Wich Firewire card?

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Bruno Paula, Sep 17, 2003.

  1. Bruno Paula

    fiddler Guest

    Frankly a sacking would win me a much-needed break but yes, as is already apparent here,
    outing a psuedo-participant (self-outing in this case) will sharply colour and skew the
    responses but that is of interest in itself and certainly not invalidating - exactly
    analogous in quantum mechanics where elementary particles can only be 'observed' by the
    impact of photons on the particles under observation which, in turn, become subject to
    deflection... akin to movements on a billiard table. Exact quantification of the photon's
    momentum enables a prediction about the motion of a particular particle had it not been
    engaged by the photon and the influence of the observation can thus be factored out.
    Similar approaches are now commonplace in some of the progressive branches of the social
    sciences. There are currently several hundred experiments running across usenet the vast
    majority of which are undeclared. There are three categories; watched,watched
    psuedo-participated and watched-declared. All of them are controlled and constantly
    reviewed and no posting - including this one - is deemed extraneous or non-interventional.
    The revelation doesn't invalidate, though it will potentiate a direction change.
     
    fiddler, Sep 27, 2003
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruno Paula

    fiddler Guest

    Don't be silly - what else could he do? He doesn't have a life outside usenet either.
     
    fiddler, Sep 27, 2003
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruno Paula

    lpp Guest

    Why "quasi technical" socialese, what's wrong with real technical
    socialese? You certainly could do with a course on plain writing.

    Which type are you currently playing at being? :)
     
    lpp, Sep 27, 2003
    #83
  4. Try 'self important bullshitting troll'

    Mike
     
    Michael Swift, Sep 27, 2003
    #84
  5. Bruno Paula

    fiddler Guest

    'real' and 'quasi' have different meanings so they don't make happy substitutes. Social
    sciences love jargon - 'socialese' (no standard definition) is far more questionable than
    'quasi'- it's a habit I need to maintain for the benefit of my colleagues.
     
    fiddler, Sep 27, 2003
    #85
  6. Bruno Paula

    fiddler Guest

    We're all having a good laugh here! (sorry we probably won't have much time for you)
     
    fiddler, Sep 27, 2003
    #86
  7. Bruno Paula

    lpp Guest

    You mean that ALL socialese (although you say you don't know the
    meaning of this word :) is quasi-technical?

    I ask again: Which type are you? You wrote a paragraph of waffle
    (not) explaining how your intervention side-stepped Heisenberg. Want
    to continue that self-analysis and attempt the question?
     
    lpp, Sep 27, 2003
    #87
  8. Bruno Paula

    Jerry. Guest

    As someone who has been on this group since it's creation [1], other than a
    short break where TM's bulling became far to much for me and the group, I
    don't see a decrease in posting due to this thread. People are still asking
    'new' question (even though most could have been answered if the poster had
    bothered to "RTFM" - Read The Frigging Manual !...).

    TM is no more a 'valuable resource' as anyone else, no one is or should be
    on a pedestal, what TM knows and a lot more besides is known by others, if
    he leaves then another person will come forth (perhaps someone who ATM just
    lurking and is being put off posting answers by the 'high almightily
    attitude of TM and his supporters - the group will survive if TM, myself,
    "Lpp" or you left the group - that is the nature of un moderated Usenet
    groups, just as it did when the creator of the group Anthony Bourne(?) went
    off in a huff.

    [1] having voted for the creation when it's RFD when to the voting stage.
     
    Jerry., Sep 27, 2003
    #88
  9. Bruno Paula

    fiddler Guest

    There are 3 mistakes there including 1 false premise.
    Heisenberg??...... "A little google is a dangerous thing". The uncertainty principle is
    a tussle between momentum and position - it says nothing about nor has anything to do with
    subtractive analysis (that's a bit of socialese BTW). You'll have to dig a bit deeper
    than that to find the analogy. A little naive of you to imagine I'd be prepared to go to
    any great trouble to explain.
    Of course not.



    .....aaaahhh the weekend. à bientot.
     
    fiddler, Sep 27, 2003
    #89
  10. TM is no more a 'valuable resource' as anyone else, no one is or should be
    Indeed.

    It's a pity that we even think in terms of TM having supporters. His
    ideas and advice should earn support when justified, but be constantly
    scrutinised.

    Infallible gurus are very rare on Usenet. Scott Dorsey, in
    rec.audio.pro, is the only one I've come across. But he's a veteran
    professional in his field. Enthusiastic amateurs such as TM can't
    hope to play in that league.

    When I visit groups concerned with my own trade, it's only too obvious
    how shallow the knowledge often is. I'm sure a video professional
    would find the same here :)

    BTW, what caused this group's founder to have his huff? Are huffs
    endemic round here? Perhaps it's because home video is so often a
    load of equipment lacking any real purpose, we get obsessed with
    talking about it :)
     
    exalted wombat, Sep 27, 2003
    #90
  11. Bruno Paula

    lpp Guest

    OK, you swallowed the bait.
    I fed you a technical inaccuracy, peripheral to the subject, to chew
    on. You leapt on it with glee, and are enjoying putting me down.

