Do not buy gadgets having proprietary batteries

tony cooper wrote:

> Scharf may come across as a bit strange, but the obsessive stalking
> shown in your post comes across as just as strange.

I'm flattered that he spends so much time reading about me, but he's not
my type, LOL. It's not easy having web sites in the top rated spots;
there's always someone jealous and upset about it.

When you use "I'm Feeling Lucky" on Google and the site that comes up is
a non-commercial, informative site, it means that thousands of others
value informative unbiased sites over commercial sites that are trying
to sell them something.

"Bicycle Lighting" > I'm Feeling Lucky
"Bicycle Coffee" > I'm Feeling Lucky
"NiMH versus Li-Ion" > I'm Feeling Lucky
"Adding Cages" > I'm Feeling Lucky

I have a few sites that are only #2 or #3 in the ratings, but we're
working on those!

---

› See More: Do not buy gadgets having proprietary batteries

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:41:31 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:

> "Dr. Digital is Dr. Sumner C. Roberts, a professional photographer who
> has been shooting professionally since 1980. He has photographed over
> 800 weddings and other life events, as well as doing studio photography.
> He has written articles for numerous magazines on the subject of how to
> select a digital camera. Dr. Digital lives in Zephyrhills (like the
> water), Florida."
>
>
> Yes, that is 'Steven M. Scharf'. Would you buy anything from this man?
> Click on his affiliate links? Believe anything he posts?

Have you noticed any of the many similarities shared by SMS and
Vern/Biddy, r.p.d.'s sock puppet troll? Most of the sock puppet's
many aliases are recognizable before reading its replies or
examining the headers. "Dr. Sumner C. Roberts" could easily be
another of them. SMS and his alter egos tout themselves as the
Earth's ultimate authorities and the leading experts of whatever
they're currently discussing. Many of the sock puppet trolls
initially referred to their "award winning photos", that strangely,
would never be allowed to be seen by anyone.

About 1 1/2 years ago a suspiciously mean spirited SMS ally
appeared in the newsgroup named Tom Delaney. He posted a link to a
poorly written, error filled PDF file providing battery information
for students taking an undergraduate course in Mechanical Design.
SMS performed an elaborate dance asking "Tom" for permission to use
the link to this file. It's still included in his batterydata
website (even though the link is no longer valid) to support yet
another anti-alkaline bogus claim which this time is that if
alkaline batteries are ever used at all, they immediately start
degrading and their "long shelf life is history".

I replied to "Tom" with :

> Are you really who you claim to be? In your zeal to defend SMS
> and attack me, you appear more like a hired gun or friend of SMS.
> In fact, since your name hasn't appeared in this newsgroup for more
> than the last couple of days, you seem eerily reminiscent of the
> many attack-sock puppets that have been plaguing this newsgroup in
> recent weeks. In fact, I think that the first message you posted
> here called my Sock Puppet Troll List "stupid", and asked me to
> ignore and leave the sock puppets alone. And both you and SMS have
> a fondness for searching Google Groups to get your ammunition. So
> if you really have no relationship with SMS, that will only be borne
> out over time based on the body of your messages. Your credibility
> might also get a boost if you're able to find the flaws in many of
> SMS's bogus statements. If you make no attempt to do this, your
> identity will remain highly suspect.

Instead of disputing the charge of being a sock puppet, "Tom"
vanished. My theory now is that SMS may well be the person
responsible for most or all of the posts from the anti-DSLR sock
puppets, and it would be unwise to draw attention to any association
of "SMS" with sock puppets, so "Tom Delaney" had to disappear, and
quickly. Here's one similarity between SMS and the sock puppets.
In a recent reply in this thread SMS wrote about you :

> I'm flattered that he spends so much time reading about me, but he's not
> my type, LOL.

When the anti-DSLR trolls are caught in misstatements or caught
providing bogus information, they invariably respond with "LOL" to
avoid having to defend their claims. They also are very fond of
providing long enumerated lists containing technically plausible but
bogus statements. When their errors are pointed out, they both
ignore the corrections and continue repeating the same bogus claims.

Here's one of them, and it's a real doozy. In this ng as well as
on his batterydata website, SMS attempted to disparage alkaline
batteries with this statement :

> I didn't realize just how bad alkaline batteries were until I lent an
> AA powered camera (Canon A570IS) to a relative that tried to use
> alkaline AA batteries while on a cruise. She reported getting about
> ten pictures per set of batteries. When I inquired if this was normal
> on rec.photo.digital I got a slew of responses and every one of them
> reported similar results with alkaline batteries.

