Do not buy gadgets having proprietary batteries
simple.lan...@gmail.com
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!
U*U
<simple.lan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6951e71-e3cb-4d8e...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
source: http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadgets/article/2008-10/double-ok
>
> 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!
>
cellphone battery for what "AA" batteries, oh wait better be "D cells" to
get decent battery life.
ASAAR
>> 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!
>
> Even Andy Rooney is laughing at you!!! I am to trade of my slim LithION
> cellphone battery for what "AA" batteries, oh wait better be "D cells" to
> get decent battery life.
Nice theory, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Years ago I had a small, slim Nokia phone that used a NiMH battery
pack that when opened revealed essentially three AAA NiMH cells.
Battery talk and standby time was good (it only needed to be
recharged weekly), and it supported both digital and analog
networks. Cell phones aren't used like cameras, so despite the NiMH
cells of that time having fairly high self-discharge rates, it had
no measurable negative impact. Today's Eneloop AAA cells have
higher capacity as well as lower self-discharge rates than Li-Ion
batteries. With such small battery requirements, Li-Ion's lighter
weight hardly matters, unless you're dealing with sub-miniature
electronic devices intended to attach to, or dangle from ears.
Li-Ion batteries have some nice properties, but low cost isn't
often the case. The last several cell phones I've used had
replacement batteries priced so high that I've never bought any of
them. Instead, I've wastefully purchased complete duplicate cell
phones, including chargers, manuals and new batteries for anywhere
from 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of just the proprietary battery.
The Panasonic portable phone I bought earlier this year has
excellent battery life, and I can use it for hours with the battery
indicator never showing that the capacity has been reduced by more
than one segment. The batteries will probably last many years but
when they're eventually replaced I won't have to worry about whether
any expensive, proprietary, batteries can still be found, since it
uses just two 630mAH NiMH AAA cells. Today's AAA NiMH cells are
very inexpensive (just a couple of dollars) and have capacities at
least up to 1,000mAH. Even low self-discharge AAA Eneloops have
significantly higher capacity, 800 mAH, but even that's overkill
since today's phones (and cameras too) use so much less power than
they used to.
I noticed that you removed sci.chem.electrochem.battery and some
other newsgroups from the OP's original list, substituting for them
alt.usenet.kooks. Would that happen to be your home base? :)
BillW50
simple.language typed on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:21:33 -0700 (PDT):
Why buy stuff with proprietary batteries if you don't like them? You only
encourage them when you do so. I just don't buy them since somebody else is
making them with off of the shelf regular batteries. And they do so because
they know people like me will buy them because of this.
Take for example of my MP3 player. Many of them use proprietary batteries,
but some do not. That is why I fell in love with my four iRiver T10 players.
They run 45 plus hours on a single AA battery. It has a great FM radio to
boot and can record from FM and sports a timer as well. So set it to record
something and then do what you need to do and come back and everything is
recorded (I hear tell European models this feature is disabled for legal
reasons). Plays files from many different formats too. It has everything I
need and want to do. All from one AA battery to boot.
--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
BillW50
ASAAR typed on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:41:32 -0400:
[...]
> The Panasonic portable phone I bought earlier this year has
> excellent battery life, and I can use it for hours with the battery
> indicator never showing that the capacity has been reduced by more
> than one segment. The batteries will probably last many years but
> when they're eventually replaced I won't have to worry about whether
> any expensive, proprietary, batteries can still be found, since it
> uses just two 630mAH NiMH AAA cells. Today's AAA NiMH cells are
> very inexpensive (just a couple of dollars) and have capacities at
> least up to 1,000mAH. Even low self-discharge AAA Eneloops have
> significantly higher capacity, 800 mAH, but even that's overkill
> since today's phones (and cameras too) use so much less power than
My VTech USB7200 uses two standard Ni-MH batteries. The OP doesn't have to
buy stuff with proprietary batteries if they don't want too.
Pete D
>>
>> 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!
>
> Why buy stuff with proprietary batteries if you don't like them? You only
> encourage them when you do so. I just don't buy them since somebody else
> is making them with off of the shelf regular batteries. And they do so
> because they know people like me will buy them because of this.
>
> Take for example of my MP3 player. Many of them use proprietary batteries,
> but some do not. That is why I fell in love with my four iRiver T10
> players. They run 45 plus hours on a single AA battery. It has a great FM
> radio to boot and can record from FM and sports a timer as well. So set it
> to record something and then do what you need to do and come back and
> everything is recorded (I hear tell European models this feature is
> disabled for legal reasons). Plays files from many different formats too.
> It has everything I need and want to do. All from one AA battery to boot.
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
>
What about all your laptops Bill, how many AAs do they take?
BillW50
Pete D typed on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:17:40 +1100:
Hahaha good question. I buy laptops which has cheap battery replacements.
For example I buy cheap Li-Ion batteries with the Gateway brand name on them
on eBay for less than 40 bucks for almost a 4 hour runtime (they are brand
new and not used). And the battery will last me over 10 years.
I do have a Palm IIIxe that does run from two AAA batteries. Does that
count? Although I do like my Palm IIIc much better which uses a Li-Ion
battery which you have to disassemble it to replace it. Luckily I get them
cheap too on eBay and they last 5 years before I have to spend another 10
bucks to get another one. Since they were built back in '99, I only had to
replace it once. The second battery is doing just fine so far (knock on
wood).
Lancelot
<simple.lan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6951e71-e3cb-4d8e...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I think free market principles work very well here. As others have said,
"why buy it if you don't like the battery in it?" Some legislated,
standardized, battery is not the answer. The company, like the one that uses
a single AA battery for MP3, will thrive. That's innovation and capitalism
at work.
ASAAR
> Take for example of my MP3 player. Many of them use proprietary batteries,
> but some do not. That is why I fell in love with my four iRiver T10 players.
> They run 45 plus hours on a single AA battery. It has a great FM radio to
> boot and can record from FM and sports a timer as well. So set it to record
> something and then do what you need to do and come back and everything is
> recorded (I hear tell European models this feature is disabled for legal
> reasons). Plays files from many different formats too. It has everything I
> need and want to do. All from one AA battery to boot.
