I've been cooped up in the house recently (working from home,Ed
bronchitis, and an ear infection - didn't want to go into my office with
a hacking cough). My wife and daughter were off on a pedicure and hair
salon day, so I went out to, as I'd say in the past, "burn some film", shooting street scenes.
Instead, I planned on burning pixels. Had to choose between my retro
high-end digicam (Nikon Coolpix 995) a newish mid-level pocketable
(Pentax MX-1) or a point and shoot Canon. Decided to bring the Pentax
and my phone, a Moto G Stylus with a decent camera. I picked up a
clip-on circular polarizer for it, I shot at a museum with plexiglass covering everything and wanted to remove the reflections.
I don't know if I'm lacking inspiration, just tired, out of practice or
seen it all before in my 'hood, but I ended up spending the afternoon
taking one picture of an alleyway I've shot before - and I took it with
my phone. It came out of the phone nicely, did a little tweaking with a
photo app on the phone, and it's good *enough*.
I picked up a Pixel 8a a few weeks ago, wanted something newer with supposedly one of the better cameras in the Android 'verse. I compared
the two and, while shooting with gcam on both devices couldn't see $400
worth of difference between the two. As much as I thought I wanted a
smaller phone, I missed the larger screen of my moto. I returned it
after a week.
I miss having a camera as a separate device (and miss having a
viewfinder) but I may give up on carrying a camera for a while and see
what develops. Pun intended.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: realitycheckBBS.org -- information is power. (21:4/122)
Don't forget to use a Stop Bath and Fixer.
I picked up a Pixel 8a a few weeks ago, wanted something newer with supposedly one of the better cameras in the Android 'verse. I compared
the two and, while shooting with gcam on both devices couldn't see $400 worth of difference between the two. As much as I thought I wanted a
smaller phone, I missed the larger screen of my moto. I returned it
after a week.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I might be a laser-focused kind of guy, but IMO the reason for picking
a Pixel is because you can run GrapheneOS on it... If I was a camera hardcore and wanted a good camera I would just pick a good camera
myself.
I might be a laser-focused kind of guy, but IMO the reason for picking a Pixel is because you can run GrapheneOS onYup. Best thing you can do if you own a Pixel is load GrapheneOS. If you
Yup. Best thing you can do if you own a Pixel is load GrapheneOS. If you have another android device, see if you can load a AOSP clean image
without any bloat or google-ware.
what a lot of people uses. I used to say you are always going to be frustrated with your smartphone, so buy a cheapo and feel frustrated without breaking bank.
piece of junk you have around in order to try it. Running it is a deliberate choice that requires you to purchase specific hardware. I understand the reasons, but it is still a bummer.
Arelor wrote to zharvek <=-
The issue I find with alternative ROMS is they rarely support budget smartphones right, which is what I used to run most of the time and
what a lot of people uses. I used to say you are always going to be frustrated with your smartphone, so buy a cheapo and feel frustrated without breaking bank.
LineageOS had good support - they built ROMs for my Samsung SIII for *years* after the vendors stopped supporting it. The only reason they stopped was that their build Samsung broke, and they asked for a donation to continue. I don't know if they ever received one, I'd moved on by that point.
That is a choice. I looked up the price of a new pixel, wooooo they
make Apple look cheap. ;)
LineageOS had good support - they built ROMs for my Samsung SIII for
*years* after the vendors stopped supporting it. The only reason they
stopped was that their build Samsung broke, and they asked for a
donation to continue. I don't know if they ever received one, I'd moved
on by that point.
Arelor wrote to Tiny <=-
Yeah, the prices for new flagship phones are retarded. I don't think
such tags are justifiable for general users at all.
While not a flagship phone, I bought a Pixel 8a earlier this summer. I wasn't overly impressed with the camera, and while it was faster than
the Moto, It wasn't worth the extra price to me.
Dunno, if somebody is going to do that he may as well get the cheaper Motorola, because a bad picture of your cupcake is as useful as a good picture of your cupcake.
