If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 18:54:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article 2015080915465270778-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

But Apple doesn't want people to install Flash, do they?

Only on iOS where there is no support for Flash, and never has been. On
OSX Flash is not a standard installation, but if you want it there is
nothing stopping you installing it.

there's no support for flash on ios because there is no mobile flash to
support. same for android.

mobile flash didn't exist when the iphone came out in 2007. apple
couldn't have included it even if they wanted to.

But there is no doubt that were determined not to. The question is,
which died first, the chicken or the egg?

what apple did include was html5, a much better solution than flash.

adobe released mobile flash a few years later which was on android
briefly and soon removed because it sucked there too.

apple said if adobe could make it not suck, they'd support it. that
never happened.

adobe ultimately killed mobile flash.

I am not sure of how well the Adobe Flash installer might fare with the
"rootless" OSX 10.11 final release. I suspect that browser plugins are
going to one of the things which will be outside of that garden (...er
fortress) wall.

not affected at all.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-08-10 02:18:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 18:38:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That ridiculous claim by nospam is false. One need look no further than
an app known as Flash. (probably will be called an edge case.)

first of all, flash is not an app.

second, adobe, who is *both* the developer *and* publisher, *wants*
people to install flash. the *opposite* of your ridiculous claim.

you are once again, talking out your ass.

But Apple doesn't want people to install Flash, do they?

apple doesn't care.

if someone wants flash, they can go to adobe's site, download it and
install it. takes a few minutes. nothing is blocked.

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

flash is not included with macs because it's buggy garbage that has
constant security exploits, among many other problems, but people can
still install it if they think they need it (they don't).

We are not arguing about why Apple doesn't want flash installed. We
are arguing about the following:

You said "... neither one [publisher or developer] wants to prohibit
users from installing apps."

The case of Apple wanting to stop the installation of Flash was cited
by (someone) and now you are not only not denying it but you are
justifying it. I think you have just contradicted yourself.

Apple doesn't stop the installation of Flash. You have to do that
yourself. It's easy enough and Adobe will help you.
Apple understands that Flash is not going to be a good idea for Mac
users in general terms.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But Apple doesn't want people to install Flash, do they?

apple doesn't care.

if someone wants flash, they can go to adobe's site, download it and
install it. takes a few minutes. nothing is blocked.

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

flash is not included with macs because it's buggy garbage that has
constant security exploits, among many other problems, but people can
still install it if they think they need it (they don't).

We are not arguing about why Apple doesn't want flash installed. We
are arguing about the following:

You said "... neither one [publisher or developer] wants to prohibit
users from installing apps."

The case of Apple wanting to stop the installation of Flash was cited
by (someone) and now you are not only not denying it but you are
justifying it. I think you have just contradicted yourself.

i'm not denying anything.

apple does *not* block flash from being installed on a mac. go he
https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
download it and install it.

flash is not blocked on ios either. flash can be used for writing ios
apps, although it's a really dumb way to write one.

http://www.adobe.com/inspire/2012/12/ios-apps-flash-cs6.html
When Apple announced that Adobe Flash Player would not be supported
on iOS, many people assumed erroneously that Flash content couldn't
exist on the iPhone, the iPad, or other mobile devices. However, the
reality is that many iOS and Android apps have been built and
deployed using Flash technologies, and Adobe continues to invest in
tools and frameworks to make it easier to create and deploy such
apps. In fact, there are currently more than 20,000 mobile apps and
games built using Flash technology available in Google Play and the
Apple App Store. Using Flash Professional CS6 and other Adobe tools,
you can easily publish and package iOS and Android apps.

there isn't a flash *browser plug-in* on ios because adobe didn't have
flash for mobile at the time the iphone came out (2007), because it's
very buggy and because browser plug-ins are a potential security issue
so there aren't *any* browser plug-ins on ios.

it's not needed. flash is yesterday's technology. html5 is a much
better option, so apple went with that instead.

when adobe finally did come out with mobile flash (2010), it was beta
and also garbage. frame rates on android were often in the single digit
range unless you had *really* fast devices. it crashed a lot and also
drained the battery fairly rapidly.

it wasn't long until adobe discontinued mobile flash entirely.

the sooner flash for the desktop is discontinued entirely the better
off everyone will be.

that also has absolutely nothing to do with cloud services, which was
peter's original claim.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 19:45:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-10 02:18:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 18:38:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That ridiculous claim by nospam is false. One need look no further than
an app known as Flash. (probably will be called an edge case.)

first of all, flash is not an app.

second, adobe, who is *both* the developer *and* publisher, *wants*
people to install flash. the *opposite* of your ridiculous claim.

you are once again, talking out your ass.

