Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #105869
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech |
| Subject | Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution |
| Date | 2017-04-29 20:01 +0100 |
| Organization | ~ |
| Message-ID | <op.yzg0gnqvjs98qf@red.lan> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <210420171040573298%nospam@nospam.invalid> <op.yzgyt4m2js98qf@red.lan> <290420171429340074%nospam@nospam.invalid> <op.yzgy73x3js98qf@red.lan> <290420171443260002%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 19:43:26 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yzgy73x3js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> I mean professional quality low ASA >> >> >> >> >> film on a camera with a good lens. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > doesn't matter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Maybe not nowadays, digital improves all the time. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > digital has been better than film for well over a decade. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd have rated a professional film camera at about 6MP. >> >> > >> >> > 6 mp cameras were common over a decade ago. >> >> >> >> Depends how much you pay. Over a decade ago a 6MP digital would cost many >> >> many times more than a film camera. >> > >> > nonsense, >> >> I paid £3000 for my 6MP digital Canon about then. > > there were cheaper options. > > i paid us$400 for a nikon 6mp camera in 2006. I think I bought mine in 2003. And it had a 15-30mm and a 50-500mm lens. >> >> It would appear from an example given elsewhere that modern Fujis don't >> >> lie. >> > >> > none do. >> > >> >> Mine certainly does. It is only capable of half of what it says on the tin. >> >> At least it's predecessor admitted it interpolated. >> > >> > it didn't. >> >> I've already proved it did. > > all you proved is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I showed you an image taken with my model of camera which was worth 2.5MP, not 10. If you think it's ok to state it's a 10MP camera, because the CCD can make 10MP, but the lens can't, then you're an idiot. Like people who sell cars that have so many horsepower, but if you try to use it, you just spin the wheels. -- Where Article 51 applies, the number of Directors subject to retirement by rotation under Article 49 shall be reduced (subject to Article 64(g)) by the same number as that by which the number of Directors has fallen below that fixed under Article 44. (Proposed change to the constitution of Mensa)
Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 19:26 +0100
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 14:29 -0400
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 19:34 +0100
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 14:43 -0400
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 20:01 +0100
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 15:15 -0400
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 20:21 +0100
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 20:01 +0100
csiph-web