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

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:38:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article 2015081008351139063-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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.

yep.

it's always the windows or linux users bashing.

Get a mirror.

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.

yep.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

That's what I said.

not really. you insinuated that there could have been litigation had he
gone further. there was nowhere further to go and nothing he did was
illegal thus there could not have been any litigation.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:58:44 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 8/10/15 PDT 1:23 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

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

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.

Eric-

You seem to have some bone to pick with the late St. Stephen Jobs.
That's fine. But don't criticize one of the few level headed people who
inhabit this forum. Your appetite for contention seems unlimited. Grow up!

I have no bone to pick with Steve Jobs or Apple. I do have a bone to
pick with some people who flare up whenever they can jump to the
conclusion that Steve Jobs or Apple are being criticised. 'nospam'
stands first amongst this group.

The discussion originally started around the subject of whether
software developers/suppliers ever stop other software/suppliers from
installing software. I mentioned copyright. Someone else mentioned
Steve Jobs in the context of flash. After a certain amount of toing
and froing by other people I came in with the line quoted above "And
Steve Jobs made that clear in uncertain terms": which he did.

Nospam purported to not understand what I was driving at so I then
made the comment "Nothing so dense ..." which was directed at nospam
and not Apple. I then added "Steve jobs wanted to prohibit users from
installing Flash. He probably went as far as he could without risking
litigation" which I believe to be true. Had he done something (as
Microsoft did with DR-DOS) such as embed fake warning messages about
Flash in the operating system it is likely that Adobe would have sued.
Instead he got what he wanted with a very loud clear announcement of
his views. There is no reason to take that as a criticism of Steve
Jobs and I don't see how you can take such a meaning from what I
wrote.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:19:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

There is no argument about that. Nor are there grounds for criticising
Steve Jobs making clear his views. Even less are there grounds for
criticising those who made clear Steve Jobs opinion and actions to
keep Flash out.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You seem to have some bone to pick with the late St. Stephen Jobs.
That's fine. But don't criticize one of the few level headed people who
inhabit this forum. Your appetite for contention seems unlimited. Grow up!

I have no bone to pick with Steve Jobs or Apple. I do have a bone to
pick with some people who flare up whenever they can jump to the
conclusion that Steve Jobs or Apple are being criticised. 'nospam'
stands first amongst this group.

i 'flare up' when someone (not just apple) is criticized for stuff they
didn't do, or is the same as other companies do. in other words, bogus
criticism.

actual valid criticisms, as i said before, i might agree with.

The discussion originally started around the subject of whether
software developers/suppliers ever stop other software/suppliers from
installing software.

the original statement was not about stopping *other* developers.

I mentioned copyright.

but you didn't mention specific cases.

Someone else mentioned
Steve Jobs in the context of flash.

that is an entirely different issue, and as i linked before, writing
iphone apps in flash is supported.

what isn't supported are browser plug-ins, and not just adobe's.

flash was singled out because a lot of people had a vested interest in
keeping the status quo even though it was a bad idea.

After a certain amount of toing
and froing by other people I came in with the line quoted above "And
Steve Jobs made that clear in uncertain terms": which he did.

he said that because flash is garbage, and it is.

On 2015-08-11 02:24:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:35:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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'm getting a litle ****ed off with this. You have a quite unwarrented
chip on your shoulder. Apart from that, you are in another wrong
thread for that topic.

I think I appologised in the post prior to thia response. I as I said,
I was a tad lost in the fog of war. For this I appologise. However, I
still question your motives.

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.

Of course I am guessing. So is everyone else until someone in Apple
takes another step which does initiate litigation. In any case Steve
Jobs got what he wanted. In my opinion he was quite justified in
holding back the advance of Flash in forthcoming Apple products. Do
you think I'm bashing Apple when I say that?

No, since that is a better explaination than the inuendo infused
statement which prompted my "So you are guessing" remark.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Many Windows and Linux users seem to be just as cult bound and
"Kool-Aid" soaked in their obscessive dislike of all things Apple.

I don't think that's true of Windows users, but some Linux users seem
to have some having something going in this area. Again, it's not
something that I think needs to be mentioned at all.

it's very true of windows users and absolutely should be mentioned
because it shows that someone has an agenda rather than wanting to
discuss facts.

many of them hate apple and/or have mistaken beliefs about apple and
their products. some of them are just plain ignorant.

I'm not sure it's a obsessive dislike of all things Apple, though,
that prompts people to post some anti-Apple comments.

usually it is. why else would someone post factually incorrect or
grossly misleading statements about a company?

I think some of
it is an obsessive dislike of nospam and they know an anti-Apple
comment will stir him into a frenzy.

more of your bashing, and i will respond only if it's bogus.

if it's not bogus, i won't respond or i might even agree with the
criticism. apple does a lot of dumb things but nobody ever mentions
them. i gave a few examples before, such as apple mice being junk,
especially the trackpea one.

instead, people say stupid **** like apple users drink the kool-aid or
they will buy anything apple makes. often, there are derogatory names,
such as 'apple seeds' or 'sheep'. nothing could be further from the
truth.

if someone said something bogus about nikon or canon, i'd point out
that it's bogus too. there have been instances of that, although not
very many recently.

On 2015-08-11 03:24:23 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:36:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

That "Kool-Aid" remark alone indicates a particular prejudice towards
those who favor one system over another.

No, Duck, that is not a prejudice against the user of a particular
platform. It is a prejudice against those who whine about being
picked on.

Nice spin.
You use the "Kool-Aid" comment as if those who have always used, or who
have migrated to Macs have somehow joined some cult when they extole
their experience of being cut loose from some of the eccentricities of
Windows. Admittedly they tend to overlook the particularly odd
eccentricities of OSX.

It really isn't "spin" unless you have some definition of "spin" that
I don't know about.

Then just why did you use the "Kool-Aid" remark if not to imply some
odd state of mind held by Mc users?

Why, in a photography group, is there *ever* any need to extol the
virtues of the brand of machine being used?

It doesn't. However, from time to time it seems a fuse has been lit and
there we go...

How does it any way
contribute to capturing good photographs or processing image files?

I don't believe the machine being used makes a difference one way or
another. Sometimes the selection of processing software and techniques
used make a big idifference, but that is best discussed some other time.

I read other photography forums and never see any mention of the OS of
the computer that was involved in the taking and making of a
photograph.

As far as taking the photograph, what does the chosen OS have to do with that?

From time to time I have seen both OS and software used enter the discussion.


I can see mentioning Apple when it comes to ways of presenting photos
to other people. There are Apple-specific apps that do this. However,
the only reason to mention more than the link is when there's a
question about how to use one of the apps.

So? There are Apple specific image processing and presentation apps
just as there are Windows apps which fill similar functions. There are
also cross platform apps in both categories.

Many Windows and Linux users seem to be just as cult bound and
"Kool-Aid" soaked in their obscessive dislike of all things Apple.

I don't think that's true of Windows users, but some Linux users seem
to have some having something going in this area. Again, it's not
something that I think needs to be mentioned at all.

It appears to be true of many accolytes of the three OSes favored by
folks in this room.

I'm not sure it's a obsessive dislike of all things Apple, though,
that prompts people to post some anti-Apple comments.

For some it is a blatant anti-Apple position (one particular Canadian
from Toronto I can think of). For others it is a way to justify the
choices they have made.

I think some of it is an obsessive dislike of nospam and they know an
anti-Apple
comment will stir him into a frenzy.

....and that is a fact. Pavlov proven.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:50:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

That's what I said.

not really. you insinuated that there could have been litigation had he
gone further. there was nowhere further to go and nothing he did was
illegal thus there could not have been any litigation.

You are using loaded language. I did not 'insinuate'. I will say quite
clearly that there could have been grounds for litigation if he had
gone further. You surely will recall litigation between Digital
Research and Microsoft over the latter's use of spurious warning
messages for DR-DOS users?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:39:29 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-11 02:24:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:35:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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'm getting a litle ****ed off with this. You have a quite unwarrented
chip on your shoulder. Apart from that, you are in another wrong
thread for that topic.

I think I appologised in the post prior to thia response. I as I said,
I was a tad lost in the fog of war. For this I appologise. However, I
still question your motives.

You had better have a look at your too.

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.

Of course I am guessing. So is everyone else until someone in Apple
takes another step which does initiate litigation. In any case Steve
Jobs got what he wanted. In my opinion he was quite justified in
holding back the advance of Flash in forthcoming Apple products. Do
you think I'm bashing Apple when I say that?

No, since that is a better explaination than the inuendo infused
statement which prompted my "So you are guessing" remark.

There was no innuendo in the statement " Steve jobs wanted to prohibit
users from installing Flash. He probably went as far as he could
without risking litigation." The first sentence is a well recognised
fact. The second is my opinion and is probably correct.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens