On 2023-01-04 18:46, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:19:13 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 17:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:59:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-03 13:58, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pixel peeking).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could vote on, camera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just me, I know many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer-grade point and shoot cameras, camera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality is important for many users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photo with so many pixels that you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professional print the image as a full-size
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count went way past the usefulness range for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average person years ago and is now simply a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device they don't really need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of something that is too far away to fill the frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Most phone and proper cameras already have some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree of physical zoom, especially these these days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the software zoom is rather pointless sinc it only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guesses what the missing pixels should be).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, utterly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us posit three phones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One with a 640x480 and no optical zoom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One with 640x480 and a 2x optical zoom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And one with a modern phone's 8064x6048 pixel sensor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with no optical zoom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And let us imagine that we are interested in taking a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture of something that only occupies a small
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100x100 are of the first phone's sensor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the 2x optical zoom camera, you've now got an image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 200x200 pixels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But on the modern phone's sensor, you get an image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 1,260x1,260 pixels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready to throw my wife's phone into the Merced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> River since her picture-taking was taking so much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed very little over the 40+ years we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going there, though we have gotten much older.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole day without taking a picture of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of anything in my entire life. The only times I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken any photo would for someone else using their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you every memorable detail of your life is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remembered with utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with
>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>  But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered
>>>>>>>>>>>> with utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>>>>>  Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>>>>>  But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>>>>>  Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>  Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>>>>>  It wasn't even a question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>  Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>>>>>  There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse
>>>>>>> for a bullshit artist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question
>>>>>> mark looks like.
>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>  So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>>>
>>>> So you snipped the last half of that sentence...
>>>  Nope, what I snipped was a new sentence, stupid.
>>
>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>
> Irrelevant to your stupidity.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:01:43 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 18:46, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:19:13 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 17:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:59:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-03 13:58, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pixel peeking).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could vote on, camera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality would be near the bottom. But that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just me, I know many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer-grade point and shoot cameras, camera
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality is important for many users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photo with so many pixels that you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professional print the image as a full-size
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count went way past the usefulness range for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average person years ago and is now simply a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device they don't really need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of something that is too far away to fill the frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most phone and proper cameras already have some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree of physical zoom, especially these these days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the software zoom is rather pointless sinc it only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guesses what the missing pixels should be).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, utterly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us posit three phones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One with a 640x480 and no optical zoom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One with 640x480 and a 2x optical zoom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And one with a modern phone's 8064x6048 pixel sensor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with no optical zoom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And let us imagine that we are interested in taking a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture of something that only occupies a small
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100x100 are of the first phone's sensor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the 2x optical zoom camera, you've now got an image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 200x200 pixels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But on the modern phone's sensor, you get an image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 1,260x1,260 pixels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready to throw my wife's phone into the Merced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> River since her picture-taking was taking so much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed very little over the 40+ years we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going there, though we have gotten much older.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole day without taking a picture of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of anything in my entire life. The only times I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken any photo would for someone else using their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you every memorable detail of your life is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remembered with utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't even a question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>>>>>> There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse
>>>>>>>> for a bullshit artist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question
>>>>>>> mark looks like.
>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it
>>>>>>> appeared:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>> So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you snipped the last half of that sentence...
>>>> Nope, what I snipped was a new sentence, stupid.
>>>
>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>> Irrelevant to your stupidity.

On 2023-01-04 19:38, chop wrote:

>>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>>>  Irrelevant to your stupidity.
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Yeah... ...you've lost.

Now try to be a man about it.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:41:23 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 19:38, chop wrote:
>
>>>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>>>> Irrelevant to your stupidity.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 19:58, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:41:23 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 19:38, chop wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>>>>>  Irrelevant to your stupidity.
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where
> it belongs>

So you can't handle what a 2 year old could handle.

Got it!

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where
> it belongs>

You couldn't make your losing more clear, loser.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Go ahead.

Lose harder if you must.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:02:02 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 22:29, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:02:02 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

We get it:

You're a loser and that is literally your cleverest line.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:31:56 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 22:29, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:02:02 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:

>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
>> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
>> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now
>> simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they
>> don't really need.
>
>
> Utterly wrong.
>
> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that is
> too far away to fill the frame.

Only if the optics are up to it.

Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at each
pixel.

Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras, often
full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-01-06 12:47, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>
>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new
>>> device they don't really need.
>>
>>
>> Utterly wrong.
>>
>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>
> Only if the optics are up to it.

Well that's blindly obvious.

>
> Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at each
> pixel.

Perhaps, but you imagine that there aren't continual improvements in
this area?

>
> Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras, often
> full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.

That last isn't even a parseable sentence.

But the argument you're advancing remains specious.

By your argument, you should use a 4x3 pixel sensor.

Each pixel can therefore be exquisite, right?

On 2023-01-06 16:10, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-06 12:47, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a
>>>> new device they don't really need.
>>>
>>>
>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>
>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>>
>> Only if the optics are up to it.
>
> Well that's blindly obvious.
>
>>
>> Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at
>> each pixel.
>
> Perhaps, but you imagine that there aren't continual improvements in
> this area?
>
>>
>> Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras,
>> often full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.
>
> That last isn't even a parseable sentence.

For lower IQ's, you're possibly right.
>
> But the argument you're advancing remains specious.
>
> By your argument, you should use a 4x3 pixel sensor.

Not at all what I said. That you're dragging it somewhere else seems to
be par for you.

>
> Each pixel can therefore be exquisite, right?

Only you would contort things that way.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee