If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 jeremy wrote: "Mark Roberts" wrote in message ... jeremy wrote: I can't think offhand of any major company that was helped in its financial woes by being merged into a bigger, better-capitalized company. Really? How about Nikon when it was bought by Mitsubishi? -- Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 I didn't know that. When was Nikon bought out? The Nikon situation is a bit different than Pentax/Hoya. But there have been some cooperation between Pextax and Hoya for some time. What the changes will bring remain to be seen. For info on the history of Mitsubishi/Nikon see: http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/about/history.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFjI4Hu4tRirKTPYwRAklbAJ9YbZ1rZGh3i8vXOYzzzk W042BzGQCfYpRw kwuMgBtcEvWTgjVy6IZ+Tz0= =cezd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Starlord" wrote in message ... I have to carry my Telescopes in my car which happens to be a 1974 plmy, and I don't need to smog it either. -- There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens. The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info The Church of Eternity http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article , acl wrote: jeremy wrote: mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I want METAL around me. The more the better. Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one? From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the difference in outcomes. Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength (literally). -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard I see terrible formula I crashes where there is nothing left of the car at all but the cage containing the driver, and yet he steps out of his "cage" and walks away.... so you don't need a "tank" to be safe. I have found that the best way to avoid an accident is to drive around it.....I drove around one several years ago by taking to the center strip..... |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Starlord" wrote in message ... I have to carry my Telescopes in my car which happens to be a 1974 plmy, and I don't need to smog it either. -- There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens. The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info The Church of Eternity http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article , acl wrote: jeremy wrote: mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I want METAL around me. The more the better. Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one? From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the difference in outcomes. Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength (literally). -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:59:00 -0500, Pudentame wrote:
Bob Hickey wrote: "Pudentame" wrote in message ... OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile. That's the whole problem right there. Avoid, nimble, maneuverable? That's a joke, right? I'd be happy to see "awake". I'd be happy to see "off the phone" I'd be happy to see "make-up already done"..The limit of most peoples driving knowledge is that soon after an accident, something will blow up right in their face to save them. Mostly, after the crumple zone is done crumpling; said air bag is much closer to the victim. Bob Hickey Don't wear makeup; only use the cell phone after I've pulled off on the shoulder to rat some a**hole b*&tard out ... I generally try to anticipate what's going to happen ahead by the time I get there, e.g. if everyone a mile or more down has their foot on the brake, mine comes off the accelerator to start opening my stopping distance *and* to give me room if I have to go off onto the shoulder to let the idiot behind me rear-end the idiot in front of me. And the person behind you in the Suburban doesn't notice this while doing her makeup and talking on her cell phone so she drives right over you, wondering what the "bump" was as she continues on her way. I don't weave in and out of traffic, generally choosing the lane I'm going to need to be in at my next major decision point; change lanes when the first sign says lane ends 1 mile ... Know where I'm going *before* I get in the car and turn the key ... ... smaller, more nimble works for me. Mostly. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
... In article , Frank ess wrote: Ken Lucke wrote: In article , just bob kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote: "Pudentame" wrote in message ... RichA wrote: Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as likely to die in an accident with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices (airbags) nothwithstanding. OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile. I'm not worried about me being able to get out of the way, I'm worried about the teenagers, alcoholics or both who I never see coming. Ayup. It ain't how good you are, it's how bad they are. The lowest common denominator is the one you have to worry about here, 'cause they can come from nowhere when you don't even have the time to react, let alone defend. It's like handing Joe Luser off of the street a DSLR in auto-program mode and saying "go take some pictures" and handing a photographically skilled individual the same camera and saying "photograph me a masterpiece", then comparing the results. 