Photos on TV

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sometime ago I asked how I could show photos on TV other than using the
camera. Some responded by saying the modern DVD/VCR would do it. Someone
responded saying that there was a $30 gadget that was pretty slick. I saved
that info but later lost it due to some computer problems. Would that
individual be so kind as to help me out again with the name of the item?
Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:S7%vd.5247$jn.4191@lakeread06...
> Sometime ago I asked how I could show photos on TV other than using the
> camera. Some responded by saying the modern DVD/VCR would do it. Someone
> responded saying that there was a $30 gadget that was pretty slick. I
saved
> that info but later lost it due to some computer problems. Would that
> individual be so kind as to help me out again with the name of the item?
> Thanks.
>

You can search google groups under your own name to find that thread again.

>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:11:57 -0500, "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net>
wrote:

>Sometime ago I asked how I could show photos on TV other than using the
>camera. Some responded by saying the modern DVD/VCR would do it. Someone
>responded saying that there was a $30 gadget that was pretty slick. I saved
>that info but later lost it due to some computer problems. Would that
>individual be so kind as to help me out again with the name of the item?
>Thanks.

Ed, go to www.google.com, click on the 'groups' menu item and type the
following into the search box:

ED MULLIKIN PHOTO TV

The past is archived there, no need to repeat it.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Modern technology just amazes me! Thanks.
"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f01s01vfjshrkeiair65ihmuiv4ak4bi7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:11:57 -0500, "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Sometime ago I asked how I could show photos on TV other than using the
>>camera. Some responded by saying the modern DVD/VCR would do it. Someone
>>responded saying that there was a $30 gadget that was pretty slick. I
>>saved
>>that info but later lost it due to some computer problems. Would that
>>individual be so kind as to help me out again with the name of the item?
>>Thanks.
>
> Ed, go to www.google.com, click on the 'groups' menu item and type the
> following into the search box:
>
> ED MULLIKIN PHOTO TV
>
> The past is archived there, no need to repeat it.
>
> --
> Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:25:35 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
<nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Ed, go to www.google.com, click on the 'groups' menu item and type the
>following into the search box:
>
>ED MULLIKIN PHOTO TV
>
>The past is archived there, no need to repeat it.

Not all the past, as Google does not ignore posts that set
X-No-Archive: yes
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http/EdwardGRuf.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:21:43 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:25:35 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
><nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ed, go to www.google.com, click on the 'groups' menu item and type the
>>following into the search box:
>>
>>ED MULLIKIN PHOTO TV
>>
>>The past is archived there, no need to repeat it.
>
>Not all the past, as Google does not ignore posts that set
>X-No-Archive: yes

Ed, either my babel-fish is dying or you are making no sense.

You meant 'keep' instead of 'ignore' yes?

Google doesn't archive 'X-No-Archvies', true. Problem is, how many
newsreaders will do the logical thing and keep that header in the
reply? if they don't, then your requested no-archive post is still
archived because it's quoted in replies.

Interesting, I wonder how Google handles this. It's not really an
*archive* until it's aged somewhat. How long (if at all) will a
X-No-Archive message exist at Google before it disappears?

If the answer is 'it never appears' then people shouldn't use Google
groups as their main usenet source, because it's incomplete... plus it
has a *really* annoying new interface.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:40:09 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
<nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Ed, either my babel-fish is dying or you are making no sense.
>
>You meant 'keep' instead of 'ignore' yes?

Meaning it actually reads this header and applies it. Many services
just ignore it completely.

>Google doesn't archive 'X-No-Archvies', true. Problem is, how many
>newsreaders will do the logical thing and keep that header in the
>reply? if they don't, then your requested no-archive post is still
>archived because it's quoted in replies.

I use agent which does have that capability

>
>Interesting, I wonder how Google handles this. It's not really an
>*archive* until it's aged somewhat. How long (if at all) will a
>X-No-Archive message exist at Google before it disappears?

If you set it, it does not appear on Google at all.

>If the answer is 'it never appears' then people shouldn't use Google
>groups as their main usenet source, because it's incomplete... plus it
>has a *really* annoying new interface.

