18m 10mm?

"BustedFrog" wrote in message
...
John McWilliams wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Blinky the Shark" wrote in message
news Neil Harrington wrote:

"John Turco" wrote in message
...


Nor, may I point out, are all kettles and pots, black. (Which
carries
racial undertones, perhaps? g)
John, these days it seems almost EVERYTHING "carries racial
undertones."
Or overtones, or some kind of tones.
If you've noticed my sig (well, even if you haven't g) I kill posts
from
Google Groups, for various reasons. A couple of weeks ago some Google
hugger called me a racist for that. Duh.

A "racist" for killing posts from Google groups?! I don't see any
possible connection there, but I can't say it surprises me. Nowadays
"racist" has become one of those meaningless words, like "fascist." It
requires no rational connection at all.

I must admit I don't know anything about Google groups.

"Racist" a meaningless term? I don't think so. Just because a term is
misused, or overused for a while, doesn't mean it's without meaning or
impact.

Yet another unthinking opinion wandering about without a brain to call
home.

Of course it is overused, abused and made worthless.

For instance, if I was to relate to others that whenever I went to a
certain part of town after dark I was robbed and assaulted by a group of
males wearing red bomber jackets, blue baseball caps and wearing bright
yellow scarves around their necks, most would tell me that I should stay
away from that areas at that time, some would call me a fool for going
back after the first assaults. They would all warn me to avoid people who
fit that description.

However, if I add that they are all black, I will be called a racist by
many. They will tell me that I shouldn't be judgmental and that I should
have no fear of going back.

This is realistic, I have witnessed such responses, and it makes a mockery
of the term racist.

Well and truly said.

It's also worth noting that what actual racism exists, seems to exist in the
greatest degree among the very people and groups who most commonly accuse
others of "racism." (Rev. Wright, Fr. Pfleger and the rapper Ludicris are
only the most recent examples of this.)

Neil

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:12 am, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Blinky the Shark" wrote in
messagenewsan.2008.08.07.05.24.55.359021@thursto n.blinkynet.net...



John Turco wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

edited for brevity

And what do you think an "idiom" is, and what do you think
"idiomatic" means?

I think of those 110 cameras Kodak introduced in the
(what...1960s ?) as Idiomatics. But I do tend to play with words.
(And yes, I confess to having one when I was in college back
then. I bought it in Niagara Falls,
when I was there on a spontaneous, unplanned road trip.)

Hello, Blinky:

Kodak History Lesson #1:

The "Instamatic" 126-format cameras debuted, in 1963; the 110
models followed, in 1972.

Hey, I was Really Close.

Mine must've used 126, then.

Instamatic (aka 126) was a square format, I think it was 28 x 28 mm,
and the
cameras were roughly the size of 35s.

Pocket Instamatic (aka 110) was Kodak's answer to ultraminiature
cameras,
most of which used 16mm film in a 10 x 14 mm format or close to
that. (The
Minox used even smaller film.) It was unfortunate in that it
effectively
made obsolete all the ultraminiature cameras that were much superior
to the
Kodak Pocket Instamatic -- because Kodak had far superior marketing
power,
and when introduced 110 cartridges became the standard that you
could buy
anywhere, unlike the several other ultramini cartridges that were all
different.

Neil

My understanding of the technical flaw of the 110 cameras was the lack
of a pressure plate holding the film against a platen.

Exactly. Kodak used a spring-loaded plastic bar *in the cassette* to hold
the film in register, which it did only approximately. The Pocket Instamatic
just copied this rather sloppy arrangement from the original Instamatic.
Ultraminiature cameras like the Minolta 16 had an real pressure plate *in
the camera* which was far more precise.


I understand
the film was forced into a sort of toroidal shape that Kodak believed
would stabilize the film and hold it precisely in place, but it
didn't. Sometimes the shots were "in focus," sometimes they were
not :-(

Yes, as with the original Instamatics. They made some relatively expensive
35-like cameras for the 126 cartridge -- Kodak Germany made a version of the
Retina Reflex for it as I recall -- but location of the film plane, which
was established entirely by the cartridge itself, was so imprecise that I
understand they couldn't use lenses faster than f/2.8 and even that was
probably pushing it beyond the realm of accurate focus.

Neil