http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Can I drop AT&T Long Distance, Keep Local? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f4018914d4032866?hl=en
* In my country, there's no such thing as food allergy - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5f96e14d255f3533?hl=en
* Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a year - 5
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
* $27 best deal out there on 2 gigs DDR2 Sodimm? (2 x 1 GB) - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/20109c08e3d416e6?hl=en
* Need a new camera - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32f873581906831f?hl=en
* death-dealing L. turn signal near Tampa, Fla - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/89b7d30c1a8bdb92?hl=en
* washable toilet paper? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf8d7de21aeefd01?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can I drop AT&T Long Distance, Keep Local?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f4018914d4032866?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 3:07 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dan Birchall <nobody@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote
> rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com (Rod Speed) wrote
>> Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote
>>>>> The phone companies like to charge more for touch tone service
>>>>> when it actually saves them money over accepting a pulse.
>>>> No it doesnt.
>>> DTMF code is handled more efficiently partly due
>>> less need for a buffer between pulsed numbers.
>> And that difference doesnt save them a cent.
>>> The result is a faster call with less line time overall.
>> And that difference doesnt save them a cent.
>>> It adds up over millions of calls.
>> No it doesnt when the difference doesnt even save them a thousandth of a cent.
> Out of curiosity... I don't see anyone disputing that they like to charge for touch-tone service.
Didnt dispute that they do.
> And even if it doesn't _save_ them anything, it certainly doesn't appear to _cost_ them anything?
Irrelevant to what I disputed.
And some dont charge extra for touch tone dialing anyway.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: In my country, there's no such thing as food allergy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5f96e14d255f3533?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 3:10 pm
From: ash12l@yahoo.com
I am surprised that so many people in U.S. has food allergy, such as -
can't eat mushroom? Can't eat seafood? And the like. In my country, I
do not know any of person that has food allergy. I guess the people
who can't eat properly on regular food just have their gene pool wiped
out. In the end during the evolution, eventually everyone can eat
virtually everything.
Here in U.S., artificially maintained medical care support some
seriously-defect people, and the genes were passed on to the next
generations, such as food allergy, Down syndrome, Diabetes, pollen
allergy, and many many more. Only oddly happening here.
In addition to the financial credit bubbles, there're many other
bubbles going on in U.S. that most people are not aware of. One of
them is high cost maintained "Longevity" bubble, the lifestyle not
supported by evolution. The artificially supported bad gene pool. It
will end.
Nothing against my U.S. friends. Just a comment above.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 3:24 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"
In article
<d58db0c0-036e-4e39-ac48-b7e20e8feb67@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
ash12l@yahoo.com wrote:
> Here in U.S., artificially maintained medical care support some
> seriously-defect people, and the genes were passed on to the next
> generations, such as food allergy, Down syndrome, Diabetes, pollen
> allergy, and many many more. Only oddly happening here.
How about posting what your country is so we can look up the
statistics and show that you are wrong. More than likely,
people in your country die of starvation or get aids and
don't live past 40. How come the epidemics are always called
things like the Chinese Flu or the Congo Fever, and never stuff
like the Brooklyn Flu or the California Fever?
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 5:40 pm
From: Al Bundy
ash...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am surprised that so many people in U.S. has food allergy, such as -
> can�t eat mushroom? Can�t eat seafood? And the like. In my country, I
> do not know any of person that has food allergy. I guess the people
> who can�t eat properly on regular food just have their gene pool wiped
> out. In the end during the evolution, eventually everyone can eat
> virtually everything.
>
> Here in U.S., artificially maintained medical care support some
> seriously-defect people, and the genes were passed on to the next
> generations, such as food allergy, Down syndrome, Diabetes, pollen
> allergy, and many many more. Only oddly happening here.
>
> In addition to the financial credit bubbles, there�re many other
> bubbles going on in U.S. that most people are not aware of. One of
> them is high cost maintained �Longevity� bubble, the lifestyle not
> supported by evolution. The artificially supported bad gene pool. It
> will end.
>
> Nothing against my U.S. friends. Just a comment above.