    You're a Tony Martin type :)
     
    lpp, Sep 27, 2003
    #91

  12. You've been out-trolled there I think :)
     
    exalted wombat, Sep 27, 2003
    #92
  13. Bruno Paula

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, fiddler
    In your dreams....

    Judging by your post and the complete lack of relevance to the newsgroup
    (let me help you... it's "uk.rec.video.digital" - though I can see that
    it is a little difficult for your amoebic brain cell to grasp).

    Anyway, I'll be able to confirm tomorrow when I contact Bill Wakeham,
    and I'll post his response here (sorry, that's today now).
     
    Tony Morgan, Sep 29, 2003
    #93
  14. Bruno Paula

    Tony Morgan Guest

    At Rampton?
     
    Tony Morgan, Sep 29, 2003
    #94
  15. Bruno Paula

    Tony Morgan Guest

    That isn't true in two respects.

    1. The peripheral OEMs were invited to create and supply
    drivers for Microsoft XP Certification - and charged for the
    privilege. Microsoft did *not* forecast *anything*.

    2. Many peripheral manufacturers saw XP as a means of boosting
    sales. By not supplying drivers for their peripheral models that
    were coming towards the end of their product life-cycle they
    were able to sell more boxes. Epson, Sony and HP are just
    three manufacturers who did this.
     
    Tony Morgan, Sep 29, 2003
    #95
  16. Bruno Paula

    george Guest

    Don't be silly. Devices with similar interface requirements could
    and do use a standard driver. For years, Windows has recognised IDE
    drives and CD devices, displaying their name - gleaned from the device
    itself - and used a generic driver. This is exactly what XP is
    doing with the modern digital cameras. Plug in - Windows says "What
    are you?" devices says "XYZ digital camera - standard driver OK". No
    further intervention required. I've seen it happen twice today, with
    two different cameras on two different computers. One a USB device,
    one a FireWire. It's one of the really nice features of Windows XP
    for camera users, still and video.
     
    george, Sep 29, 2003
    #96
  17. Bruno Paula

    Dave R Guest

    No, Trumpton.
     
    Dave R, Sep 29, 2003
    #97
  18. Bruno Paula

    Dave R Guest

    <fx: marks thread as "watch from here down">
     
    Dave R, Sep 29, 2003
    #98
  19. Bruno Paula

    fiddler Guest

    You fed a what? You're so far out of your depth on QM that your 'peripheral technical
    inaccuracy' was merely a dropped name (the wrong one at that) preceeded by some
    inappropriate verb - sub-gobbledegook. No, what you proffered was a childlike guile, a
    transparent and generally poor attempt at everyday google bluffery, but which we needed to
    counter in a staged manner in order to finesse a particular reply-range from you (you've
    obliged). You're playing to your imagined gallery here and that is useful for us,
    particularly if, by measured aggression we can also bring out some 'supporters' within the
    group (unfortunately, only one seems to have piped up in your aid so far on this). And
    try not to get too carried away with your imagined significance of this in 'my' postings -
    it's part of my job, as gleeful as emitting a fart, and delivered according to formulaic
    directives. Everything written is a response-provoking stimulus. The postings from 'me',
    right down to the insults, are shaped by the team. They're from us.

    'Types' don't interest us too much since we are examining inidviduals in the context of
    hierarchies and in any case there is no 'me' - I'm one of a chameleonic dissembling
    collective. Your own posts are peppered with attempted and generally clumsy put downs so
    on the face of it you're veering towards what you call aTony Martin type yourself. You
    won't of course be able to see that since, with the help of others in the group, you'll be
    suffering some common useneters' delusions which disable even the remotest possibility of
    objecive self-appraisal or honesty. (This is the most serious malaise within usenet as
    I'm sure you're aware and this ng has far more than its fair share - we rate it as 82%
    non-constructive and 65% destructive against a usenet-wide average of 43%and 27%
    respectively).

    Yet there are significant differences between you and TM; added narcissism, no apparent
    self-loathing, a desperate determination to win (as above) augmenting the all-too-familiar
    determination to be right (even at the expense of truth) and the frequent but
    inappropriate use of the smiley - a not unusual usenet stereotype and already documented
    well enough for us to shift our focus elsewhere. We currently have you at 84%
    predictability which exceeds our margin for continued interest so whether or not you
    continue to post there will be no follow up to you in particular. Our watchers will read
    the tail-end of this thread much later on to collate the closing pattern and to see how it
    measures up to our predictions. Thanks for helping us sum you up.
    A link to the final report will be posted here towards mid 2004.
     
    fiddler, Sep 29, 2003
    #99
  20. Bruno Paula

    SjT Guest

    He evidently has more of a life than you my friend.
     
    SjT, Sep 29, 2003
    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.