Never mind that this is completely untrue, and that the A570IS is
one of the better cameras for getting long life from alkaline
batteries. The A570IS can be counted on to be good for hundreds of
shots, even if many of them are taken using the flash. Anyone
willing to check will also find that he fabricated the claim that
"every one of them reported similar results with alkaline
batteries". If the A570IS's battery life is as bad as he portrays
it, it's unbelievable that several months later he would post
several ng messages recommending the A570IS because Sears was
selling it at a fairly good price, about $150, IIRC. SMS said that
when the "female relative" returned his camera, he'd check its
battery performance. Many months have passed, and nada.

If there's an explanation for why SMS would create the many
anti-DSLR sock puppet posts, it may be that it's revenge, payback
for the newsgroup that is the main debunker of his bogus battery
myths. He complains on several of his websites that the reason for
their existence is to combat what he calls the misinformation posted
here in the newsgroup, conveniently forgetting that several of them
(such as the batterydata website) predated his outing. That he is
almost as fanatical a DSLR supporter as the sock puppet trolls are
P&S supporters is irrelevant. In fact this seeming difference in
views conveniently obscures his connection with the sock puppet
trolls. There have recently been several threads started here by a
poster with no history in the ng, stating that the ng has been so
damaged by the trolls that we should abandon the ng and find other
places to post. This is precisely what SMS would want, so I remain
suspicious of these posts, and everyone should be wary of assuming
that his statements are anything but highly biased and often bogus.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:10:47 -0500, ASAAR <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:41:31 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Digital is Dr. Sumner C. Roberts, a professional photographer who
>> has been shooting professionally since 1980. He has photographed over
>> 800 weddings and other life events, as well as doing studio photography.
>> He has written articles for numerous magazines on the subject of how to
>> select a digital camera. Dr. Digital lives in Zephyrhills (like the
>> water), Florida."
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is 'Steven M. Scharf'. Would you buy anything from this man?
>> Click on his affiliate links? Believe anything he posts?
>
> Have you noticed any of the many similarities shared by SMS and
>Vern/Biddy, r.p.d.'s sock puppet troll? Most of the sock puppet's
>many aliases are recognizable before reading its replies or
>examining the headers. "Dr. Sumner C. Roberts" could easily be
>another of them. SMS and his alter egos tout themselves as the
>Earth's ultimate authorities and the leading experts of whatever
>they're currently discussing. Many of the sock puppet trolls
>initially referred to their "award winning photos", that strangely,
>would never be allowed to be seen by anyone.
>
> About 1 1/2 years ago a suspiciously mean spirited SMS ally
>appeared in the newsgroup named Tom Delaney. He posted a link to a
>poorly written, error filled PDF file providing battery information
>for students taking an undergraduate course in Mechanical Design.
>SMS performed an elaborate dance asking "Tom" for permission to use
>the link to this file. It's still included in his batterydata
>website (even though the link is no longer valid) to support yet
>another anti-alkaline bogus claim which this time is that if
>alkaline batteries are ever used at all, they immediately start
>degrading and their "long shelf life is history".
>
> I replied to "Tom" with :
>
>> Are you really who you claim to be? In your zeal to defend SMS
>> and attack me, you appear more like a hired gun or friend of SMS.
>> In fact, since your name hasn't appeared in this newsgroup for more
>> than the last couple of days, you seem eerily reminiscent of the
>> many attack-sock puppets that have been plaguing this newsgroup in
>> recent weeks. In fact, I think that the first message you posted
>> here called my Sock Puppet Troll List "stupid", and asked me to
>> ignore and leave the sock puppets alone. And both you and SMS have
>> a fondness for searching Google Groups to get your ammunition. So
>> if you really have no relationship with SMS, that will only be borne
>> out over time based on the body of your messages. Your credibility
>> might also get a boost if you're able to find the flaws in many of
>> SMS's bogus statements. If you make no attempt to do this, your
>> identity will remain highly suspect.
>
> Instead of disputing the charge of being a sock puppet, "Tom"
>vanished. My theory now is that SMS may well be the person
>responsible for most or all of the posts from the anti-DSLR sock
>puppets, and it would be unwise to draw attention to any association
>of "SMS" with sock puppets, so "Tom Delaney" had to disappear, and
>quickly. Here's one similarity between SMS and the sock puppets.
>In a recent reply in this thread SMS wrote about you :
>
>> I'm flattered that he spends so much time reading about me, but he's not
>> my type, LOL.
>
> When the anti-DSLR trolls are caught in misstatements or caught
>providing bogus information, they invariably respond with "LOL" to
>avoid having to defend their claims. They also are very fond of
>providing long enumerated lists containing technically plausible but
>bogus statements. When their errors are pointed out, they both
>ignore the corrections and continue repeating the same bogus claims.
>
> Here's one of them, and it's a real doozy. In this ng as well as
>on his batterydata website, SMS attempted to disparage alkaline
>batteries with this statement :
>
>> I didn't realize just how bad alkaline batteries were until I lent an
>> AA powered camera (Canon A570IS) to a relative that tried to use
>> alkaline AA batteries while on a cruise. She reported getting about
>> ten pictures per set of batteries. When I inquired if this was normal
>> on rec.photo.digital I got a slew of responses and every one of them
>> reported similar results with alkaline batteries.
>
> Never mind that this is completely untrue, and that the A570IS is
>one of the better cameras for getting long life from alkaline
>batteries. The A570IS can be counted on to be good for hundreds of
>shots, even if many of them are taken using the flash. Anyone
>willing to check will also find that he fabricated the claim that
>"every one of them reported similar results with alkaline
>batteries". If the A570IS's battery life is as bad as he portrays
>it, it's unbelievable that several months later he would post
>several ng messages recommending the A570IS because Sears was
>selling it at a fairly good price, about $150, IIRC. SMS said that
>when the "female relative" returned his camera, he'd check its
>battery performance. Many months have passed, and nada.
>
> If there's an explanation for why SMS would create the many
>anti-DSLR sock puppet posts, it may be that it's revenge, payback
>for the newsgroup that is the main debunker of his bogus battery
>myths. He complains on several of his websites that the reason for
>their existence is to combat what he calls the misinformation posted
>here in the newsgroup, conveniently forgetting that several of them
>(such as the batterydata website) predated his outing. That he is
>almost as fanatical a DSLR supporter as the sock puppet trolls are
>P&S supporters is irrelevant. In fact this seeming difference in
>views conveniently obscures his connection with the sock puppet
>trolls. There have recently been several threads started here by a
>poster with no history in the ng, stating that the ng has been so
>damaged by the trolls that we should abandon the ng and find other
>places to post. This is precisely what SMS would want, so I remain
>suspicious of these posts, and everyone should be wary of assuming
>that his statements are anything but highly biased and often bogus.