The iAudio G3 also used a single AA battery (50 hours playback)
and judging from a comparison with my iRiver T60 which uses a single
AAA cell, was probably a better mp3 player than the iRiver T10.
Among its features was that bookmarks could be set for a large
number of mp3 files, a really useful feature for audiobooks. The
problem with these players is that they're disappearing. Where is
the T10 or G3 still sold? They don't seem to be available anymore.
J&R and B&H both sell many iRiver mp3 players, but the only model
that they carry that doesn't use a Li-Ion battery is the T60, and
neither store carries the 4GB version any longer. J&R only has the
1GB model and B&H has the 1GB and 2GB versions. A problem with the
G3 and T60 is that they have very small displays which (for me, at
least) are difficult to use without reading glasses.
I'd love to be able to find a good mp3 player that uses either AA
or AAA cells, has good battery life and a larger display but as I
haven't been able to do that, I recently got an iAudio (aka Cowon)
D2 that uses a Li-Ion battery. It has a large screen that is much
more readable and navigable, has the G3's flexible bookmarks (up to
256), has good battery life (52 hours/charge), can be bought with
4GB, 8GB or 16GB of built-in memory, and can also access mp3 and
other format audio and video files saved on SDHC memory cards.
AJL
>I think free market principles work very well here. As others have said,
>"why buy it if you don't like the battery in it?" Some legislated,
>standardized, battery is not the answer. The company, like the one that uses
>a single AA battery for MP3, will thrive. That's innovation and capitalism
>at work.
And besides, by the time the encapsulated battery fails in 2 years,
there will be something better, smaller, and cheaper to buy...with a
nice new proprietary battery...
(I replace my cell phones every two years cause with the deals it's
cheaper than replacing the battery...)
Environmental flames can start now...
ASAAR
> My VTech USB7200 uses two standard Ni-MH batteries. The OP doesn't
> have to buy stuff with proprietary batteries if they don't want too.
As does my Panasonic KX-TGA931S. But isn't your USB7200 also a
portable phone? It's cell phones that don't seem to use NiMH
batteries any more, even though they'd be more than adequate,
non-proprietary, widely available and inexpensive. Most people
don't see this as a real problem since cell phones are designed to
rapidly become so obsolete that most people replace the phones
before replacement batteries are needed. And with the phone plans,
most people think (falsely) that the new phones they get with their
carrier's new two year subscription plans are free.
BillW50
AJL typed on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:06:46 -0700:
No I agree. Cell phones are different and it pays to just get another one
with far more features than your old one. No battery replacement necessary.
But if you wanted to, eBay probably has them cheap if it is a popular one.
BillW50
ASAAR typed on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:59:55 -0400:
Wow! That iAudio G3 also sounds really nice. The iRiver T10 only comes in
512kb, 1GB and 2GB versions (those 2GB versions might be fake, I am not
sure). That T60 also sounds very nice as well. Sorry to hear about the small
displays, I'm very nearsighted so small is just fine with me. Does either
have FM and record from them too? The T10 can record up to 4 hours with the
timer. It doesn't run out of memory, that is all it allows on the timer.
Sometimes I wish for more, but that is why I have more of them.
BillW50
ASAAR typed on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:11:31 -0400:
Yes the USB7200 is a cordless landline and also a VoIP phone. Yes I agree
with cell phones. Having proprietary batteries doesn't mean much with them.
Since you usually end up getting another phone before the batteries die.
Ron Hunter
size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
as well.
Gunther
>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!
Only 2 minutes of my life. I read faster than you type. :-)
But seriously, I do understand your anguish and anger, and need to do SOMEthing
about it. I'm one of those lucky few that owns a good multimeter, soldering gun,
and purchasing savvy. I'd rather make my own life better than force or expect
others to make my life better for me. You'll be in your grave before they do
that.
If a device I own doesn't take a more universal battery or common battery
charger, then I make one for it. Or I search and search until I do find a more
universal solution.
For example, I won't even consider for one moment paying $40-$60 for one of
Canon's brick-sized, brick-weight, dedicated, external camera power-supplies. I
went on the hunt and found a multi-voltage switching power-supply (a type of
compact, hi-amperage converter). Good thing that Canon only offered their
overweight oversized overpriced crap or I wouldn't have gone in search of this
handy-dandy to add to my supplies. Made by "Lenmar", their "Pro40" model. If I
recall it was only $18 or something like that at the time. Comes complete with
every adapter that any camera (and other battery operated device) that I've ever
owned uses. Comes complete with every voltage setting that every camera that
I've ever owned uses. Comes complete with amperages from 1.7A to 2.5A (voltage
dependent) for every power-consumption required. Comes complete as a size
smaller than a pack of cigarettes so it can fit in nearly any camera bag or
pocket. It's just as light as a pack of cigarettes too. Comes complete with
100-240v AC 50/60Hz input.
Then recently I went on the hunt for a new MP3 player. My old one lost its sound
quality after I landed a 7lb. bass on the shoreline this summer and the MP3
player momentarily played tunes to the fish and frogs. (I hope they enjoyed it.)
Afterward it still worked, but ... low passages had a distracting rumbling and
hiss in them on all tunes and audio-books. (Wasn't no leech that got in there, I
even opened it up and washed it out to be sure. :-) )
I hunted for a new MP3 player for quite a while. Always running into one reason
or another why I would NOT support that design or corporate concept. No
replaceable battery? Nope, keep looking. No way to add more memory with a
jaw-droppingly-inexpensive MicroSD card? Nope, keep looking. Dedicated
replaceable battery? Never a first choice, but maybe, ONLY if I can't find
anything that doesn't fit the first two requirements ... the hunt was long.
So I found a sale on Sandisk's "Sansa" players. Found some of their $100 models
on sale for $20. My last non-Sandisk one worked for18-hours on one AAA NiMH
cell. I loved that. The new ones from other companies? All proprietary "no user
servicable parts inside" internal batteries. The rare few that did still run on
AAA's didn't have the MicroSD card requirement. Major bummer. But these Sandisk
ones, with MicroSD slot, at least had an easily removable Li-Polymer
battery-pack in the back. Runs for about 10-14 hours per charge.Ttaking a hit
backward on playtime with that one. But I wouldn't even consider buying a device
where the battery can't be easily replaced. Replacements for these are available
from quite a few sources when I went on a hunt for them, to be certain before I
even made my MP3 player purchase, even at that low price. Then I found out the
backup batteries would cost $25 to $30 each, with shipping. I quickly decided to
order a whole extra MP3 player that was on sale for only $20 with new battery
(headphones, extra proprietary USB cable, etc.) included for a well-rounded
backup. I feel I sorta won this round. These models are also one of the few to
be supported by RockBox.org software so I can even play DVD movie rips on my MP3
player. Whoo hoo! I also keep a slideshow on my MP3 player of some of my
favorite photography. RockBox does indeed rock. Except for dedicated battery
this was win-win-win all around.
Anyway ... While I hate it has a dedicated Li-Polymer battery pack, at least I
got a good deal this time. 2 excellent MP3 players for the price of just 2 of
their batteries (shipping was even free), and the battery is easily replaceable.
Should the batteries ever fail or those batteries are no longer made? Out comes
the soldering gun and I turn it into a 3-AAA NiMH model. Exact same voltage. But
much more amperage. It'll run 6-8x's as long on 3-AAAs. Many days worth of
non-stop listening pleasure, weeks to months between charges if used
intermittently. In a way I'm sort of hoping that the dedicated Li-Polymer
batteries fail so I will go ahead and modify these to be more functional. Hell,
I just might make a 3-AAA adapter for them anyway for use both ways. I can run
them off of a portable USB-connector 5v power-source that I have, through their
USB connection, but that's much more awkward and cumbersome, that's better for
use in a car or something.
The other reason I bring up this MP3 player anecdote, is that this battery that
they use in their MP3 players is almost exactly what you describe. An easily
replaceable pack, that's only 1" x 2.25" x 1/8". Flat little lightweight
Li-Polymer rectangle, could be used in most any of the new slim gadgets, more
than one if needing more amperage or voltage. If everyone started to have enough
brains to understand the convenience of this and only buy devices that supported
them.
So there you go. Yes, you can whine about it, even try to force them to do it
through political means. But there is no greater vote in the world than where
you put your dollar. After all, that is really the only time you vote in life
now, when you purchase something. Whatever corporation gets the most money
decides your government for you, not your hanging-chad at the voting booth.
People are just kidding themselves when they go cast their ballot. Voting today
is nothing but a senseless displacement activity, like a bird that resorts to
preening its feathers when it can't escape an impending attack. A familiar but
now-useless motion because they don't know what else to do. Democracy died many
decades ago, capitalism buried it and tamped the dirt down, permanently.
$1 = 1 vote. Make no doubt about that.
Oh, and work on getting creative so you aren't dependent on corporate fascism.
Learn to solder and tweak to circumvent the dependency traps that they want
everyone to fall into for their own benefit, not yours.
ASAAR
> Wow! That iAudio G3 also sounds really nice. The iRiver T10 only comes in
> 512kb, 1GB and 2GB versions (those 2GB versions might be fake, I am not
> sure). That T60 also sounds very nice as well. Sorry to hear about the small
> displays, I'm very nearsighted so small is just fine with me. Does either
> have FM and record from them too? The T10 can record up to 4 hours with the
> timer. It doesn't run out of memory, that is all it allows on the timer.
> Sometimes I wish for more, but that is why I have more of them.
Both have FM and record mp3 or wav files at user specified bit
rates. There's no time limit that I'm aware of other than available
memory and battery power. To get around the battery power problem,
you could use the Zoom H2 Handy Recorder. As a portable recorder
it's pretty poor, getting only 4 hours from a pair of AA batteries
and it has no built-in memory, relying instead on SD or SDHC cards.
But with the included wall-wart power supply it can record single
audio files that are many hundreds of hours long. Stereo mp3 files
ranging from 48 to 320kbps (and VBR), and 16 and 24 bit wav files at
44.1, 48 or 96khz with "Time Stamp and Track Marker functions in
Broadcast WAV Format (BWF)". For wav formats, the H2's four stereo
mic. capsules allow for choices such as Front 90° Cardioid, Rear
120° Cardioid and Surround 360° polar patterns. It also has a
mini-plug socket for external stereo microphones (with or without
plug-in power) and a line level input, normally used with CD
players, but perfectly matched to my radio's line level output (the
Sony AM/FM/SW/LW ICF-SW7600GR), and a socket for monitoring using
either headphones or as a regular line out. It's also relatively
inexpensive (somewhere between $150 and $200, IIRC) and also
available from either B&H and J&R.
ASAAR
> Perhaps you can explain how one could get 3 AAA cells into a phone the
> size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
> Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
> as well.
You can have the RAZR if you want one. That's a 'stylish' phone
almost designed to be worn as jewelry, and marketed as such.
Today's cell phones could easily get good life and performance
from only two AAA cells, and if that would result in more weight
than you can tolerate (your self-imposed weakness standards are
legendary), you wouldn't be able to hold and eat a fried chicken
leg, but would have to use a knife and fork (using light plastic or
aluminum utensils) to cut the chicken into dainty, bite-sized
morsels. Come to think of it, your P&S cameras are probably larger
and heavier than the little cell phones using 2 AA batteries would
be. What are you, some kind of commie-pinko Texan? Everybody knows
that for Texans, size matters. But not the way you measure it.
You're a traitor to your state. Get some exercise, couch potato,
and with something other than a knife and fork. :)
Chris Malcolm
I had a mobile phone whose battery was part of the removable
back. That meant you could get much longer lasting batteries which
made the phone fatter. One third party battery supplier knocked up a
very long life back which contained three AA cells. It made the phone
the size of a packet of cigarettes, but the batteries lasted me over
three weeks of normal use, and over a month if I remembered to switch
it off at night.
I loved that long battery life so much I didn't mind the bulk and
weight at all. What was especially nice was being able to go on
holiday or business trips without needing to worry about either spare
batteries or a charger. If they made such an accessory for my current
phone I'd buy it immediately.
--
Chris Malcolm
HEMI-Powered
> source:
> http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadgets/article/2008-10/double-o
> k
> to-power-outlet thingamajig. That’s a Ł40 expenditure at the
think about this out-of-the-box some. it is often true that prior
to development of unversal batteries of a particular new
technology, product inventors have a need for that much power and
long life. that, coupled with space constraints in the product
often require creation of proprietary batteries.
what is better to you, having standard batteries or a new,
unique, and highly useful product? examples abound including
digital cameras, battery power tools, electric toothbrushes, even
powered liquid soap containers. if the product first invented
takes off and the inventor creates an entire line of new products
such as power tools, then the proprietary battery becomes
amortized across all the tools you buy.
so, I think your rant is that of a truculent troll who can't
stand the fact that invention of better mousetraps trumps the
warped views of product misanthropes. nice try, no cigar.
or, are you a Far Left Loon Hussein OBama freak that supports yet
another Socialist attack on freedom of choice? want that, move to
Canada or the UK. if you want to live here, believe in the free
market system and quitcher bitchin'
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker
m...@nildram.co.uk
wrote:
>Perhaps you can explain how one could get 3 AAA cells into a phone the
>size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
>Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
>as well.
No reason why the phone manufacturers couldn't come up with a new
standard battery size. Even if you take phones of a similar size from
the same manufacturer the batteries are incompatible.
David J. Littleboy
Yep. And over here (Japan), the cell phone battery situation is even
battier.
Our CEO has been complaining that her cell phone doesn't hold much of a
charge, so she's going to buy a new cell phone. Sheesh, that's nuts, I say,
replace the battery. No its not, she says. The provider has a "points"
system (like airline miles) and they'll give her a new cell phone. But she
has to pay for the battery, which would be US$50 or so.
Sheesh.
--
David J. Littleboy
Who refuses to buy a cell phone in
Tokyo, Japan
R. Mark Clayton
<simple.lan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6951e71-e3cb-4d8e...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
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!).
Studio 54 - I went there in 1984 - what ****hole!
SNIP - long rant
NiCd - good for high current draw, poor for low current due to self leakage,
"memory effect" and low cell voltage (~1.2V).
NiMH - Better than the above - higher energy density and voltage.
Lithium - highest energy density. Not a direct replacement due to much
higher cell voltage (~3V). Also much lighter.
There is a tendency for gadget makers to go for proprietary chargers and
batteries. For main stream products alternative compatible batteries
usually become available at modest cost before too long.
Bad luck if you just bought an obscure make cam corder or similar...
AJL
>I bet the ’80s was a good decade for Energizer, Duracell and their
>ilk.... but the ’80s had to be the absolute peak for these battery makers.
You obviously don't have grandkids. Toys one big market. It's hard to
find toys these days that don't need batteries. I spend far more on
Duracells than all my encapsulated batteries combined. One website
puts alkalines at 7.5 Billion consumed a year. I believe it. Smoke
alarms, TV remotes, flashlights, cameras, mp3 players, radios, fade to
black as the list continues...
BillW50
AJL typed on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:17:03 -0700:
Why not invest into rechargeables? I had some last over 30 years. Although
they are only supposed to last about 7 years according to some circles. And
don't buy those alkaline rechargeables. I'm talking about Ni-MH. Ni-Cads are
okay too, but Ni-MH is better most of the time.
Bob G
80's"?
What are you, a literate person?
Anyway, my beef is with built-in batteries, inaccessible by the user,
such as are found in the iPod, I believe.
But I agree with you on the need for more standardization.
Tanel Kagan
> 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…
I'm not sure the situation is as bad as you make out.
I have a Nokia Mobile Phone, Nintendo DS, TomTom, iPod Video, Digital Camera
and probably one or two other bits and pieces I forgot to mention.
Do I need 5 chargers? No.
Let's say I'm in my car. I have a car charger that gives me a USB port, and
from this USB port I can charge my iPod, using its USB cable, the Nintendo,
using a USB-DS connector cable which I picked up on eBay for a few pounds,
the TomTom, using the TomTom's USB-Mini USB cable, and the Nokia, using the
USB-Nokia adaptor cable.
If I'm not in my car, then I will at least have access to an electric
socket. And guess what, I have a second USB adapter thingy but instead of a
car lighter plug, it has a 3 pin socket.
So unless I'm on a very long plane journey or something without access to a
car lighter socket or a mains socket, and unless I've used up all my
gadgets' battery lives on the journey, I don't see this as a major problem.
USB has gone a long way to standardising power supply and charging, so it's
not so much a case of having 5 chargers, it's a case of having 5 cables,
which I can just about live with. I get the little retractable ones too so
5 of these will easily fit in a small bag or box.
Oh, but what about the digital camera? Well I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand I like the idea of a camera that operates on standard AA
batteries. As you say, you can find them anywhere and they're fairly
inexpensive.
On the other hand, standard AA batteries, even Duracells or other brands
that are supposed to give long life, just don't give you anywhere near the
sort of battery life you need. I've regularly used various Canon and Fuji
models, and it's using a proprietary battery then realistically you need to
be using rechargeable AAs to get any decent battery life at all.
Of course, we don't want to lug around rechargeable batteries and a charger
for that or we're defeating our own objective. So what's my solution?
USBCells. In my opinion one of the best inventions of the last 5 years. So
simple really when you think about it but someone actually had to go ahead
and do it. So I can recharge my AA size USBCells from the USB charger as
well, and they give a decent battery life.
If I'm on the road and am using my laptop too, I can recharge the USBCells
from the Laptop USB ports as an alternative. As for the laptop itself, well
I have an Main Voltage inverter which I can plug into the lighter socket
which gives me a 3-pin mains socket. I can run a 4-gang extension socket
off of that and plug one of the USB chargers into one socket there, whilst
charging my laptop battery with its own charger.
The possibilities are there, you just have to think around the problem
sometimes.
Tanel.
SMS
> 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?
