Eclipse success

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Ken Davey wrote:
Michael A. Covington wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...

Michael A. Covington wrote:

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers
(if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the
pictures.

...

"I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the
best ways to share your pictures with others."

And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning
professional photographers, unless you were paid.

Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I
thought was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields --
especially writers and computer programmers, of which I am one --
have learned that giving away a certain amount of work free helps
to *promote*, not undermine, their careers.

Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a
newspaper could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining
somebody else's. Or do you feel that nobody in the future should
become a photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly
on all the work?

Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require
that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut
you out of income from future uses?

The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I am
well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign
anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the
picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name,
and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect
advertisement.
Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing
things with my neighbors.


I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of
rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers.

We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the
moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope
has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every
little bit of friction can slow the decline...

Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is
a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the
public thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals?

And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur
basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out
of a job?
I don't think so.

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html


Well said Mike.
But the subject Frank brought up is indeed a very complicated one,
and a hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or
otherwise trade a product is a manner that knowingly damages the
economic well-being of those that have invested (I speak of
individuals, not corporations or rapacious capitalists).
Frank seems to have a 'thing' about newspapers and I would agree
when it comes to the huge chain-type operations, not local community
publications. I predict a long life for this thread (G).
Regards.
Ken.


Hi...

Long life thread starts...

May I quote one of your lines?

hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or otherwise trade
a product is a manner that knowingly damages the economic well-
being of those that have invested (I speak of individuals, not
corporations or
rapacious

Then I can never (were I young enough) apply for a job...
might be taking one away from someone less qualified who
might lose there's...

I can never offer anything... not to sell you a car,
or fix your TV, or tune up you 'puter, or write a
piece of software... each of these would put
someone else's livlihood at risk. Right?

Ken


Um, no.
Taking a job would not be anywhere near the context of my post and the rest
of your statement is meaningless.
I suppose that if you were to stand in front of a computer repair shop and
offer to fix the equipment of all comers for free and doing so would result
in the economic failure of the shop *that* would be be within my suggestion
that this is wrong.
All this falls within ethical behaviour, something that is in very short
supply in today's world.
Regards.
Ken.
--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Ken Davey wrote:
Michael A. Covington wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...

Michael A. Covington wrote:

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers
(if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the
pictures.

...

"I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the
best ways to share your pictures with others."

And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning
professional photographers, unless you were paid.

Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I
thought was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields --
especially writers and computer programmers, of which I am one --
have learned that giving away a certain amount of work free helps
to *promote*, not undermine, their careers.

Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a
newspaper could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining
somebody else's. Or do you feel that nobody in the future should
become a photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly
on all the work?

Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require
that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut
you out of income from future uses?

The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I am
well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign
anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the
picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name,
and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect
advertisement.
Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing
things with my neighbors.


I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of
rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers.

We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the
moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope
has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every
little bit of friction can slow the decline...

Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is
a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the
public thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals?

And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur
basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out
of a job?
I don't think so.

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html


Well said Mike.
But the subject Frank brought up is indeed a very complicated one,
and a hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or
otherwise trade a product is a manner that knowingly damages the
economic well-being of those that have invested (I speak of
individuals, not corporations or rapacious capitalists).
Frank seems to have a 'thing' about newspapers and I would agree
when it comes to the huge chain-type operations, not local community
publications. I predict a long life for this thread (G).
Regards.
Ken.


Hi...

Long life thread starts...

May I quote one of your lines?

hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or otherwise trade
a product is a manner that knowingly damages the economic well-
being of those that have invested (I speak of individuals, not
corporations or
rapacious

Then I can never (were I young enough) apply for a job...
might be taking one away from someone less qualified who
might lose there's...

I can never offer anything... not to sell you a car,
or fix your TV, or tune up you 'puter, or write a
piece of software... each of these would put
someone else's livlihood at risk. Right?

Ken


Um, no.
Taking a job would not be anywhere near the context of my post and the rest
of your statement is meaningless.
I suppose that if you were to stand in front of a computer repair shop and
offer to fix the equipment of all comers for free and doing so would result
in the economic failure of the shop *that* would be be within my suggestion
that this is wrong.
All this falls within ethical behaviour, something that is in very short
supply in today's world.
Regards.
Ken.
--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
ejaculated:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about? What
do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not handle"?