Dear Resident-Troll,

Your post is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:



1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:41:31 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> SMS gloated:
>>> OMG, how did my humble site become the #1 Google rated site!
>> Read on... My apologies for this off-topic crosspost, but just to cover
>> all the groups SMS is polluting... here are a few repeated notes for
>> search engines and anyone tempted to take SMS too seriously, or visit
>> his famous, highly accoladed websites..
>>
>> A quick look around shows the following facts - if you can be bothered
>> reading it, make your own judgment about this person, his real level of
>> experience, and his morals.
>
> Scharf may come across as a bit strange, but the obsessive stalking
> shown in your post comes across as just as strange. I can't imagine
> doing that much research on someone whose postings don't affect you
> and can be skipped with a single keystroke.
>
> I live within an hour and half's drive of Zephyrhills. For a suitable
> fee, I'll drive over there research whether or not "Dr Roberts"
> exists. The fee would be minimal; gas money, at most. I'm sure I'd
> enjoy the outing because of the photo opportunities along the way.
>
> I'd make it a day-trip and takes some shots from Bok Tower, try for
> some character shots of strawberry field migrant workers, and take
> some shots of the antique airplanes at "The Fantasy of Flight"
> attraction.
>
> I may not add to your voluminous data base on Scharf, but you seem to
> be interested in the slightest details.

.... "whose postings don't affect you"..?

If you read through the details, you might have noticed that I was named
and 'quoted' on his site as a 'supporter' and provider of 'accolades'.
What I said about his site, in fairly obvious sarcasm, was this:
> I'm certainly impressed, even before I read the content... I love bland
> recommendations without supporting information and samples, and little
> acknowledgment of different needs. The only things missing are the
> Google ads and a blog...

What he 'quoted' was this:
"I'm certainly impressed." - Mark Thomas

Hmm. Yes, I said that, but taken a little out of context, perhaps? (O:
When I asked him, relatively civilly, to explain his actions and to
publically admit it was his website he simply ignored me, but then he
changed the names on the site (including his own to 'Dr Roberts') and
the 'quote' is now from 'Mark Thomasville'. Why did he do that, do you
think?