We see here Hitler's grandchild, trolling from within. Yea, like he's
a perfect specimen.
Personally, I don't want to be able to eat everything like worms and
grasshoppers.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a
year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 3:48 pm
From: Jeffrey Laventure
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:16:09 -0800, TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote
(in article <JY0Uk.1850$mi4.831@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>):
> In <ll_Tk.6665$x%.4843@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, on 11/16/2008
> at 11:17 AM, George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> said:
>
>
>
>> Interesting that the poster made no mention of executives with seven
>> figure salaries who made bad decisions.
>
> Nor did they bring up civil servants that earn that much with overtime.
> Seems they are only pissed at union boys.
Nor sports. music and movie stars who are make an an obscene paycheck for
providing little value to society.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 4:48 pm
From: "Kitty"
"Jeffrey Laventure" <thinhthi@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C545F13E000A5EADB01AD9AF@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:16:09 -0800, TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote
> (in article <JY0Uk.1850$mi4.831@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>):
>
>> In <ll_Tk.6665$x%.4843@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, on 11/16/2008
>> at 11:17 AM, George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Interesting that the poster made no mention of executives with seven
>>> figure salaries who made bad decisions.
>>
>> Nor did they bring up civil servants that earn that much with overtime.
>> Seems they are only pissed at union boys.
>
> Nor sports. music and movie stars who are make an an obscene paycheck for
> providing little value to society.
>
>
Yep and its funny how that phenomenon works too, they suddenly KNOW they are
the expert on everything. Because we pay them enormous amounts of money to
amuse us , {think court jester here}they are the smartest creatures on earth
and tell us so anytime we "forget".
Kitty
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:14 pm
From: The Real Bev
Kitty wrote:
> "Jeffrey Laventure" <thinhthi@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> Nor sports. music and movie stars who are make an an obscene paycheck for
>> providing little value to society.
>
> Yep and its funny how that phenomenon works too, they suddenly KNOW they are
> the expert on everything. Because we pay them enormous amounts of money to
> amuse us , {think court jester here}they are the smartest creatures on earth
> and tell us so anytime we "forget".
Fortunately a number of them left the country because Bush was elected,
just as they'd promised to do. Oh, wait...
--
Cheers,
Bev
----------------------------------------------
"Tough? We drink our urine and eat our dead!"
-- N. Heilweil
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:29 pm
From: Wilma6116@gmail.com
On Nov 16, 11:17 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Interesting that the poster made no mention of executives with seven
> figure salaries who made bad decisions.
Those executives who make millions don't spend their money either.
They stack it up real high and dive off into a pool of money and swim
in it, afterwards light cigars with $100 bills before jetting of to
Aruba or the Caymans to hide their money from the tax man. When they
die the money goes tooffspring who never have to contribute to
society.
On the other hand, the union workers pay mortgages and send their
kids to college. They pay taxes, eat in restaurants and have their
haircut at the local barber. When they die they leave a little for
family.
Why do we attack each other and say nothing as the rich continue to
get richer?
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 9:52 pm
From: "Billzz"
"Kitty" <cowgirla@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:y63Uk.60787$XT1.17368@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jeffrey Laventure" <thinhthi@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C545F13E000A5EADB01AD9AF@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:16:09 -0800, TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote
>> (in article <JY0Uk.1850$mi4.831@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>):
>>
>>> In <ll_Tk.6665$x%.4843@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, on 11/16/2008
>>> at 11:17 AM, George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Interesting that the poster made no mention of executives with seven
>>>> figure salaries who made bad decisions.
>>>
>>> Nor did they bring up civil servants that earn that much with overtime.
>>> Seems they are only pissed at union boys.
>>
>> Nor sports. music and movie stars who are make an an obscene paycheck for
>> providing little value to society.
>>
>>
>
> Yep and its funny how that phenomenon works too, they suddenly KNOW they
> are the expert on everything. Because we pay them enormous amounts of
> money to amuse us , {think court jester here}they are the smartest
> creatures on earth and tell us so anytime we "forget".