50% of it is the workspace between the ears, 40% of it is meaningful experience, and the last 10% is just dumb luck. Most "drivers" on the road in this country today rely mostly on the last 10% to get them through. The way I see some "drivers" "drive", I wonder how they have lived as long as they have. As I noted elsewhere, a majority of it is a problem of people not being taught how to _drive_ properly, but rather how to "operate a motor vehicle" and how to pass the "drivers'" license test. Then there are the "just plain stupid" variety, like the lady I saw the other day, doing about 25 in a 55 zone, and when I finally got room to pass her (5 miles & 10 minutes down the road), she waa READING A F*^^&*KING BOOK while she was "driving". See he http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/incars.htm Yep - I think I know some of those people. At least, I think I've been behind them :^) And you can always tell when the cell phone's in use by the cocked angle of the head from behind. Why do people think they have to "lean into" the phone? [probably for the same reason that they think a) that they have to shout into it because they can't hear it well so naturally, neither can the person on the other end*, and b) that the rest of us are interested in the least in listening to their half of the conversation in places like supermarkets and restaurants - i.e., stupidity, or lack of consideration for others] You two are funny. Not that I don't agree with you, except for the supermarket part. Cell phones were invented so that men out shopping could call their S.O.s and say things like, "There are 26 different kinds of tampons here--can you give me a frickin' clue?!!" My pet peeve (besides the restaurant one) are those persons who talk very deliberately and loudly on their cells when in public, as though to say, look at me, ain't I important! |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
"Graham Fountain" wrote in message
... Really? - So Canon would have a fisheye that can be used on the 400D/30D and their predecessors if they have a lens for every niche right? Oh that's right they don't. Nikon and Pentax both have fisheyes for their digitals. Unfortunately Canon hasn't made consumer full frame fisheyes since the FD days. I ended up buying a Peleng 8mm f/3.5 fisheye and I quite like it. It has 25mm image circle so it works great for any 1x, 1.3x or 1.6x camera, just crop the rectangle that you want that has the 180° diagonal that you want or keep the dark corners if you like, or clone a bit more sky or ground in, whatever. For the price I am very pleased and manually focusing an 8mm lens is trivial. Canon would have a number of zooms beyond 300mm wouldn't they? Well actually they only have 1, the 100-400L, while Nikon and Pentax have a number of zooms extending out to 600mm. A longer zoom, or some non-L primes over 400mm would be nice for sure. The longest now is the 135mm f/2.8 SF. I'm guessing then that Canon would have a "travel" type lens, such as a 28-300, very handy lenses when you want to travel light. Oops, nothing there either. Canon does make a good 28-300mm lens however for the price of the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM lens you can do quite a bit of traveling. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search The Canon 28-200mm is light and cheap but doesn't get great reviews. Canon really needs to put some effort into a superzoom like the Tamron AF18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DI-II except maybe go even wider or longer and f/3.5-5.6 and add USM and maybe an IS version and a little better quality than Tamron's and it might sell like crazy and enjoy the benefits of high-volume manufacturing. http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/rele.../news0914.html Currently the Tamron 18-250 is the widest range zoom for the Canon mount. It is unfortunate that Canon hasn't made a really convenient, wide range zoom for the digital cameras for those occasions when you just want to take a small dslr in a small triangular camera bag. I wonder how many people wouldn't bother with a point and shoot if they could get a small DSLR with a single wide range lens even if the lens ended up fairly large to accomodate the wide zoom range? I wonder if more pictures would be taken if there was a super convenient lens available? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
In article , Matt Clara
wrote: "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article , Frank ess wrote: Ken Lucke wrote: In article , just bob kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote: "Pudentame" wrote in message ... RichA wrote: Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as likely to die in an accident with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices (airbags) nothwithstanding. OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile. I'm not worried about me being able to get out of the way, I'm worried about the teenagers, alcoholics or both who I never see coming. Ayup. It ain't how good you are, it's how bad they are. The lowest common denominator is the one you have to worry about here, 'cause they can come from nowhere when you don't even have the time to react, let alone defend. It's like handing Joe Luser off of the street a DSLR in auto-program mode and saying "go take some pictures" and handing a photographically skilled individual the same camera and saying "photograph me a masterpiece", then comparing the results. 50% of it is the workspace between the ears, 40% of it is meaningful experience, and the last 10% is just dumb luck. Most "drivers" on the road in this country today rely mostly on the last 10% to get them through. The way I see some "drivers" "drive", I wonder how they have lived as long as they have. As I noted elsewhere, a majority of it is a problem of people not being taught how to _drive_ properly, but rather how to "operate a motor vehicle" and how to pass the "drivers'" license test. Then there are the "just plain stupid" variety, like the lady I saw the other day, doing about 25 in a 55 zone, and when I finally got room to pass her (5 miles & 10 minutes down the road), she waa READING A F*^^&*KING BOOK while she was "driving". See he http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/incars.htm Yep - I think I know some of those people. At least, I think I've been behind them :^) And you can always tell when the cell phone's in use by