So I took twenty minutes or so to look up a few details. I found he had
a history of disrupting many newsgroups, including this one and others
on bicycling, Saturn autos, cellphones and more.

I'm sure he was just trolling and having a little fun, BUT his sites are
often spammed in all seriousness, they are *not* 'just informational',
and I thought it was time some of his true colours were shown.

I don't particularly like this type of usenet denizen and I prefer them
to be exposed to scrutiny. Call it obsessive if you wish. But the
posting was marked OT and was simply a gathering of facts. If SMS
wishes to dispute them, he may, and anyone else can make their own
judgment. And if they search on Mr Scharf, they will be better informed...

I greatly appreciate your offer to find out more, but I don't think
there is too much doubt about who Dr. Roberts is. (O:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:20:05 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:41:31 +1000, Mark Thomas
>> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scharf may come across as a bit strange, but the obsessive stalking
>> shown in your post comes across as just as strange. I can't imagine
>> doing that much research on someone whose postings don't affect you
>> and can be skipped with a single keystroke.
>>
>> I live within an hour and half's drive of Zephyrhills. For a suitable
>> fee, I'll drive over there research whether or not "Dr Roberts"
>> exists. The fee would be minimal; gas money, at most. I'm sure I'd
>> enjoy the outing because of the photo opportunities along the way.
>>
>> I'd make it a day-trip and takes some shots from Bok Tower, try for
>> some character shots of strawberry field migrant workers, and take
>> some shots of the antique airplanes at "The Fantasy of Flight"
>> attraction.
>>
>> I may not add to your voluminous data base on Scharf, but you seem to
>> be interested in the slightest details.
>
>... "whose postings don't affect you"..?

>If you read through the details, you might have noticed that I was named
>and 'quoted' on his site as a 'supporter' and provider of 'accolades'.
>What I said about his site, in fairly obvious sarcasm, was this:
>> I'm certainly impressed, even before I read the content... I love bland
>> recommendations without supporting information and samples, and little
>> acknowledgment of different needs. The only things missing are the
>> Google ads and a blog...

So, were you affected? Did it make some difference in your life? If
it did, I suggest you are taking Usenet far too seriously.

For Mark Thomas to be truly affected, it would require that peers of
Mark Thomas now view Mark Thomas differently because of this
reference. Someone thinking "My God! Mark is impressed at this!
Let's not invite him over for tea and butter biscuits anymore."

Dunno about you, but the mention wouldn't be worth 20 minutes to me.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:43:51 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

> So, were you affected? Did it make some difference in your life? If
> it did, I suggest you are taking Usenet far too seriously.
>
> For Mark Thomas to be truly affected, it would require that peers of
> Mark Thomas now view Mark Thomas differently because of this
> reference. Someone thinking "My God! Mark is impressed at this!
> Let's not invite him over for tea and butter biscuits anymore."
>
> Dunno about you, but the mention wouldn't be worth 20 minutes to me.

Compare Mark's posts to SMS's. One posts what he believes to be
true. The other often fabricates self-serving facts and is far more
disruptive. Do you recall his repeated attempts to get newsgroup
readers to adopt his kill-file filters? They'd primarily silence
those that were on to SMS's shenanigans and keep others from being
informed of same. Have Mark Thomas's posts affected you? Have they
made a difference in your life? Trying to squelch the service that
he's providing to others in the newsgroup shows that you may be
taking Usenet far too seriously. That you aren't posting complaints
to SMS about his many misleading and deceptive posts (unless I've
missed them) shows something too. As a charitable interpretation
I'd suggest doing some homework before shooting the messenger.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:14:37 -0500, ASAAR <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:43:51 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> So, were you affected? Did it make some difference in your life? If
>> it did, I suggest you are taking Usenet far too seriously.
>>
>> For Mark Thomas to be truly affected, it would require that peers of
>> Mark Thomas now view Mark Thomas differently because of this
>> reference. Someone thinking "My God! Mark is impressed at this!
>> Let's not invite him over for tea and butter biscuits anymore."
>>
>> Dunno about you, but the mention wouldn't be worth 20 minutes to me.
>
> Compare Mark's posts to SMS's. One posts what he believes to be
>true. The other often fabricates self-serving facts and is far more
>disruptive. Do you recall his repeated attempts to get newsgroup
>readers to adopt his kill-file filters? They'd primarily silence
>those that were on to SMS's shenanigans and keep others from being
>informed of same. Have Mark Thomas's posts affected you? Have they
>made a difference in your life? Trying to squelch the service that
>he's providing to others in the newsgroup shows that you may be
>taking Usenet far too seriously. That you aren't posting complaints
>to SMS about his many misleading and deceptive posts (unless I've
>missed them) shows something too. As a charitable interpretation
>I'd suggest doing some homework before shooting the messenger.

