviews and additional feed back from the PDML.
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Steven Desjardins wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins
Subject: Re: I Wish
On 2010-12-10 16:23, John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:40:37PM -0500, Doug Franklin wrote:
On 2010-12-10 11:42, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I
could disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achi
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:40:37PM -0500, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On 2010-12-10 11:42, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> >Jack Davis wrote:
> >
> >>I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I
> >>could disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achieved.
> >>Still, for special a
On 2010-12-10 11:42, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I
could disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achieved.
Still, for special affects, re-focus or.. I'd like to retain a shutter
priority option.
Make sense t
Sounds like the wife is dutifully reminding you of AAA the other
"important" things that need money before you get a new toy.
Wives tend to be so damned practical. hurmpth!!
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Bruce Walker wrote:
> From: Bruce Walker
> Subject: Re: I Wish
>
0, Steven Desjardins wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins
Subject: Re: I Wish
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 9:08 AM
Isn't there a custom setting for
something like that?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinf
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
> There isn't one? It's an option on the higher-end Canon and Nikon bodies.
>
> -Adam
I'll look in my manuals, but i'm positive I can do that on my Nikons.
Dave
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> I wish there were an AF-
Thank you, Dario. Guess I wasn't the first to want such a feature. ;)
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> From: Dario Bonazza
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 9:40 AM
> Jack Davis wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
Thanks again, Dario! I could look these things up I know, but a final
question; does the K-5 also retain the AF.S focus lock feature?
Of course! Focus priority is the default setting for AF.S, with the
alternative choice of Release priority.
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discus
Thanks once again, Paul! Dario, also, confirmed "focus priority."
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
> From: paul stenquist
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 9:24 AM
> No, Dario is
Thanks again, Dario! I could look these things up I know, but a final question;
does the K-5 also retain the AF.S focus lock feature?
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> From: Dario Bonazza
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Dat
wrong about the K-5 having said feature?
>
> Jack
>
> --- On Fri, 12/10/10, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> From: Mark Roberts
>> Subject: Re: I Wish
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 8:45 AM
>> Jack Davi
Jack Davis wrote:
It would need sufficient AF speed to allow refocusing tweaks.
So, is Dario wrong about the K-5 having said feature?
From K-5 manual, page 123:
AF.C Continuous Mode
1 Focus priority - Takes pictures giving priority to keeping the subject in
focus during Continuous Shooti
Not in the K20 manual.;) I hope to be reading the K-5 manual in not too long.
Awaiting a couple more reviews and additional feed back from the PDML.
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> From: Steven Desjardins
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail
berts wrote:
>
>> From: Mark Roberts
>> Subject: Re: I Wish
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 8:45 AM
>> Jack Davis wrote:
>>
>> >I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting
>> available wherein I
Thanks, Paul. I get that. Increased possibility of focus is the idea.
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, paul stenquist wrote:
> From: paul stenquist
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 8:55 AM
> The K-5 allows you
It would need sufficient AF speed to allow refocusing tweaks.
So, is Dario wrong about the K-5 having said feature?
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Mark Roberts wrote:
> From: Mark Roberts
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10
GOOD! Thanks, Dario.
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> From: Dario Bonazza
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 8:42 AM
> Jack Davis wrote:
>
> > I wish there were an AF-C custom func
On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Jack Davis wrote:
>
>> I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I could
>> disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achieved. Still, for
>> special affects, re-focus or.. I'd like to retain a shutter priorit
I haven't purchased the K-5..yet(?) I'm using the K10&20
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Adam Maas wrote:
> From: Adam Maas
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 8:32 AM
> There isn't one? It
The K-5 allows you to prioritize focus or shooting speed in continuous
autofocus. Choosing focus priority tends to make focus lock more likely in
continuous shooting, although it's no guarantee that every frame will be in
focus.
Paul
On Dec 10, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> I wish the
Jack Davis wrote:
>I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I could
>disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achieved. Still, for special
>affects, re-focus or.. I'd like to retain a shutter priority option.
>Make sense to anyone else?
How would that work? AF
Jack Davis wrote:
I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I could
disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achieved. Still, for
special affects, re-focus or.. I'd like to retain a shutter priority
option.
Make sense to anyone else?
The K-5 has it. About A
There isn't one? It's an option on the higher-end Canon and Nikon bodies.
-Adam
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I could
> disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achieved. Still, for special
> af
I knew I could count on you, Dave. Actually calmed my fears. :)
Jack
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, David J Brooks wrote:
> From: David J Brooks
> Subject: Re: I Wish
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 7:48 AM
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:21
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
> I wish there were an AF-C custom function setting available wherein I could
> disallow the shutter's releasing unless focus is achieved. Still, for special
> affects, re-focus or.. I'd like to retain a shutter priority option.
> Make sense to
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:58:46PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
> The cal fire plane flew directly over me about a second before it
> dropped the retardant on the fire about 200m away. My K20D took what
> seemed like forever to lock focus.
I never even heard the plane, and Larry's office is only a co
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 04:08:42PM -0700, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> Where is your office?
South San Jose,
855 embedded way, San Jose CA, 95138
>
> Where was the fire?
Along coyote creek trail between blossom hill/silver creek to about
the park (Hellyer park?)
http://ti
Larry Colen wrote:
The cal fire plane flew directly over me about a second before it
dropped the retardant on the fire about 200m away. My K20D took what
seemed like forever to lock focus.
It's probably a good thing for my productivity that I don't have
anything that'll convert K20 raw files at
71 matches
Mail list logo