But Apple doesn't want people to install Flash, do they?

apple doesn't care.

if someone wants flash, they can go to adobe's site, download it and
install it. takes a few minutes. nothing is blocked.

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

flash is not included with macs because it's buggy garbage that has
constant security exploits, among many other problems, but people can
still install it if they think they need it (they don't).

We are not arguing about why Apple doesn't want flash installed. We
are arguing about the following:

You said "... neither one [publisher or developer] wants to prohibit
users from installing apps."

The case of Apple wanting to stop the installation of Flash was cited
by (someone) and now you are not only not denying it but you are
justifying it. I think you have just contradicted yourself.

Apple doesn't stop the installation of Flash. You have to do that
yourself. It's easy enough and Adobe will help you.
Apple understands that Flash is not going to be a good idea for Mac
users in general terms.

And Steve Jobs made that clear in no uncertain terms.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
sensor technology has come a long way since the 11mp 1ds, so if
a 13 year old 11mp camera was considered to beat medium format
film, a 36mp nikon d800 easily can.

Sandman:
Not even close.

it's exactly correct, as my several links show.

Sorry, they don't.

nospam:
https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout

But, could the 1Ds compete with the resolution of the Pentax 67?
Several other professional photographers who I have spoken
with had told me that their recent experience has been that
they were finding that the 1Ds indeed surpassed medium format
film, but I had to make a final determination for myself.

Sandman:
Pentax 67 is a camera, not a film quality.

whoosh.

Indeed. Resolution is a function of the sensor and the film, not the camera.

you're channeling tony and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Incorrect, you're the one arguing for the sake of argument.

did you miss this: "that the 1Ds indeed surpassed medium format
film" ??

It didn't. Here is a more scientific test:

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/

and

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

Medium format film, if scanned at film resolution, will yield images of up to
230 megapixel. They used a drum scanner to maximize the result. Digital medium
format stacked up pretty well to Velvia, but the resolution of the high end
film blows it out of the water effortlessly.

nospam:
this is somewhat old, as it only goes up to 20mp,
but clearly shows just how ****ty film really was:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...y1/film.vs.dig
ital.35mm-d.gif

Sandman:
Indeed, and really good analog film were about
100-150 lpmm, which is equivalent to about 30+ MP. Most film
was 50-75 lpmm so generally 20MP covers most, yes. My comment
only concerned especially good film.

nospam:
in other words, even with your unsubstantiated numbers, 36mp
beats film.

Sandman:
Just like I said it did.

in other words, you're contradicting yourself.

Only if you can't read.

"As I've mentioned before, a good current film and ideal
conditions would match roughly a 30+ megapixel camera, so
matched and slightly exceeded by a D800"
/ Sandman- 08/07/2015

That's what I said three days ago. Good film (i.e. ~100 lpmm) is slightly
exceeded by a D810.

nospam:
digital has surpassed film *years* ago.

today, there is no contest.

Sandman:
Unless, of course, you compare with medium format. Which,
incidentally, Ken uses.

nonsense.

Incorrect.

a medium format digital camera easily outperforms medium format
film.

Incorrect. High end ~200 lpmm medium format film exceeds the IQ180 digital
back, which is 80MP.

an fx dslr easily outperforms 35mm film and medium format
film.

Like I said from the start.

end of story.

I'm sure you'll argue for a couple of more posts.

i provided *multiple* links that prove it. all you've provided is
'incorrect'.

I've provided math and links in the past. And I've provided links in this post,
so I'm going to go ahead and assume you've understood that you're mistaken now.

you're full of **** as usual.

Yes, you are.

--
Sandman

On 2015-08-10 04:56:03 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 19:45:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-10 02:18:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 18:38:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That ridiculous claim by nospam is false. One need look no further than
an app known as Flash. (probably will be called an edge case.)

first of all, flash is not an app.

second, adobe, who is *both* the developer *and* publisher, *wants*
people to install flash. the *opposite* of your ridiculous claim.

you are once again, talking out your ass.