If you pin your shorts to a tree, and turn slowly in one direction,
they may become untwisted.

I'm not comparing the posts, and I'm certainly not trying to squelch
Mark's mission in life. I'm just somewhat amazed at the time and
effort he's put into digging up all that information.

And, no, I'm not posting complaints about SMS. I'm a believer in just
clicking through the dross. Mark actually aids and abets.
Recognition to a troll is like photosynthesis to a plant: it makes
them thrive and grow. Mark's providing recognition.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:20:59 GMT, JT's Keeper
<[email protected]> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I live within an hour and half's drive of Zephyrhills. For a suitable
>> fee, I'll drive over there research whether or not "Dr Roberts"
>> exists. The fee would be minimal; gas money, at most. I'm sure I'd
>> enjoy the outing because of the photo opportunities along the way.
>>
>
>I've got relatives in Zephyrhills all it takes is a phone call... IIRC,
>however SMS gets his online access from the Dallas, TX area...at least
>that was what the IP pointed at anyway.
>
>> I'd make it a day-trip and takes some shots from Bok Tower, try for
>> some character shots of strawberry field migrant workers, and take
>> some shots of the antique airplanes at "The Fantasy of Flight"
>> attraction.
>>
>
>One of the higher hills is Le Heup Hill (Fort King Rd.) at about 240+
>Feet. The Dade City Court House, and indeed downtown Dade City are nice
>as well. OTOH, you could always visit the ocean because no one is ever
>less than 60 or so miles from it, no matter where you go in Florida. ;-)
>

We watched the launch tonight from here in Orlando. We'd gone out to
dinner, and watched it from a parking lot. Just a blaze of fiery
light in the sky, but impressive nonetheless.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:28:43 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

> If you pin your shorts to a tree, and turn slowly in one direction,
> they may become untwisted.

It'll work just as well to untwist the kinks in your mind. You
seem to have a strange obsession of your own and a theory about how
to deal with trolls that while it may help with the run of the mill
variety, never has and never will help in dealing with SMS.


> I'm not comparing the posts, and I'm certainly not trying to squelch
> Mark's mission in life. I'm just somewhat amazed at the time and
> effort he's put into digging up all that information.

So be amazed. But all of the time and effort he's put in so far
is but a mole hill compared to SMS's mountain of work needed to
create so many websites and to push them in so many newsgroups for
so many years. That's far more amazing, and would be commendable if
only he wasn't so devious and dishonest.


> And, no, I'm not posting complaints about SMS. I'm a believer in just
> clicking through the dross. Mark actually aids and abets.
> Recognition to a troll is like photosynthesis to a plant: it makes
> them thrive and grow. Mark's providing recognition.

You may think that Mark aids and abets SMS, but you're sadly
mistaken. SMS is what he is, and when his critics get to him,
instead of making him thrive and grow (by spurring him to post even
more) his M.O. is to killfile the most effective critics continuing
to post as if they never existed. Your theory is much more valid
and can actually help when it comes to the dealing with the
anti-DSLR sock puppet trolls. Ironically valid, if as suspected,
SMS has his hands in those socks.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:50:48 -0500, ASAAR <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:28:43 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> If you pin your shorts to a tree, and turn slowly in one direction,
>> they may become untwisted.
>
> It'll work just as well to untwist the kinks in your mind. You
>seem to have a strange obsession of your own and a theory about how
>to deal with trolls that while it may help with the run of the mill
>variety, never has and never will help in dealing with SMS.
>
>
>> I'm not comparing the posts, and I'm certainly not trying to squelch
>> Mark's mission in life. I'm just somewhat amazed at the time and
>> effort he's put into digging up all that information.
>
> So be amazed. But all of the time and effort he's put in so far
>is but a mole hill compared to SMS's mountain of work needed to
>create so many websites and to push them in so many newsgroups for
>so many years. That's far more amazing, and would be commendable if
>only he wasn't so devious and dishonest.

The difference is that Mark has a history of reasonable posts that
contribute to the topic. SMS has a history of bouncing off the walls.
It is amazing, to me, when Mark turns internet sleuth, but not amazing
to me when SMS or the P&S Idiot-Boy goes off the rails.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

> We watched the launch tonight from here in Orlando. We'd gone out to
> dinner, and watched it from a parking lot. Just a blaze of fiery
> light in the sky, but impressive nonetheless.

When I lived in South Florida, we'd go out to the beach to watch the
night launches. You could still see it clearly from 200 miles away. Very
impressive.

Now go climb Mount Dora.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:21:33 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
wrote:

|>source: http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadge...8-10/double-ok
|>
|>I bet the ’80s was a good decade for Energizer, Duracell and their
|>ilk. I mean, it was a good decade for sharkskin, too, but the ’80s had
|>to be the absolute peak for these battery makers. Suddenly, it seemed
|>like everything required portable juice: that new-fangled wireless TV
|>remote, the Walkman, my futuristic calculator watch and, of course,
|>all of those awesomely high-tech electronic toys like Simon (which
|>actually had its launch party at Studio 54!).
|>
|>Well, Energizer’s mascot might not have changed since then, but times
|>sure have. Today, I can’t even count the number of portable electronic
|>gadgets I own—each of them requiring its own on-the-go power source.
|>And yet, I probably buy fewer than 10 batteries per year. Even then
|>I’m only buying them for my two TV remotes, smoke alarm and flashlight—
|>things that haven’t changed much since the ’80s.
|>
|>Nowadays, proprietary batteries are forced upon us by the
|>manufacturers of the very devices we need them for. What’s worse,
|>these batteries are in many cases impossible to replace without
|>performing major surgery on your gadget’s delicate innards (ahem,
|>Apple). While this is quite the cozy and convenient situation for
|>manufacturers, I can’t help but feel screwed. And I don’t like feeling
|>screwed…
|>
|>Where’s the beef? C’mon, that should be obvious. Anyone who’s ever
|>traveled from Point A to B knows the misery of lugging around the
|>cable salad of different proprietary chargers for a laptop, cell
|>phone, digital camera, iPod and portable gaming unit. I roll up and
|>pack each and every one of these chargers with me on even the briefest
|>of excursions; I’m sure you do too. We’ve all been there. We’ve all
|>had a gadget die on us and not had its charger on hand. For me, it
|>wasn’t as tragic a scenario as having my digital camera conk out on
|>vacation, but it was painful nonetheless. I recently traveled to
|>Europe and, in the rush to get to the airport, neglected to pack my
|>iPod charger. So, while I rocked all the way to Heathrow, the flight
|>back was far less enjoyable. What were my options, after all? I could
|>have gone without, or I could have purchased a new charger. For iPod
|>owners, that’s now a two-part kick in gut: the USB cable, plus the USB-
|>to-power-outlet thingamajig. That’s a £40 expenditure at the apple.com/
|>uk store, so it would have cost me about $80. No thanks.
|>
|>Some time in the early part of this decade I owned a digital camera by
|>Olympus that accepted standard batteries. If the battery ran out on me
|>during a trip, I could buy a new one at any drug store and be on my
|>way. That’s a right I’d like back. If my iPod dies, I shouldn’t have
|>to wait until I get home or near a power outlet to use it again. If my
|>cell phone sputters out while traveling, I shouldn’t be forced to
|>locate a Best Buy or Verizon store in order to shell out a new
|>charger. Why have we accepted this completely unnecessary
|>inconvenience as a fact of life?
|>
|>I saw an ad recently for Energizer’s new Ultimate Lithium batteries,
|>which are designed specifically for digital devices. Duracell has
|>something similar called PowerPix, which is a line geared for cameras.
|>Panasonic makes the gadget-friendly EVOLTA. Problem solved, right?
|>Wrong. I can’t find more than a handful of products that actually use
|>these batteries. Energizer’s site lists a few Nikon cameras, a
|>Motorola Bluetooth headset, a GPS unit from Bushnell and some LEGO
|>robots. Duracell’s site doesn’t bother listing anything at all, and
|>Panasonic’s EVOLTA site only goes so far as to show a remote-
|>controlled car and a no-name digital camera, both of which I suspect
|>are stock photography. Typing a hundred variations of “AA batteries
|>portable electronics” into Google is a completely fruitless endeavor.
|>
|>It’s too bad these battery makers have close to no support from the
|>electronics industry—but it’s understandable why. Electronics
|>manufacturers make boatloads forcing us to buy their chargers and
|>replacement batteries, which they have a convenient monopoly on. Plus,
|>proprietary batteries are essentially custom made for the gadgets
|>they’re powering, which is why our electronic toys have continued to
|>shrink in size over the years. Think about how bloated your iPhone
|>would be if it had to accommodate a chamber for two AA bullets.
|>Energizer and Duracell could easily make a universal slim-profile
|>battery and make it available everywhere. But, what incentive would
|>there be for gadget manufacturers to make their products work with it?
|>
|>Sadly, our power liberation won’t come without standardization, and
|>standardization won’t come without legislation. Without laws forcing
|>manufacturers to make their products compatible with a standard
|>battery size, this notion of mine will remain forever a pipe dream. So
|>here it is: I’m calling for a new battery size—let’s call it “G” for
|>Grouse. It’s super slim, it’s available in both rechargeable and
|>disposable flavors, it’s available anywhere you can buy toilet paper
|>and it’s compatible with all digital cameras, cell phones, handheld
|>media players and portable game consoles. And because it’s
|>manufactured by different vendors, it’s affordable.
|>
|>Am I really talking about battery legislation here? I am indeed, and
|>doing my best not to come off as old-fartish as Andy Rooney while
|>doing so. What do you think – do you agree with me, or did I just
|>waste 15 minutes of your life on an absurdly inane issue? Let me hear
|>it!


