Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > All image stabilization is a HOAX!

Reply
Thread Tools

All image stabilization is a HOAX!

 
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007


GotMilk? wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:15:50 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:47:01 -0500, John Turco
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello, GotMilk?:
>>>>
>>>> The wry, satirical wit of "Unclaimed Mysteries" sailed far above
>>>> your head, apparently.
>>>
>>> Quite the contrary. I thought it was a thoroughly lame attempt. So
>>> instead of pandering to that immaturity I thought I would
>>> enlighten
>>> her/him with how perception, manipulation, and reality works for
>>> the vast majority of brain-dead humanity, which are simpletons
>>> just
>>> like him/her, and apparently just like you too.
>>>
>>> To put it in terms that you _might_ comprehend, it didn't just
>>> sail
>>> over your head, you were totally blind to what took place.
>>>
>>>

>> That would be "whom are simpletons", not "which are simpletons",
>> were
>> you not among the brain dead(no hyphen, dummass).

>


He meanr "who"; "whom" in this context is inappropriate and a failed
bit of pretentiousness.

> That depends on one's perspective. I see the vast majority of
> humanity as useless "things". They don't qualify for words that
> would
> imply having the qualities that embody any meaning of "person". They
> are more "it"s than anything. Most plants and minerals have more
> intellect and life-quality than humans. If 99.99999999857% of
> humanity (assuming the present population is 7 billion) was wiped
> off
> the earth today I wouldn't even flinch. A day of rejoicing, a sigh
> of
> relief. Thanks for further reinforcing what I already know to be
> true, dumb-ass.


Someone please tell this poster the custom for signature/nicknames
places the latter on a separate line, in his case, thus:

"--
dumb-ass"

--
Frank ess

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2007
Frank ess wrote:
>
>
> GotMilk? wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:15:50 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:47:01 -0500, John Turco
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, GotMilk?:
>>>>>
>>>>> The wry, satirical wit of "Unclaimed Mysteries" sailed far above
>>>>> your head, apparently.
>>>>
>>>> Quite the contrary. I thought it was a thoroughly lame attempt. So
>>>> instead of pandering to that immaturity I thought I would enlighten
>>>> her/him with how perception, manipulation, and reality works for
>>>> the vast majority of brain-dead humanity, which are simpletons just
>>>> like him/her, and apparently just like you too.
>>>>
>>>> To put it in terms that you _might_ comprehend, it didn't just sail
>>>> over your head, you were totally blind to what took place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That would be "whom are simpletons", not "which are simpletons", were
>>> you not among the brain dead(no hyphen, dummass).

>>

>
> He meanr "who"; "whom" in this context is inappropriate and a failed bit
> of pretentiousness.
>
>> That depends on one's perspective. I see the vast majority of
>> humanity as useless "things". They don't qualify for words that would
>> imply having the qualities that embody any meaning of "person". They
>> are more "it"s than anything. Most plants and minerals have more
>> intellect and life-quality than humans. If 99.99999999857% of
>> humanity (assuming the present population is 7 billion) was wiped off
>> the earth today I wouldn't even flinch. A day of rejoicing, a sigh of
>> relief. Thanks for further reinforcing what I already know to be
>> true, dumb-ass.

>
> Someone please tell this poster the custom for signature/nicknames
> places the latter on a separate line, in his case, thus:
>
> "-- dumb-ass"
>


It is amusing that a person who complains about usage of 'who' and
'whom' can't, himself, spell a simple word like 'dumbass'. One should,
at least, be able to spell what he is... Grin.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2007
acl wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 6:04 am, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > acl wrote:
> > > On Aug 17, 1:14 am, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >
> > >> Yes, semi-conductors were known, but integrated circuits were still way
> > >> off in the future. As I recall, the semi-conductor dates back to 1948;

> >
> > > Actually earlier than that, I think. Now a transistor was first made
> > > around 1948 by Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley, who got the nobel prize
> > > for it. <snip>

> >
> > 1948 is earlier than 1948?
> > Allen

>
> Well no, but semiconductors were known before transistors were first
> made...



Hello, ACL:

Moreover, the proximity fuse, of World War II fame, was a remarkable
example of electronic miniaturization, for its time. Not "solid state,"
but, it foreshadowed technology of decades later.

On a mildly on-topic note, Kodak is the company most responsible for
the proximity fuse's development (pun intended) and manufacture. It
was among WWII's greatest technical achievements and deadliest weapons,
certainly.


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2007
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
> GotMilk? wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:47:01 -0500, John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hello, GotMilk?:
> >>
> >> The wry, satirical wit of "Unclaimed Mysteries" sailed far above your
> >> head, apparently.

> >
> > Quite the contrary. I thought it was a thoroughly lame attempt. So instead of
> > pandering to that immaturity I thought I would enlighten her/him with how
> > perception, manipulation, and reality works for the vast majority of brain-dead
> > humanity, which are simpletons just like him/her, and apparently just like you
> > too.
> >
> > To put it in terms that you _might_ comprehend, it didn't just sail over your
> > head, you were totally blind to what took place.
> >

>
> HOLY CRAP!



Hello, Corry:

I wonder whether "GotMilk?" even realizes that, your opening message,
in this thread, was a parody of >his< various sock puppets' many rants?