the cocked angle of the head from behind. Why do people think they have to "lean into" the phone? [probably for the same reason that they think a) that they have to shout into it because they can't hear it well so naturally, neither can the person on the other end*, and b) that the rest of us are interested in the least in listening to their half of the conversation in places like supermarkets and restaurants - i.e., stupidity, or lack of consideration for others] You two are funny. Not that I don't agree with you, except for the supermarket part. Cell phones were invented so that men out shopping could call their S.O.s and say things like, "There are 26 different kinds of tampons here--can you give me a frickin' clue?!!" I realize that you're ([probably] at least half-) joking, but my response to the actual statement is: Then he can bloody well (no pun intended) step outside and make the damn call - _I_ don't want to be forced into hearing his discussion about the frickin' tampons, or about which salad dressing or brand of flour he should be getting, nor do I want to hear about George and Martha and how the kids are doing from some bimbo with a cell phone stuck to her face, who probably drives her car just as recklessly with the cell phone still stuck there as she does the shopping cart with which she just rammed me, because she was too focused on her conversation and not on the world around her. I was forced into listening to one womman in a doctor's waiting room, for God's sake, discussing personnel problems at her work, including people's names, and what she was going to be doing about them (apparently she was some sort of supervisor at that workplace). People just don't seem to understand that they are forcing other unwilling people into participating in their conversations. "But MY call is important" - no, I'm sorry, but 99% of public place cell phone calls are NOT that important. Just how the hell did these people manage to survive just a few years ago when cell phones didn't even exist or were huge, lumbering things that no one wanted to cart around? If you could make the same call later or more privately and not affect world events or life and limb, your call is JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT to force others into participation. Do I have a cell phone? Yes. Do I carry it all the time? No. It's often left in the truck, or sometimes even at the motel or at home, because being able to make a phone call is just not that improtant to life. And I have a much more peaceful life - it's like meail, exactly - *I* choose when *I* will be available and answer calls, *NOT* the person on the other end. When I carry it, do I _ever_ use it in a manner which can be intrusive to others? No. Unless it's a 911 call or something similar, which is IMO not "intrusive", but actually real-life important, I never make or take cell phone calls when in public. Do I have it set to be so loud that people across the block can hear it ring? No, it's on lowest setting, or vibrate only, at all times. Do I use some obnoxious ring tone to make me stand out from all the other cell phone rings going on at the same time? No, I have it on a mild little "chirp" to avoid annoying others when it does ring. Do I answer it when it rings when I am in a public place? No, I hit the silence button while it's still in my pocket, and send them to voice mail. I may or may not look at that time to see who it was (if doing so would be rude to the person I am supposed to be having a conversation with or otherwise interacting with, I definitely don't). I see so many rude cell phone users that drop EVERYTHING when their cell phone rings. It's like they can't BEAR to miss a single call. It's HIGHLY rude to someone you are talking to to suddenly ignore them and make the cell phone your priority. If I need to make a call, do I just whip it out and dial? No, I politely take my leave of wherever I am and find a quiet place where I'm not going to be bothering someone by my call to make it. I consider all those things to be a MINIMUM courtesy use of a cell phone when in public. Call me old fashioned, but I beleive that we owe courtesy to those around us if we desire courtesy in return (actually we owe it anyway). Too bad that so very few others have the same common courtesy to me and the rest of the others they are around. It's one of my MAJOR pet peeves, and I've been known to take a cell phone away from someone in a restaurant, tell the person at the other end how rude the individual is being, and hang up their call. I even got applause from some of the other diners in one case. I've been very pleased to note several businesses (including one camera repair shop in Portland) are now starting to put their feet down, so to speak, and placing signs that forbid cell phone use in their establishments. I wish more would. I often answer the hostess in a restaurant "To hell with smoking or non-smoking, put me in the Non-Cell-Phone section, please". I have a bumper sticker that says "Why don't we just IMPLANT that cell phone - I can suggest an appropriate spot". Am I anti- cell phone? NO! Cell phones are a highly useful tool which I myself use when it is appropriate, but like any tool they can be abused. I am anti- RUDE CELLPHONE USERS. My pet peeve (besides the restaurant one) are those persons who talk very deliberately and loudly on their cells when in public, as though to say, look at me, ain't I important! How about the ones with the cellphone clipped right on their ear all the time - they're SO important (or at least they are in their own minds) that they can't be disconnected from the network. The Borg are he prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile. Well, I can suggest a place to implant their next version, let me tell you. OK, topic drift is now complete, pet peeve rant is now completed. :^) -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
In article , Ken Lucke