In China, there is a requirement that low current chargers use a USB
plug of some sort.
I guess you could get the government involved in setting a standard for
Li-Ion battery packs of different voltages and capacities, but I'm not
sure that you'd end up with anything much better than you have now.
Don't believe for a moment that one single size will be sufficient,
you're going to need many different sizes. If you buy the most popular
devices you're already able to buy after-market Li-Ion packs at very low
prices.
You can still buy digital cameras that use AA batteries. They aren't
popular because for small cameras the AA batteries are two big, and
because there are such overwhelming advantages to Li-Ion batteries
versus NiMH or non-rechargeable AA cells.
I see the problem not as one of the batteries, because as you said you
rarely have to replace the battery, but one of all the different
chargers for devices with internally recharged batteries. That's where
some standards like China's would be good.
Steve
"http://batterydata.com"
Mark F
wrote in part:
> You can still buy digital cameras that use AA batteries. They aren't
> popular because for small cameras the AA batteries are two big,
cases I'd prefer C or D size power for my SLR, so I could get 4 to 10
times the shots for the same money and weight (since I have to carry
more spares with the smaller batteries.)
(For my family's Sony DSC T-n00 cameras I'd go with AAA instead of AA
cells for $3 a set compared to $30 a set for proprietary. Note
that the T-100 and T-300 use different proprietary batteries.)
> and
> because there are such overwhelming advantages to Li-Ion batteries
> versus NiMH or non-rechargeable AA cells.
Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?
> Steve
> "http://batterydata.com"
BillW50
Mark F typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:50:23 -0500:
> Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?
Eveready sells Lithium in AA size since '88.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDD1E3DF933A0575AC0A96E948260
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 8GB
Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Jürgen Exner
>Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?
They sure can, but those would be of very limited use, because the
typical voltage of a LiIon cell is 3.6V, more then twice that of a
standard batterie and high enough to blow up many devices.
jue
AJL
>In news:g7bsg4h8me2dn2qrf...@4ax.com,
>Mark F typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:50:23 -0500:
>> Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?
>
>Eveready sells Lithium in AA size since '88.
>
>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDD1E3DF933A0575AC0A96E948260
But the question was about a Lithium-Ion battery. Why not a standard
AAA or AA size L-Ion battery to plug into your camera or toy? Because
they require some electronic circuitry to function safely.
-------------------------------------
"Li-ion chemistry is not as safe as nickel metal hydride or
nickel-cadmium and a Li-ion cell requires several mandatory safety
devices to be built in before it can be considered safe for use
outside of a laboratory. These are: shut-down separator (for
overtemperature), tear-away tab (for internal pressure), vent
(pressure relief), and thermal interrupt
(overcurrent/overcharging).[14] The devices take away useful space
inside the cells, and add an additional layer of unreliability.
Typically, their action is to permanently and irreversibly disable the
cell. The reason for these safety devices in Li-ion cells is because
there is both a source of heat coming from the anode while in use, and
a potential source of oxygen in the cathode. Recent technology
including safety implementations or the redesigning of the electrodes
have been developed to solve these problems, greatly reducing or
eliminating the risk of fire."
BillW50
Jürgen Exner typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:42:18 -0800:
Hi jue! But they could sell Li-Ion AA and include one or two blanks. Meaning
looks like AA but are fake cells that are shorted. Thus you use one Li-Ion
AA and one or two shorted fake cells in devices. It would only work in
devices that use the batteries in series which virtually everything does
with AA size anyway.
I have a radio that uses 10 AA batteries and two fakes. Or 12 AA Ni-Cads and
no fakes. It was a Radio Shack walkie talkie from the 70's actually.
BillW50
AJL typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:30:01 -0700:
All true! Even Ni-MH sports some dangers as well. But not as bad as Li-Ion
batteries. Here is a video when a Li-Ion battery safety fails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0UWIYswKI
Jürgen Exner
>In news:ihesg4dps1qg0shoa...@4ax.com,
>Jürgen Exner typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:42:18 -0800:
>> Mark F <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?
>>
>> They sure can, but those would be of very limited use, because the
>> typical voltage of a LiIon cell is 3.6V, more then twice that of a
>> standard batterie and high enough to blow up many devices.
>
>Hi jue! But they could sell Li-Ion AA and include one or two blanks. Meaning
>looks like AA but are fake cells that are shorted. Thus you use one Li-Ion
>AA and one or two shorted fake cells in devices.
Nice idea, but can you image the "average person" trying to figure out,
which cells go where? After all, if it's a dud, then not using a dud but
a real cell should give more power, right?
A cockaigne for lawyers because of all those damaged devices :-((
jue
BillW50
Jürgen Exner typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:07:03 -0800:
So true, so true! Probably why we will never see anything like this.
Mark F
> In news:g7bsg4h8me2dn2qrf...@4ax.com,
> Mark F typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:50:23 -0500:
> > Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?
>
> Eveready sells Lithium in AA size since '88.
I didn't realize that it was that long, but I have had some since
before 2003. I should have said
"Why can't the devices use the already available rechargeable's
that are available in the same technologies in standard sizes?"
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDD1E3DF933A0575AC0A96E948260
SMS
You can already buy Li-Ion sized rechargeable AA cells, but of course
they're not all that useful since they are a different voltage than
standard AA cells. I suppose you could put one dummy cell and one real
cell in series in devices that use two batteries, but that's rather
wasteful. Then you run into the problem of recharging, since the battery
needs to be in a pack with a charge controller chip.
NiMH batteries, at 1.2 to 1.25V were close enough to carbon zinc and
manganese dioxide voltage of 1.5V, especially since the latter have a
linear voltage discharge curve.
Complicating the move to some standard Li-Ion packs is the fact that the
higher end camera manufacturers are now building smart-batteries with
their own proprietary interface, as laptop manufacturers have been doing
for years.
Stormin Mormon
chargers and all that.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Mark F" <mark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g7bsg4h8me2dn2qrf...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Mark F" <mark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3kljh452gute6j49d...@4ax.com...
Ivor Jones
I'll buy what the hell I like. Piss off.
Ivor
John McWilliams
SMS
<snip>
While the proprietary nature of these Li-Ion batteries may be
undesirable, there are overwhelming advantages to using Li-Ion batteries
to something like NiMH AA batteries in devices such as cameras.
This was illustrated once again to me this week:
Two of my BP511 batteries, after 4 years, stopped holding a charge for
long enough. These are used in my D-SLR, my camcorder, and an old P&S
camera that I still use (G2).
On Wednesday at 4 p.m. I ordered three 2000mAH BP511 batteries (11.99
each), one 4500mAH BP535 (an extended life battery for the camcorder
that is compatible with the BP511 but longer length) for 29.99, and a
spare NB5L battery for my P&S for $10.99. Shipping was free 2 day FedEx.
On Thursday at about 1:45 p.m., FedEx arrived at my office with the
batteries (less than 24 hours).
Let's analyze the cost. a 2000mAH, 7.4V battery pack is 14,800 mWH and
cost $12. Compare that to four 2000mAH, 1.2V Sanyo Eneloop cells at 9600
mWH, which cost $10 from Thomas distributing.
Eneloop AA 4 pack: $10/9600 mWH =0.104¢/mWH
BP511: $12/14,800 mWH=0.081¢/mWH
You can't analyze the cost of the NB5L battery because it would not be
possible to make such a small camera that used AA cells. Similarly, you
can't analyze the cost of the BP535 that way because would not be
practical to make a camcorder that took 14 AA batteries.
Now on the flip side, had I went into Fry's to buy these batteries, both
would have cost more, but the BP511 would have been over 2.5x the price
($30) while the Eneloops would have been only 1.2x the price. OTOH,
there are $6 BP511 batteries available, which I haven't tried,
preferring to order from a supplier that had provided quality product to
me in the past.
This is just the cost of course. If you want to look at the big picture,
Google "nimh versu li-ion" and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky." The
top-rated Google web site on the subject will appear, and it outlines
all the trade-offs of standard NiMH batteries versus proprietary Li-Ion
batteries. OMG, how did my humble site become the #1 Google rated site!
Here's the overview of the pros and cons of each type of battery:
20 Advantages of Li-Ion Batteries over NiMH Batteries
1. Much lower self-discharge rate (except for newer Hybrio and
eneloop NiMH cells, which trade low self-discharge for lower capacity)
2. More charge/discharge cycles
3. Usage pattern and charge regimen is better suited to digital
cameras (and other devices where the usual pattern is partial
discharge/full charge)
4. Self-Discharge rate is constant during the life of the battery
(NiMH batteries steadily increase in self-discharge over the life of the
battery)
5. Greater energy density by weight
6. Greater energy density by volume (AA batteries are not practical
for sub-compact and ultra-compact cameras because of size, and AAA
batteries are not practical because of capacity)
7. Greater number of shots per WH
8. Faster shot to shot times, especially when using flash
9. More convenient to swap and charge than AA cells (no fumbling
with multiple cells, and keeping track of which battery is in which set)*
10. Far better cold weather performance
11. Far better performance at high temperatures
12. Devices using Li-Ion batteries are more reliable than devices
using AA batteries (unlikely to have a battery door flip open and have
the batteries scatter all over)*
13. Li-Ion batteries can be left in devices that are not used for
long periods of time
14. Li-Ion batteries have protection circuitry built into the pack
and do not rely on the charger for this protection
15. Accurate charge level gauge is included in most Li-Ion powered
cameras, but is not possible in NiMH powered cameras (low-battery
indicator only)
16. Li-Ion batteries do not suffer from polarity reversal
17. Li-Ion batteries do not suffer from the "dud" cell problem
18. No need to "Battery Match" cells of similar capacity
19. Rechargeable battery and charger come with the camera, versus
buying a charger and batteries for an AA powered camera
20. Smaller and lighter chargers
* This advantage is over AA batteries in general, not specifically NiMH
AA batteries. The advantage applies to AA batteries of other types as
well (Alkaline, Lithium, etc.).
8 Advantages of NiMH Batteries over Li-Ion Batteries
1. Li-Ion packs are proprietary, you can't substitute disposable AA
cells if your battery goes dead in the middle of nowhere, and you have
no spare battery, and no AC or DC power for charging*
2. Longer shelf life*
3. Faster charging (though high-rate charging significantly reduces
battery life)
4. AA cells will always be available, while less popular Li-Ion
packs may be discontinued*
5. Multiple devices that use AA or AAA cells can share batteries and
chargers (though there are Li-Ion chargers that can charge many
different battery types by the use of adapter plates)*
6. Two NiMH AA cells can be charged, albeit slowly, from a 5 volt
USB port, while larger Li-Ion packs (7.4V) cannot.
7. You can buy NiMH batteries at a good price from stores like
Wal-Mart and Fry's but for Li-Ion you must order the battery packs from
an on-line retailer that specializes in batteries in order to obtain
good quality packs at good prices.
8. Hot Shoe Flash and Camera Can Use the Same Type of Battery
Mark Thomas
> 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.
SMS, aka
Steven M. Scharf
scharf...@gmail.com
scharf...@nordicbicycleproducts.com
scharf...@earthlink.com (scharf...@linkearth.com)
scharf...@earthlink.net (scharf...@linkearth.net)
bicycleac...@nordicgroup.us
charge...@nordicgroup.us
batteryac...@nordicgroup.us
Digital Camcorder Academician
Digital Camera Academician
Bicycle Academician
Dr. Digital
Dr Sumner C. Roberts
...has an interesting reputation as the author of a multitude of
websites that are created apparently for link-income purposes and usenet
debates, and are then abandoned. Examples of some of his old efforts:
http://www.digitalslrinfo.com (abandoned 2006)
http://nordicgroup.us/fold/ (abandoned 2002)
http://nordicgroup.us/rack.htm (abandoned 2001)
http://nordicgroup.us/chargers/ (? abandoned 2007)
That site rather amusingly states "This is a non-profit, non-commercial
site; I don't sell anything" at the top, yet at the bottom, "The above
links are affiliates and I receive 3-5% compensation from these companies"
http://www.nordicgroup.us/digicam/ (abandoned 2006)
http://nordicgroup.us/camcorder (abandoned 2004)
Again, that one states - "This is a non-commercial, informational site.
Nothing is sold on this site. No advertising is accepted.", yet at the
bottom there are the Amazon and Adorama ads and links and he states "I
receive compensation from these companies"
http://www.nordicgroup.us/tripod/ (abandoned 2003)
Here are some of his other creations:
http://nordicgroup.us/
http://nordicbicycleproducts.com/
http://www.bicyclecoffeesystems.com/
http://bicycleluggageracks.com/
http://bicyclelighting.com/
http://nordicgroup.us/cageboss/
http://nordicgroup.us/commutebike/
http://batterydata.com/
Yes, everything from coffee on your bike to travel tripods and
camcorders and the amazing one-track expertise he shows in recommending
the exact same cameras and batteries to anyone who asks, no matter what
their needs - yes, Mr Scharf is a whiz of all he sees. It's probably
little wonder that he actually doesn't have the time to actually use or
test any of the things he describes or recommends. Are there any image
galleries of his work? No. (Do correct me here, Dr Roberts... er
sorry, I mean Mr Scharf - don't be shy..)
Anyway, his most recent creation appears to be:
http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps
This site gained a small burst of notoriety here when Mr Scharf
recommended it.. without declaring it as his. At that time, the site
named the author as the "Digital Camera Academician", a name SMS/Steven
M. Scharf uses elsewhere, eg http://www.nordicgroup.us/digicam/ and on
the dpreview forums. After he was exposed as the author, he got a
little upset and decided to place a number of false 'accolades' on his
site. He misquoted comments from people here (including me). When
*that* was exposed, he changed the names slightly (I'm now "Mark
Thomasville" - how amusing!) and added a few ridiculous ones, presumably
to indicate that it was all just a harmless joke from the start.
Then the name "Digital Camera Academician" vanished from that page and
hey presto, the site is now penned by the self-proclaimed, highly
experienced, "Dr Sumner C. Roberts". Despite his 30 years in the
photography and digital imaging trade, 'Dr Roberts' of course has
absolutely no web history. Gee, do you think it might be SMS still? Out
of interest, in Australia it is illegal to use false identities and
qualifications to deceive - not in the US?
Anyway, here are a few words from Mr Scharf himself:
"Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading experts on bicycle lighting.
An electrical engineer by trade, he enjoys cycling and designing
lighting systems. He lives in Silicon Valley and works for a small
semiconductor company."
"Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading experts on Li-Ion and NiMH
batteries, and chargers. An electrical engineer by trade, he enjoys
cycling and designing bicycle lighting systems. He lives in Silicon
Valley and works for a small semiconductor company"
"Steven Scharf is an electrical engineer living in Silicon Valley,
specializing in portable power design for embedded systems. He has
worked for GTE, Xerox, McDonnell Douglas, Alcatel, National
Semiconductor, and Transmeta."
"Earth's Leading (and only) Authority on Water Bottle Cage Mounting
since 2002"
"Earth's Independent and Authoritative Source for Digital Camera Battery
Information"
"One of Earth's Leading Authorities on Vehicle Racks"
..(only one of them?)
and here's the last word from his very best friend at
http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps:
"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?
PS - I am happy to be corrected on anything posted above - anyone, Mr
Scharf included, who wishes to offer verifiable information to the
contrary, is welcome to contact me. I'll very happily apologise if any
of it is incorrect or misquoted. Needless to say, I have cached copies
just in case any webpages are altered to protect the guilty, as he has
already proven he will do. (O:
PPS - The trail on Mr Scharf goes MUCH further than shown above. I'm
being kind by stopping here.
tony cooper
<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.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
SMS
> 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!
ASAAR
> "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.
SteveSchiffer
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/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_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:_High-Speed_Shutter_%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/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.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."
Mark Thomas
... "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:
tony cooper
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> 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.
ASAAR
> 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.
Mark Thomas
ASAAR 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
Thanks asaar, fellow troll fighter (O: Your other comments on 'Tom
Delaney', SMS' 'school hall of shame', potential sockpuppets and
personality disorders were most interesting!
As Tony has now clearly spent close to 20 minutes on this also, his
point is a little lost on me. I won't be posting further here, except
to refute obviously wrong information, or if SMS tries further
'trickery' - I'll just link back to this thread.
By the way - to SMS, see what happens if you do a Google search on:
"SMS Steven Scharf".
It's *soooo* hard to get those good Google rankings...
(O:
tony cooper
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
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>As Tony has now clearly spent close to 20 minutes on this also, his
>point is a little lost on me.
Nah. I type fast. I've wasted, maybe, two minutes.
>By the way - to SMS, see what happens if you do a Google search on:
>"SMS Steven Scharf".
Nope. That would push the wasted time figure up to 2 1/2 minutes.
I know you missed the point. Troll enablers always do. The only way
to stop a troll is to totally ignore him.
tony cooper
<justa...@mad.scientist.com> 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.
ASAAR
> 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.
tony cooper
<justa...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:14:37 -0500, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> 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.
>>
>
>Hmm... Or they might just get torn off! ;-)
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>He said twenty minutes... Google *IS* a wonderful thing, and well, he
>was interested in the subject. And you offering a road trip to check on
>a Dr Sumner C. Roberts in Zephyrhills isn't going to expend any time and
>effort!?! Yes, I know, it's a photo op... that you'll be taking. ;-)
>
>> 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, with all due respect, don't be getting all "hypocritical" with us
>over aiding and abetting... You did your own fair share of "troll"
>feeding
What? I didn't respond to SMS at all. Or, are you calling Mark a
troll?
> (I raise my own hand here, I'm guilty as well), some of us spot
>it more easily than others, and get a little enjoyment in watching it
>squirm when caught in a LIE. So climb down off of the moral high
>ground... and chill out!
This isn't an issue of morality. It's an issue of common sense.
Common sense says you don't publish their biography and expect that
this makes them go away. That accomplishes just what they're looking
for: attention.