I'm sorry, Clyde, but both forms of quotation are "correct", whatever
that may mean. You see languages do something called evolve, which
simply means "usage changes over time". This is not a sign of decline
but is rather a fact of life, like "death".

IMO, the style that Frank used is more logical because the question
mark isn't part of what he is quoting so it doesn't really belong
inside the quotes.

--
What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
ejaculated:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about? What
do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not handle"?

I'm sorry, Clyde, but both forms of quotation are "correct", whatever
that may mean. You see languages do something called evolve, which
simply means "usage changes over time". This is not a sign of decline
but is rather a fact of life, like "death".

IMO, the style that Frank used is more logical because the question
mark isn't part of what he is quoting so it doesn't really belong
inside the quotes.

--
What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...

Um, no.
Taking a job would not be anywhere near the context of my post and the
rest of your statement is meaningless.
I suppose that if you were to stand in front of a computer repair shop and
offer to fix the equipment of all comers for free and doing so would
result in the economic failure of the shop *that* would be be within my
suggestion that this is wrong.

Is it equally unethical to set up another computer shop across the street
and offer to do the same work for lower prices?

What about the ethical aspects of obligating the public to pay the first
computer shop's high prices?

The reason people do not stand around offering free computer repair is that
they can earn money doing it, and also that it costs them money and labour
to do it.

Are you relying on the Supreme Soviet to decide, in your Planned Economy,
who is allowed to offer computer repair services, where, and when? Things
like that have been tried and didn't work.

All this falls within ethical behaviour, something that is in very short
supply in today's world.

Ethics does not necessarily mean subsidizing *you* (or specific pre-existing
entrepreneurs) at the expense of ourselves and the public.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about? What
do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not handle"?


There is an ongoing and valid difference of opinion about
terminal punctuation inside or outside of quotes. If you can't handle
it, drop on over to alt.eats-shoots-and-leaves. Or to
alt.petty-punctuation-nazi.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:55:00 -0600, "Ken Davey"
wrote:

Um, no.
Taking a job would not be anywhere near the context of my post and the rest
of your statement is meaningless.
I suppose that if you were to stand in front of a computer repair shop and
offer to fix the equipment of all comers for free and doing so would result
in the economic failure of the shop *that* would be be within my suggestion
that this is wrong.

Kinda like Bill Gates.

"Ken Davey" wrote:

I suppose that if you were to stand in front of a computer repair
shop and
offer to fix the equipment of all comers for free and doing so would
result
in the economic failure of the shop *that* would be be within my
suggestion
that this is wrong.

This is so ****ed up I hardly know where to begin. So let's just be
completely blunt:

All this falls within ethical behaviour, something that is in very
short
supply in today's world.

If you come to me and say I can't do this or that "for free", I will
happily tell you to fsck off and die (I've had so-called professionals
say as much to me in this forum, so don't feel too bad). If you
complain about "ethics", I'll laugh and laugh and laugh, then repeat
myself: take your rent-seeking ethics and shove 'em.

Really, if the so-called professional photographers who insist that no
one can work for free in their field would only _MIND THEIR OWN
BUSINESS_ maybe they wouldn't have to worry about stuff like this in
the first place?

"Clyde Torres" wrote:

Wow, maybe we should license cameras so that only people who have passed
rigorous tests and paid professional fees to the government can have them in
their possession and use them. More government regulation, less personal
freedom.

Sir!! Professional Photographers Are Special! They are needy! They
are VICTIMS!

If you can't handle the heat, get out and do something that you
can handle.

A similar issue arose last year, and, as usual, the rent-seekers were
out in force. A response of mine:

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en...ing.google.com

For supposedly indepdenent business people, I'm surprised at just how
many of them are so clueless about economics, freedom, etc.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about? What
do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not handle"?


There is an ongoing and valid difference of opinion about
terminal punctuation inside or outside of quotes. If you can't handle
it, drop on over to alt.eats-shoots-and-leaves. Or to
alt.petty-punctuation-nazi.

Actually, question marks don't slide through quotation marks -- only commas
and periods do.

Frank had it puncutated correctly to begin with.