Canon 5D image faults fixable (in November)

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Pix on Canvas, Oct 4, 2005.

  1. It is to question the veracity of some statements. You are,
    arguably, the source of your statements, right?
    1. You claim, you prove.
    2. The sources you named are not talking or don't show what
    you claim they do.
    The free trial can only show that there is a module. It cannot
    show that:
    - some L lenses create faulty images (it only demonstrates that there is a
    transform function for some L lenses)
    - "[o]ne of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for
    Canon cameras" (it only points out that they have such a
    product, but not any sales numbers, nor that this is a popular
    RAW converter on the market)
    - "the 24-70 f2.8 "L" series Canon lens error correction module
    was their most popular module" (again only that they added
    it can be proven, the popularity is not provable. At best
    we'll have a claim from the marketing department, and we
    know these guys.)

    Actually, even the seller wouldn't really know what module was most
    popular, unless they use spyware telling them how often each module
    is called and how long it runs. They can at best guestimate using
    surveys, but these tend to have restrictions, the limit of the
    insight of people into their own behavior being not the least one.

    Is it "Don't question authority -- it doesn't know either." or
    is it "Always question authority. Hot pokers and electrodes are
    optional, but generally preferred for this."?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 12, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pix on Canvas

    Douglas... Guest

    Wolfgang

    It's very interesting that your IP trace shows up a spoofed address.
    Who are you sock puppet for?
     
    Douglas..., Oct 12, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pix on Canvas

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Douglas... blithered hopelessly:
    www.google.com: "Wolfgang Weisselberg"; 34,200 hits

    Did you read any of them? Of course you didn't! You don't need to!
    When you make it up as you go along -- "spoofed address", etc -- things
    like "facts" and "rational arguments" are immaterial, right?
     
    eawckyegcy, Oct 13, 2005
    #43
  4. Well, that's *very* interesting. Which of my IP traces does?
    Care to post it and to explain in detail how you come think
    of it as a spoofed address?

    And care to tell if www.microsoft.com is also a spoofed address?
    How about www.cnn.com?
    I already answered this one. Myself.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 13, 2005
    #44
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.