I think some of that planned obsolescence is STILL called Jap Crap,
there has been proprietary parts in all things since the invention of the
Dollar and Goofy Marketing procedures....

It's not just the array of cheap proprietary aftermarket batteries
and expensive proprietary name brands, but the *proprietary trick* has been
worn out for decades, and we still stoop to the limited catch-22 when buying
a needed proprietary product....

The deluge of battery types for different proprietary applications,
might have started with the invention of the myriads gun bullets, calibers,
and proprietary applications (guns) they are used in....
--
(You don't always NEED a Gun, but when you NEED one,
You NEED one REALLY...REALLY BAD)
Triad Productions-Fantalla~EZine~ParaNovel
_^__________________________________/\__
|||~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\ \/ O )
|||~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\\\\\\\\ \/_ /
|~~~~~~~~-___________*~~\_______________\
!-----------|___81133------~~~~~~~~~~(0---- )-----/
\ /~~~~~~\ ~\ )--- \_ /(____\\
|| | | \ __________\\
\\_____ /___/ _()\_______\\
\-------------------\\________\\
\\___ ($)__\\
\\_________\\
\\ _________\\
\\__________\\
\\____~()~___//
\\~~====~~\\
\\____#____\\
(http://*remove*members.fortunecity.c.../htmlconc.html)

Bob wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:21:33 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> |>source: http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadge...8-10/double-ok
> |>
> |>I bet the ’80s was a good decade for Energizer, Duracell and their
> |>ilk. I mean, it was a good decade for sharkskin, too, but the ’80s had
> |>to be the absolute peak for these battery makers. Suddenly, it seemed
> |>like everything required portable juice: that new-fangled wireless TV
> |>remote, the Walkman, my futuristic calculator watch and, of course,
> |>all of those awesomely high-tech electronic toys like Simon (which
> |>actually had its launch party at Studio 54!).
> |>
> |>Well, Energizer’s mascot might not have changed since then, but times
> |>sure have. Today, I can’t even count the number of portable electronic
> |>gadgets I own—each of them requiring its own on-the-go power source.
> |>And yet, I probably buy fewer than 10 batteries per year. Even then
> |>I’m only buying them for my two TV remotes, smoke alarm and flashlight—
> |>things that haven’t changed much since the ’80s.
> |>
> |>Nowadays, proprietary batteries are forced upon us by the
> |>manufacturers of the very devices we need them for. What’s worse,
> |>these batteries are in many cases impossible to replace without
> |>performing major surgery on your gadget’s delicate innards (ahem,
> |>Apple). While this is quite the cozy and convenient situation for
> |>manufacturers, I can’t help but feel screwed. And I don’t like feeling
> |>screwed…
> |>
> |>Where’s the beef? C’mon, that should be obvious. Anyone who’s ever
> |>traveled from Point A to B knows the misery of lugging around the
> |>cable salad of different proprietary chargers for a laptop, cell
> |>phone, digital camera, iPod and portable gaming unit. I roll up and
> |>pack each and every one of these chargers with me on even the briefest
> |>of excursions; I’m sure you do too. We’ve all been there. We’veall
> |>had a gadget die on us and not had its charger on hand. For me, it
> |>wasn’t as tragic a scenario as having my digital camera conk out on
> |>vacation, but it was painful nonetheless. I recently traveled to
> |>Europe and, in the rush to get to the airport, neglected to pack my
> |>iPod charger. So, while I rocked all the way to Heathrow, the flight
> |>back was far less enjoyable. What were my options, after all? I could
> |>have gone without, or I could have purchased a new charger. For iPod
> |>owners, that’s now a two-part kick in gut: the USB cable, plus the USB-
> |>to-power-outlet thingamajig. That’s a £40 expenditure at the apple.com/
> |>uk store, so it would have cost me about $80. No thanks.
> |>
> |>Some time in the early part of this decade I owned a digital camera by
> |>Olympus that accepted standard batteries. If the battery ran out on me
> |>during a trip, I could buy a new one at any drug store and be on my
> |>way. That’s a right I’d like back. If my iPod dies, I shouldn’thave
> |>to wait until I get home or near a power outlet to use it again. If my
> |>cell phone sputters out while traveling, I shouldn’t be forced to
> |>locate a Best Buy or Verizon store in order to shell out a new
> |>charger. Why have we accepted this completely unnecessary
> |>inconvenience as a fact of life?
> |>
> |>I saw an ad recently for Energizer’s new Ultimate Lithium batteries,
> |>which are designed specifically for digital devices. Duracell has
> |>something similar called PowerPix, which is a line geared for cameras.
> |>Panasonic makes the gadget-friendly EVOLTA. Problem solved, right?
> |>Wrong. I can’t find more than a handful of products that actually use
> |>these batteries. Energizer’s site lists a few Nikon cameras, a
> |>Motorola Bluetooth headset, a GPS unit from Bushnell and some LEGO
> |>robots. Duracell’s site doesn’t bother listing anything at all, and
> |>Panasonic’s EVOLTA site only goes so far as to show a remote-
> |>controlled car and a no-name digital camera, both of which I suspect
> |>are stock photography. Typing a hundred variations of “AA batteries
> |>portable electronics” into Google is a completely fruitless endeavor.
> |>
> |>It’s too bad these battery makers have close to no support from the
> |>electronics industry—but it’s understandable why. Electronics
> |>manufacturers make boatloads forcing us to buy their chargers and
> |>replacement batteries, which they have a convenient monopoly on. Plus,
> |>proprietary batteries are essentially custom made for the gadgets
> |>they’re powering, which is why our electronic toys have continued to
> |>shrink in size over the years. Think about how bloated your iPhone
> |>would be if it had to accommodate a chamber for two AA bullets.
> |>Energizer and Duracell could easily make a universal slim-profile
> |>battery and make it available everywhere. But, what incentive would
> |>there be for gadget manufacturers to make their products work with it?
> |>
> |>Sadly, our power liberation won’t come without standardization, and
> |>standardization won’t come without legislation. Without laws forcing
> |>manufacturers to make their products compatible with a standard
> |>battery size, this notion of mine will remain forever a pipe dream. So
> |>here it is: I’m calling for a new battery size—let’s call it “G” for
> |>Grouse. It’s super slim, it’s available in both rechargeable and
> |>disposable flavors, it’s available anywhere you can buy toilet paper
> |>and it’s compatible with all digital cameras, cell phones, handheld
> |>media players and portable game consoles. And because it’s
> |>manufactured by different vendors, it’s affordable.
> |>
> |>Am I really talking about battery legislation here? I am indeed, and
> |>doing my best not to come off as old-fartish as Andy Rooney while
> |>doing so. What do you think – do you agree with me, or did I just
> |>waste 15 minutes of your life on an absurdly inane issue? Let me hear
> |>it!
>
>
> I think some of that planned obsolescence is STILL called Jap Crap,
> there has been proprietary parts in all things since the invention of the
> Dollar and Goofy Marketing procedures....
>
> It's not just the array of cheap proprietary aftermarket batteries
> and expensive proprietary name brands, but the *proprietary trick* has been
> worn out for decades, and we still stoop to the limited catch-22 when buying
> a needed proprietary product....
>
> The deluge of battery types for different proprietary applications,
> might have started with the invention of the myriads gun bullets, calibers,
> and proprietary applications (guns) they are used in....