wrote: because being able to make a phone call is just not that improtant to ^^^^^^^^^ life. And I have a much more peaceful life - it's like meail, exactly ^^^^^ Opps, fat fingers. "important" "email" -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
J. Clarke wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:59:00 -0500, Pudentame wrote: Bob Hickey wrote: "Pudentame" wrote in message ... OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile. That's the whole problem right there. Avoid, nimble, maneuverable? That's a joke, right? I'd be happy to see "awake". I'd be happy to see "off the phone" I'd be happy to see "make-up already done"..The limit of most peoples driving knowledge is that soon after an accident, something will blow up right in their face to save them. Mostly, after the crumple zone is done crumpling; said air bag is much closer to the victim. Bob Hickey Don't wear makeup; only use the cell phone after I've pulled off on the shoulder to rat some a**hole b*&tard out ... I generally try to anticipate what's going to happen ahead by the time I get there, e.g. if everyone a mile or more down has their foot on the brake, mine comes off the accelerator to start opening my stopping distance *and* to give me room if I have to go off onto the shoulder to let the idiot behind me rear-end the idiot in front of me. And the person behind you in the Suburban doesn't notice this while doing her makeup and talking on her cell phone so she drives right over you, wondering what the "bump" was as she continues on her way. Well, she might run over the guy in front of me, but like I wrote, I'm always lookin' for an exit "just in case" ... no point in having nimbleness if you're not prepared to use it if necessary. Situational awareness is survival. Know what's going on around you and be prepared to take whatever action you have to take to avoid an *accident*. I'm in the National Guard. I teach driving to military police. I teach them to drive under what might be considered less than ideal conditions. They have to satisfy me they're going to be able to drive to survive before they're licensed to drive a military vehicle. And they have to be licensed to qualify in their MOS; i.e. to remain MPs. Some of them will take a lot of instruction. But when I'm done with them they won't be yackin' on a cell phone or puttin' on makeup while drivin'. And their attention will stretch from the bumper to as far down the road as they can see, both forward and in the mirrors, as well as to the sides, and they'll be constantly evaluating what's happening around them and how it's going to affect them, as well as what to do about it. *Before it happens!* Most of them will never drive anything larger than a HMMWV, but I'm qualified to teach and test up to 10 tons (HMMWV [all variants], 2-1/2T, 5T, 5T Tractor & 40' trailer, HMMET, HMMET Tanker, PLS, FMTV - all with and without trailers). I can operate M113, M1059 and M577 carriers; 4K, 6K and 10K rough terrain forklifts and 10K ATLAS; and even have a license to drive a mule. The only real difference between driving here and driving there, is the idiots over there *intentionally* try to kill you. As far as being prepared and knowing where you can go if you gotta go, there ain't no difference. BTDT-GTTS ... ramping up to do it again. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:47:57 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Matt Clara wrote: "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article , Frank ess wrote: Ken Lucke wrote: In article , just bob kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote: "Pudentame" wrote in message ... RichA wrote: Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as likely to die in an accident with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices (airbags) nothwithstanding. OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile. I'm not worried about me being able to get out of the way, I'm worried about the teenagers, alcoholics or both who I never see coming. Ayup. It ain't how good you are, it's how bad they are. The lowest common denominator is the one you have to worry about here, 'cause they can come from nowhere when you don't even have the time to react, let alone defend. It's like handing Joe Luser off of the street a DSLR in auto-program mode and saying "go take some pictures" and handing a photographically skilled individual the same camera and saying "photograph me a masterpiece", then comparing the results. 50% of it is the workspace between the ears, 40% of it is meaningful experience, and the last 10% is just dumb luck. Most "drivers" on the road in this country today rely mostly on the last 10% to get them through. The way I see some "drivers" "drive", I wonder how they have lived as long as they have. As I noted elsewhere, a majority of it is a problem of people not being taught how to _drive_ properly, but rather how to "operate a motor vehicle" and how to pass the "drivers'" license test. Then there are the "just plain stupid" variety, like the lady I saw the other day, doing about 25 in a 55 zone, and when I finally got room to pass her (5 miles & 10 minutes down the road), she waa READING A F*^^&*KING BOOK while she was "driving". See he http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/incars.htm Yep - I think I know some of those people. At least, I think I've been behind them :^) And you can always tell when the cell phone's in use by the cocked angle of the head from behind. Why do people think they have to "lean into" the phone? [probably for the same reason that they think a) that they have to shout into it because they can't hear it well so naturally, neither can the person on the other end*, and b) that the rest of us are interested in the least in listening to their half of the conversation in places like supermarkets and restaurants - i.e., stupidity, or lack of consideration for others] You