Yes. I set this header myself. Actually I just found I forgot to set
it on amy second machine which was just upgraded. I object to Google
Groups copyright, same for Yahoo, etc. It is a philosophical objection
to giving up perpetual copyright to intellectual property that is the
issue, imo, not that the content of my posts is worth anything.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http/EdwardGRuf.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:01:17 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>>If the answer is 'it never appears' then people shouldn't use Google
>>groups as their main usenet source, because it's incomplete... plus it
>>has a *really* annoying new interface.
>
>Yes. I set this header myself. Actually I just found I forgot to set
>it on amy second machine which was just upgraded. I object to Google
>Groups copyright, same for Yahoo, etc. It is a philosophical objection
>to giving up perpetual copyright to intellectual property that is the
>issue, imo, not that the content of my posts is worth anything.

They might have the copyright on the archive as a whole, but can't
have it on the individual posts. You as the author haven't
specifically consented to handing over copyright to them have you?

Even if they do 'claim' this copyright, it's bullshit and meaningless.
Actually, under UK law, it would be very dangerous to do so. Claiming
copyright on an article and subsequently publishing it (which they
do), means they could come under prosecution under the Obscene
Publications Act 1959 and others (Racism, conspiracy etc) because
usenet is full of illegal content, and they are claiming to own it.

In the US, civil suits against them for the content of certain
articles would also stand a good chance of being upheld.

Posting to usenet does not equal posting to Google.

For the sake of the community, given the high chance that something
you say now is still relevant in 10 years time, I suggest you re-think
your policy.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:53:41 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
<nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:01:17 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>If the answer is 'it never appears' then people shouldn't use Google
>>>groups as their main usenet source, because it's incomplete... plus it
>>>has a *really* annoying new interface.
>>
>>Yes. I set this header myself. Actually I just found I forgot to set
>>it on amy second machine which was just upgraded. I object to Google
>>Groups copyright, same for Yahoo, etc. It is a philosophical objection
>>to giving up perpetual copyright to intellectual property that is the
>>issue, imo, not that the content of my posts is worth anything.
>
>They might have the copyright on the archive as a whole, but can't
>have it on the individual posts. You as the author haven't
>specifically consented to handing over copyright to them have you?

http/www.google.com/googlegroups/terms_of_service.html

7. Proprietary Rights

Your Rights

...................By submitting, Posting or displaying Content on or
through the Service, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive,
royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt and publish such Content on
the Service solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and
promoting the Service or any other Google Services. This license
terminates when such Content is deleted from the Service. Google
reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, Posted or displayed
by you on or through the Service and use that Content in connection
with other services offered by Google.


________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http/EdwardGRuf.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:00:58 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:53:41 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
><nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:01:17 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>If the answer is 'it never appears' then people shouldn't use Google
>>>>groups as their main usenet source, because it's incomplete... plus it
>>>>has a *really* annoying new interface.
>>>
>>>Yes. I set this header myself. Actually I just found I forgot to set
>>>it on amy second machine which was just upgraded. I object to Google
>>>Groups copyright, same for Yahoo, etc. It is a philosophical objection
>>>to giving up perpetual copyright to intellectual property that is the
>>>issue, imo, not that the content of my posts is worth anything.
>>
>>They might have the copyright on the archive as a whole, but can't
>>have it on the individual posts. You as the author haven't
>>specifically consented to handing over copyright to them have you?
>
>http/www.google.com/googlegroups/terms_of_service.html
>
>7. Proprietary Rights
>
>Your Rights
>
>..................By submitting, Posting or displaying Content on or
>through the Service, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive,
>royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt and publish such Content on
>the Service solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and
>promoting the Service or any other Google Services. This license
>terminates when such Content is deleted from the Service. Google
>reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, Posted or displayed
>by you on or through the Service and use that Content in connection
>with other services offered by Google.

Fair enough, this only applies to stuff you post through google's own
web interface. If you use Agent (and you do) and post via your ISP,
this is not a problem, they can't just grab the whole of usenet and
copyright it (and from the above, I can see they are not attempting to
do that).

--
Owamanga!