I certainly feel smartphone cameras are not worth the premium prices people are paying. In fact I am amused because so much smartphone marketing is focused on camera quality. You would think they are selling a professional camera to you instead of a smartphone.
I've had the same thought, and have said basically the same thing, and there are usually people who argue that a phone these days is more than just a phone, and that people actually use the 'phone' feature a lot less than they used to.
Re: Re: Burning pixels
By: Arelor to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Sep 11 2024 04:11 am
I've had the same thought, and have said basically the same thing, and there are usually people who argue that a phone these days is more than just a phone, and that people actually use the 'phone' feature a lot less than they used to.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
I tell my wife that my desktop computer is my all purpose machine.
But since I lost the DSL connection for it and got this cellphone it has become my all purpose machine.
I haven't taken a picture with it yet.
The only social media I do is logging on this BBS and reading echo posts.
I tell my wife that my desktop computer is my all purpose machine.
But since I lost the DSL connection for it and got this cellphone it
has become my all purpose machine.
I haven't taken a picture with it yet.
Hi Ed,
In a message to Nightfox you wrote:
If you want to use the desktop for BBS stuff, just tether it to your cellphone. The feature on the phone you want is "Hotspot" turn it on, set a password
tell your desktop pc to connect to the wifi network you created on the phone and you're online.
That's how I connect when I'm here in the woods.
I average 4 pics a year. Could do without a camera on it to be honest.
Shawn
* SeM. 2.26 * I wasn't picking my nose... I was scratching.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/700)
Since I got this cellphone in January 2024 I have been wanting to use it as a hotspot for my home system.
I'm not wanting to use Wi-Fi because I 'think' Bluetooth would be more Secure after Pairing the phone with my stuff
My big idea is to use a Bluetooth dongle that has a cat-5 Ethernet socket and connect it to the Router WAN output port, thinking I could either of my computers to use the cellphones data connection.
I'm not wanting to use Wi-Fi because I 'think' Bluetooth would be
more Secure after Pairing the phone with my stuff
I used both Scanners to Save Photos and scan other things but never figured out how to do a CAT on what I scanned to make it something
the computer could understand.
Hi Ed,
On <Sat, 13 Sep 24>, you wrote me:
Why? Wifi is pretty secure with the encrytion etc. Besides Ed when
did you store information worth trillians of dollars on your home PC?
Any FBI vans out front your house waiting for you to connect to fidonet?
Please just use wifi, it is secure.
I had it workign once, but I don't believe I ever got it into "text", however my
memory is so bad I may have. LOL
Shawn
* SeM. 2.26 * Documentation - The worst part of programming.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/700)
The FBI could lurk in my area because I have a Amateur Radio License.
What I am MORE afraid of is a vehicle that has a large Transformer in
it driving by and erasing whats on the HDD's in my computers and the Backup HDD's here.
What's bothering me about Wi-Fi is that I never read anything about how to get >Firefox and Thunderbird to send their Output to USB instead of to a Router to >get to the Internet .
Only one of my computers could be used at a time unless there is a way that a >USB Hub could have both of my pc's connect to the USB Wi-Fi dongle.
What I am MORE afraid of is a vehicle that has a large Transformer in it >driving by and erasing whats on the HDD's in my computers and the Backup HDD's >here.
Hi Ed,
On <Sun, 14 Sep 24>, you wrote me:
So they spy on everyone with a radio license? Or just you because you're special?
I suppose if you have all that information the FBI wants they would want
to earase it.
Shawn
P.S. Please seek profesional mental health help.
* SeM. 2.26 * Back up my hard disk? I can't find the reverse switch!
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/700)
I think that Windows would recognize where the internet connection is
coming from and route the traffic to the dongle, where Firefox and Tbird would be none-the-wiser and use what Windows tells them to.
Although I don't know exactly how you have the hub set up to share between multiple PCs, I suspect that each PC would need their own USB wi-fi dongle.