But Apple doesn't want people to install Flash, do they?

apple doesn't care.

if someone wants flash, they can go to adobe's site, download it and
install it. takes a few minutes. nothing is blocked.

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

flash is not included with macs because it's buggy garbage that has
constant security exploits, among many other problems, but people can
still install it if they think they need it (they don't).

We are not arguing about why Apple doesn't want flash installed. We
are arguing about the following:

You said "... neither one [publisher or developer] wants to prohibit
users from installing apps."

The case of Apple wanting to stop the installation of Flash was cited
by (someone) and now you are not only not denying it but you are
justifying it. I think you have just contradicted yourself.

Apple doesn't stop the installation of Flash. You have to do that
yourself. It's easy enough and Adobe will help you.
Apple understands that Flash is not going to be a good idea for Mac
users in general terms.

And Steve Jobs made that clear in no uncertain terms.

So?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 22:02:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-10 04:56:03 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 19:45:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-10 02:18:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 18:38:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That ridiculous claim by nospam is false. One need look no further than
an app known as Flash. (probably will be called an edge case.)

first of all, flash is not an app.

second, adobe, who is *both* the developer *and* publisher, *wants*
people to install flash. the *opposite* of your ridiculous claim.

you are once again, talking out your ass.

But Apple doesn't want people to install Flash, do they?

apple doesn't care.

if someone wants flash, they can go to adobe's site, download it and
install it. takes a few minutes. nothing is blocked.

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

flash is not included with macs because it's buggy garbage that has
constant security exploits, among many other problems, but people can
still install it if they think they need it (they don't).

We are not arguing about why Apple doesn't want flash installed. We
are arguing about the following:

You said "... neither one [publisher or developer] wants to prohibit
users from installing apps."

The case of Apple wanting to stop the installation of Flash was cited
by (someone) and now you are not only not denying it but you are
justifying it. I think you have just contradicted yourself.

Apple doesn't stop the installation of Flash. You have to do that
yourself. It's easy enough and Adobe will help you.
Apple understands that Flash is not going to be a good idea for Mac
users in general terms.

And Steve Jobs made that clear in no uncertain terms.

So?

Nothing so dense as an Apple user who feels Apple is being criticised.

Steve jobs wanted to prohibit users from installing Flash. He probably
went as far as he could without risking litigation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Apple doesn't stop the installation of Flash. You have to do that
yourself. It's easy enough and Adobe will help you.
Apple understands that Flash is not going to be a good idea for Mac
users in general terms.

And Steve Jobs made that clear in no uncertain terms.

So?

Nothing so dense as an Apple user who feels Apple is being criticised.

criticize apple all you want. just don't make up reasons to criticize.

Steve jobs wanted to prohibit users from installing Flash. He probably
went as far as he could without risking litigation.

there was no grounds for litigation.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Apple doesn't stop the installation of Flash. You have to do that
yourself. It's easy enough and Adobe will help you.
Apple understands that Flash is not going to be a good idea for Mac
users in general terms.

And Steve Jobs made that clear in no uncertain terms.

he was right. flash is a minefield of problems.

On 2015-08-10 08:23:52 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 22:02:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-08-10 04:56:03 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Le Snip

The case of Apple wanting to stop the installation of Flash was cited
by (someone) and now you are not only not denying it but you are
justifying it. I think you have just contradicted yourself.

Apple doesn't stop the installation of Flash. You have to do that
yourself. It's easy enough and Adobe will help you.
Apple understands that Flash is not going to be a good idea for Mac
users in general terms.

And Steve Jobs made that clear in no uncertain terms.

So?

Nothing so dense as an Apple user who feels Apple is being criticised.

Nothing so provocative as a Windows user who mines anti-Apple FUD and
repeats it in a Usenet forum.
For some strange reason you (& a certain Canadian) seem to go out of
your way to find fault with Apple (Macs & OSX in particular) when you
don't use Macs or OSX.

I have yet to see a Mac user initiate a cloaked anti-Win, or anti-Linux
thread. However, we will try to address misconceptions presented by
spreaders of FUD.

Steve jobs wanted to prohibit users from installing Flash. He probably
went as far as he could without risking litigation.

"probably" So you are guessing.


--
Regards,

Savageduck