two are funny. Not that I don't agree with you, except for the supermarket part. Cell phones were invented so that men out shopping could call their S.O.s and say things like, "There are 26 different kinds of tampons here--can you give me a frickin' clue?!!" I realize that you're ([probably] at least half-) joking, but my response to the actual statement is: Then he can bloody well (no pun intended) step outside and make the damn call - _I_ don't want to be forced into hearing his discussion about the frickin' tampons, or about which salad dressing or brand of flour he should be getting, nor do I want to hear about George and Martha and how the kids are doing from some bimbo with a cell phone stuck to her face, who probably drives her car just as recklessly with the cell phone still stuck there as she does the shopping cart with which she just rammed me, because she was too focused on her conversation and not on the world around her. I was forced into listening to one womman in a doctor's waiting room, for God's sake, discussing personnel problems at her work, including people's names, and what she was going to be doing about them (apparently she was some sort of supervisor at that workplace). People just don't seem to understand that they are forcing other unwilling people into participating in their conversations. "But MY call is important" - no, I'm sorry, but 99% of public place cell phone calls are NOT that important. Just how the hell did these people manage to survive just a few years ago when cell phones didn't even exist or were huge, lumbering things that no one wanted to cart around? If you could make the same call later or more privately and not affect world events or life and limb, your call is JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT to force others into participation. Do I have a cell phone? Yes. Do I carry it all the time? No. It's often left in the truck, or sometimes even at the motel or at home, because being able to make a phone call is just not that improtant to life. And I have a much more peaceful life - it's like meail, exactly - *I* choose when *I* will be available and answer calls, *NOT* the person on the other end. When I carry it, do I _ever_ use it in a manner which can be intrusive to others? No. Unless it's a 911 call or something similar, which is IMO not "intrusive", but actually real-life important, I never make or take cell phone calls when in public. Do I have it set to be so loud that people across the block can hear it ring? No, it's on lowest setting, or vibrate only, at all times. Do I use some obnoxious ring tone to make me stand out from all the other cell phone rings going on at the same time? No, I have it on a mild little "chirp" to avoid annoying others when it does ring. Do I answer it when it rings when I am in a public place? No, I hit the silence button while it's still in my pocket, and send them to voice mail. I may or may not look at that time to see who it was (if doing so would be rude to the person I am supposed to be having a conversation with or otherwise interacting with, I definitely don't). I see so many rude cell phone users that drop EVERYTHING when their cell phone rings. It's like they can't BEAR to miss a single call. It's HIGHLY rude to someone you are talking to to suddenly ignore them and make the cell phone your priority. If I need to make a call, do I just whip it out and dial? No, I politely take my leave of wherever I am and find a quiet place where I'm not going to be bothering someone by my call to make it. I consider all those things to be a MINIMUM courtesy use of a cell phone when in public. Call me old fashioned, but I beleive that we owe courtesy to those around us if we desire courtesy in return (actually we owe it anyway). Too bad that so very few others have the same common courtesy to me and the rest of the others they are around. It's one of my MAJOR pet peeves, and I've been known to take a cell phone away from someone in a restaurant, tell the person at the other end how rude the individual is being, and hang up their call. I even got applause from some of the other diners in one case. I've been very pleased to note several businesses (including one camera repair shop in Portland) are now starting to put their feet down, so to speak, and placing signs that forbid cell phone use in their establishments. I wish more would. I often answer the hostess in a restaurant "To hell with smoking or non-smoking, put me in the Non-Cell-Phone section, please". I have a bumper sticker that says "Why don't we just IMPLANT that cell phone - I can suggest an appropriate spot". Am I anti- cell phone? NO! Cell phones are a highly useful tool which I myself use when it is appropriate, but like any tool they can be abused. I am anti- RUDE CELLPHONE USERS. My pet peeve (besides the restaurant one) are those persons who talk very deliberately and loudly on their cells when in public, as though to say, look at me, ain't I important! How about the ones with the cellphone clipped right on their ear all the time - they're SO important (or at least they are in their own minds) that they can't be disconnected from the network. The Borg are he prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile. Well, I can suggest a place to implant their next version, let me tell you. OK, topic drift is now complete, pet peeve rant is now completed. :^) Your pet peeve rant demonstrates that you're a loon. plonk -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pelican swallows pigeon | Daniel Silevitch | Digital Photography | 31 | October 31st 06 06:04 PM |
Hoya HMC CP filter | Eydz | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 22nd 06 01:21 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 16 | April 10th 05 11:10 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:03 AM |
Hoya Filters UV(0) OR UV(N) | ianr | Digital Photography | 0 | January 27th 05 11:31 PM |