Mike
* SLMR 2.1a * Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily...Emily...
Through the wi-fi? I would guess if they ever tried that, the magnetic
force would be great enough to erase the HDDs regardless of how the PC is connected to the Internet. :D
By
* SLMR 2.1a * Here is a loud announcement... Silence in the studio!!
What's bothering me about Wi-Fi is that I never read anything about how
to get Firefox and Thunderbird to send their Output to USB instead of to
a Router to get to the Internet .
Only one of my computers could be used at a time unless there is a way that a USB Hub could have both of my pc's connect to the USB Wi-Fi
dongle.
On 14 Sep 2024 at 10:33a, Ed Vance pondered and said...
Oh dear. I'm afraid that this is just not how things work.
The short of it is that the Internet is conceptually modeled
as layers; applications like Firefox and Thunderbird "speak" application-level protocols (like HTTP) over transport- and
session-layer protocols (like TCP and SSL/TLS, respectively).
Transport layer protocols like TCP are _usually_ implemented
in the operating system, though there's no physical law of
the universe that requires that. Anyway, TCP then layers on
top of IP, which in turn layers on top of a link-layer
protocol like Ethernet, which layers on top of a physical
layer protocol like 1000Base-T over twisted pair, or 802.11
"WiFi" over an RF link. And that's not counting how any
of the devices that implement physical and link-layer protocols
actually connect to the computer; common modern standards
include PCIe (for high speed devices) and USB (for fast, but
perhaps not _as_ fast, devices).
All of this is to say that the layers between a program like
Firefox and the decision between which link-layer interface
to communicate the traffic it sends and receives on, are designed
for mutual isolation: Firefox doesn't know, or care, what
interface the OS choses to data it sends on; it just seems a
virtual stream abstraction. Similarly, the OS doesn't care
which stream traffic transiting a USB Ethernet interface, WiFi,
Bluetooth, or whatever is associated with; that's all handled
at a higher layer (first IP and then TCP or UDP or whatever).
If you have multiple computers connected to an internal IP
network, they will all have to have unique IP addresses and
routes in order to communicate with the Internet at large.
Although it wasn't initially designed this way, if you are
using IPv4 (which you almost certainly are) for most consumer
situations this means you need some sort of router at the edge
of your home network that will do Network Address Translation,
allowing multiple _internal_ devices to share a single _external_
address (more properly, this is usually done with Port
Network Address Translation, or PNAT). Fortunately, most
commercially available consumer routers have this built in and
do it automatically.
Hope that helps a little bit.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
I've had the same thought, and have said basically the same thing, and there are usually people who argue that a phone these days is more than just a phone, and that people actually use the 'phone' feature a lot
less than they used to.
WHEW!
Thanks, I knew bits of those things but You wrote things in details that
I never got around to learning.
Thanks Again.
Because why would I make a call?
But I've never liked talking over the phone, and barely remember doing so as a child, at this point.
Because why would I make a call?Sometimes you have to.. Sometimes, things like making a doctor appointment, contacting customer service to resolve an issue, etc.
require calling and talking to someone.
Which I'm sure some businesses do intentionally, though I do try to
avoid those businesses.
Tiny wrote to Adept <=-
I just wanted a quote on insurance, I filled in a questionaire online,
in good faith I even provided correct information just in case I was interested in the quote.
All I can say is what a mistake, within 3 mins my phone was ringing and pushy sales people started in. I was honest and told the first one I wasn't interested and their price was not competive with my existing
plan.
Same thing - calls within minutes, pushy annoying sales people trying
to get me to commit NOW.
And I got a hell of a deal, right at the bottom of the interest rates before the rates went up. Unfortunately for him, I won't be
refinancing *this* loan!
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,042 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 02:22:21 |
| Calls: | 500,920 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 109,372 |
| D/L today: |
18,170 files (2,712M bytes) |
| Messages: | 305,083 |
| Posted today: | 7 |