It's like this pro-P&S idiot that everyone keeps arguing with. Each
posting refuting his information gives him another chance to nail his
screed to the door.
Ignore 'em, they go away. Feed 'em, and they come back like feral
cats.
FarleySimms
wrote:
Dear Resident-Troll,
Mark Thomas
> I consider Mark's post as
> an FYI kinda thing... as in look at what I found.
Zackly. SMS (and D-Mac) differs from your average
ignore-them-and-they-might-go-away troll (Vern) in a number of ways, but
there is one *very* significant aspect that resulted in my post. He
(and Dmac) has multiple webpages and those webpages are often used to:
- try to make a buck
- promote alleged 'expertise'
- portray a fantasy business
- offer 'information' (often misleading or false)
- insult and abuse
- claim to be a 'victim'
- any combination of the above
In other words, it is not just trolling - it is acting in a fraudulent
manner.
> In a way Mark does
> sort of troll... but it is in a specific sort of way, and his target
> can't stop swallowing the hook, line, and sinker (I now wave to D-Mac).
Aaargh, my psyche has been unveiled..! JT, get out of my head!!
Note that I try to be helpful to anyone with genuine enquiries when I
feel qualified (er.. or not!), and you can *easily* verify that I never
target anyone but those who post crap - and even then I'm pretty
selective.. (O:
The SMS's and Dmac's of our world are not ordinary trolls, and ordinary
techniques don't work - just look at both their posting histories if you
are a glutton for punishment. They keep popping up, sometimes with new
identities, and often after long breaks to avoid embarrassment over
gaffes and hopefully to gather a new unsuspecting audience.
>>> (I raise my own hand here, I'm guilty as well), some of us spot
>>> it more easily than others, and get a little enjoyment in watching it
>>> squirm when caught in a LIE.
I'm guilty of that enjoyment.
> ...And more
> importantly not get caught up in another on-going discussion (one
> example would have been photographing Florida Panthers) with it... You
> are the one that admitted to not being able to identify (via the message
> header) one troll from the next, right?
Hence my posting - what better way to inform those too lazy to look, or
new to the group, what they are dealing with? And save them the later
embarrassment of having to admit they too fed the troll or got sucked
into believing someone was an 'expert'.
> - JT
> Be good sir, my apologies if this comes across a little harsh
Same here. Now can we get back to more important topics, like that nice
but blown out pic?
Cheers all.
mt
tony cooper
>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.
SMS
> 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.
Frank ess
JT's Keeper wrote:
> In article <gflmsl$6cn$2...@reader.motzarella.org>,
> Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> JT's Keeper wrote:
>>> I consider Mark's post as
>>> an FYI kinda thing... as in look at what I found.
>> Zackly. SMS (and D-Mac) differs from your average
>> ignore-them-and-they-might-go-away troll (Vern) in a number of
>> ways, but there is one *very* significant aspect that resulted in
>> my post. He (and Dmac) has multiple webpages and those webpages
>> are often used to:
>> - try to make a buck
>> - promote alleged 'expertise'
>> - portray a fantasy business
>> - offer 'information' (often misleading or false)
>> - insult and abuse
>> - claim to be a 'victim'
>> - any combination of the above
>>
>> In other words, it is not just trolling - it is acting in a
>> fraudulent manner.
>>
>>> In a way Mark does
>>> sort of troll... but it is in a specific sort of way, and his
>>> target can't stop swallowing the hook, line, and sinker (I now
>>> wave to D-Mac).
>> Aaargh, my psyche has been unveiled..! JT, get out of my head!!
>>
>
> Sorry! ;-)
>
>> Note that I try to be helpful to anyone with genuine enquiries
>> when I feel qualified (er.. or not!), and you can *easily* verify
>> that I never target anyone but those who post crap - and even then
>> I'm pretty selective.. (O:
>>
>
> I know that... I actually have you filtered as a poster that
> contributes info to the photo groups (a "good" thing btw).
>
>> The SMS's and Dmac's of our world are not ordinary trolls, and
>> ordinary techniques don't work - just look at both their posting
>> histories if you are a glutton for punishment. They keep popping
>> up, sometimes with new identities, and often after long breaks to
>> avoid embarrassment over gaffes and hopefully to gather a new
>> unsuspecting audience.
>>
>>>>> (I raise my own hand here, I'm guilty as well), some of us spot
>>>>> it more easily than others, and get a little enjoyment in
>>>>> watching it squirm when caught in a LIE.
>> I'm guilty of that enjoyment.
>>
>
> I know... Nothing wrong with it every now and again. This is an
> activity that was given the name 'tard smacking' in another
> newsgroup that I used to post to...
>
>>> ...And more
>>> importantly not get caught up in another on-going discussion (one
>>> example would have been photographing Florida Panthers) with
>>> it... You are the one that admitted to not being able to identify
>>> (via the message header) one troll from the next, right?
>> Hence my posting - what better way to inform those too lazy to
>> look, or new to the group, what they are dealing with? And save
>> them the later embarrassment of having to admit they too fed the
>> troll or got sucked into believing someone was an 'expert'.
>>
>
> Exactly... Several of us could contribute to a monthly Troll FAQ...
> err ...never mind, that will just piss off the newsgroup denizens.
> ;-)
>
>>> - JT
>>> Be good sir, my apologies if this comes across a little harsh
>> Same here. Now can we get back to more important topics, like
>> that nice but blown out pic?
>>
>
> Sorry, can't help anyone on that one...
>
> - JT
Of course, from some points of view the whole off-topic arena that so
many obviously enjoy - to the exclusion of most else - seems like a
true sideshow, with the half-man-half-woman, multiple instances of
amazing chameleon socks, the
definitely-not-Kmart-definitely-P&S-obsessor, and even the
man-behind-the-curtain, the one with the really big head, who insists
we pay him no attention but keeps begging for it.
Seen one sideshow, seen 'em all.
And so it goes.
--
Frank ess
"There are some people it is our duty to annoy."
-- Lord Reith
Bob
wrote:
|>source: http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadgets/article/2008-10/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 Ł40 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.com/vampire34/htmlconc.html)