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2007
David J Taylor wrote:
>
> acl wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 11:15 am, "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-
> > this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello, Allen:
> >>
> >>> The integrated circuit was invented by Texas Instruments, in 1958.
> >>
> >>> Cordially,
> >>> John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>
> >> ... and in 1957 in the UK. IIRC, the Nobel prize was joint between
> >> the US and UK inventors.
> >>

> >
> > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...000/index.html
> >
> > None of the 3 people who got the prize for inventing the transistor
> > were either British or working in the UK, either. Not that it means
> > anything.

>
> Yes, it seems that Dummer (working at the Royal Signal Establishment) was
> the person I was thinking of.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit
>
> gives: "The integrated circuit was first conceived by a radar scientist,
> Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (born 1909), working for the Royal Radar
> Establishment of the British Ministry of Defence, and published in
> Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1952. Dummer unsuccessfully attempted to build
> such a circuit in 1956."
>
> Dummer is also mentioned in the Nobel Prize notification:
>
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...000/phyadv.pdf
>
> Cheers,
> David



Hello, David:

Before my previous post, I'd already known that TI had introduced the
IC, during the late 1950's; yet, I went to Wikipedia, to confirm the
exact year. There, I read your above quote, regarding Geoffrey W.A.
Dummer.

Alas, as his "invention" was a failure, why should he be given credit
for it? After all, anybody can "conceive" something, yet actually making
it a reality, is far more difficult.

Dummer was dumber, than Texas Instruments's Jack Kilby, I guess.


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2007
John Turco wrote:
[]
> Hello, David:
>
> Before my previous post, I'd already known that TI had introduced the
> IC, during the late 1950's; yet, I went to Wikipedia, to confirm the
> exact year. There, I read your above quote, regarding Geoffrey W.A.
> Dummer.
>
> Alas, as his "invention" was a failure, why should he be given credit
> for it? After all, anybody can "conceive" something, yet actually
> making it a reality, is far more difficult.
>
> Dummer was dumber, than Texas Instruments's Jack Kilby, I guess.
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>


John,

I suppose it depends whether the idea alone should be given credit, rather
than the successful implementation of the idea. Perhaps if ideas alone
are not enough, there are quite a few credits, including Nobel prizes,
which should be withdrawn? Einstein?

I don't know enough of the details of this particular invention to form an
opinion one way or the other, to be honest.

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Allen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2007
John Turco wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> acl wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 11:15 am, "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-
>>> this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Hello, Allen:
>>>>> The integrated circuit was invented by Texas Instruments, in 1958.
>>>>> Cordially,
>>>>> John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> ... and in 1957 in the UK. IIRC, the Nobel prize was joint between
>>>> the US and UK inventors.
>>>>
>>> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...000/index.html
>>>
>>> None of the 3 people who got the prize for inventing the transistor
>>> were either British or working in the UK, either. Not that it means
>>> anything.

>> Yes, it seems that Dummer (working at the Royal Signal Establishment) was
>> the person I was thinking of.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit
>>
>> gives: "The integrated circuit was first conceived by a radar scientist,
>> Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (born 1909), working for the Royal Radar
>> Establishment of the British Ministry of Defence, and published in
>> Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1952. Dummer unsuccessfully attempted to build
>> such a circuit in 1956."
>>
>> Dummer is also mentioned in the Nobel Prize notification:
>>
>> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...000/phyadv.pdf
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David

>
>
> Hello, David:
>
> Before my previous post, I'd already known that TI had introduced the
> IC, during the late 1950's; yet, I went to Wikipedia, to confirm the
> exact year. There, I read your above quote, regarding Geoffrey W.A.
> Dummer.
>
> Alas, as his "invention" was a failure, why should he be given credit
> for it? After all, anybody can "conceive" something, yet actually making
> it a reality, is far more difficult.
>
> Dummer was dumber, than Texas Instruments's Jack Kilby, I guess.
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

To get credit for an invention, one really should have succeeded in
making a successful example. Otherwise, DaVinci, along with many others,
would get credit for inventing the airplane. Likewise the integrated
circuit; I 'm sure many people had similar ideas, but the execution was
much more difficult and the conception. In the old days, the US Patent
Office required a working model; alas, nowadays they will award a patent
for just about anything a person asks for.
Allen
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2007
Allen wrote:

<heavily edited, for brevity>

> To get credit for an invention, one really should have succeeded in
> making a successful example. Otherwise, DaVinci, along with many others,
> would get credit for inventing the airplane. Likewise the integrated
> circuit; I 'm sure many people had similar ideas, but the execution was
> much more difficult and the conception. In the old days, the US Patent
> Office required a working model; alas, nowadays they will award a patent
> for just about anything a person asks for.
> Allen



Hello, Allen:

Well said!


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: All image stabilization created equal? Ofnuts Digital Photography 3 08-04-2010 06:09 PM
Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization Al Clark Digital Photography 119 12-09-2006 01:30 PM
Long Zooms with Image Stabilization kjk Digital Photography 4 12-28-2003 12:36 PM
Which cameras have image stabilization?? JJVandJMB Digital Photography 18 10-22-2003 03:04 PM
Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization James E Kropp Digital Photography 8 08-02-2003 12:49 AM



Advertisments