>
> Kitty
When Ted Williams retired from baseball, so did I. I have not, and will
not, pay a cent to see nine millionaires frolic in the field. But on the
other hand, I was thinking about paying five thousand dollars to see Luciano
Pavarotti (and the other two tenors) in Houston, Texas. Fortunately, they
cancelled the concert. Not enough fools like me. So everyone has their
weakness.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: $27 best deal out there on 2 gigs DDR2 Sodimm? (2 x 1 GB)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/20109c08e3d416e6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 4:17 pm
From: "Bob F"
"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:gflpd7$1cb$1@aioe.org...
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146517
>
> Is this the best deal I'm going to be able to find on 200 pin pc2-4200 ddr2
> sodimms for my laptop? I need 2 GB total, have two slots that take 1GB chip
> size max each. Seems like a fair price to me, but of course I'm always on the
> lookout for a rebate or something. :-)
>
> Figured I'd ask, just in case one of you came across something better in the
> last day or two. I'm upgrading partly because I just want more memory in
> here, and also partly because I'm having some occasional system instability,
> and would like to remove the system memory as a possible cause.
>
> Thanks!
http://www.pricewatch.com/system_memory/so-dimm_ddr2_pc2-5300_1gb.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Need a new camera
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32f873581906831f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:40 pm
From: Jeff
Ralph wrote:
> On Nov 15, 10:37 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> BigDog1 wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [Snipped}
>>>> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
>>>> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
>>>> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>>> Hmmmm - never heard that.
>> I think what this is referencing is that higher megapixel cameras tend
>> to be noisier at the the same ISO, because the individual pixel is
>> smaller. Newer sensors, and full frame sensors have ameliorated that.
>
> Yes, you're right. The early high resolution sensors were much
> noisier than they are today, but that's been a while.
>
> Though I rarely shoot an ISO higher than 400 (and stay as far below
> that as I can), I can go pretty far up the scale before noise becomes
> an issue. Usually somewhere between 800 and 1600, and can get almost
> to 3200 before it's too bad to deal with.
The new CMOS sensors are supposed to look damn good at 3200 and you
can shoot several stops faster. I find that unbelievable.
I've noticed that the small Canon A series are rated to 1600. My A95
looks pretty noisy at 400 which is it's top.
>
>> About 150 pixels/inch (for a glossy print) seems OK, so your figure
>> of 3 megapixels for a 4*6 is about right. As you know there's a lot of
>> variables.
>
> You bet! And the biggest one is the lens. Even a moderate quality
> lens attached to a "pro-am" quality DSLR will out perform the optics
> of the best point and shoot camera out there.
Well, I've sunk a long way as far as lenses. I haven't used my
Hasselblad for several years, the glass on it never let me down. The
lens on my Rebel is abysmal in comparison particularly shooting into the
light, a lot of flare. I would call those optics pretty amateur though.
What I dislike most about the small camera is that the fstop is
diffraction limited to f8. It's also very hard to shoot Macro as you
don't have as much control over focus, it always seems like it's focused
a little off. That and the poor light sensitivity, but that is all
changing, except for the fstop.
You've got to go pretty
> far down the quality scale towards the junk end before that's not the
> case.
>
> By the way, thanks for the new word! Never saw "ameliorated"
> before. :-)
Jeff
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 8:23 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <rpmdnXLkWq0FRL3UnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Jeff wrote in part:
>Ralph wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 10:37 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>> BigDog1 wrote:
>>>> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [Snipped}
>>>>> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
>>>>> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
>>>>> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>>>> Hmmmm - never heard that.
>>> I think what this is referencing is that higher megapixel cameras tend
>>> to be noisier at the the same ISO, because the individual pixel is
>>> smaller. Newer sensors, and full frame sensors have ameliorated that.
<SNIP>
>>> About 150 pixels/inch (for a glossy print) seems OK, so your figure
>>> of 3 megapixels for a 4*6 is about right. As you know there's a lot of
>>> variables.
<SNIP>
One thing I found: A trick for more megapixels to not mean more noise,
especially for printing 4*6 at 150 pixels/inch or whatever:
Use a higher megapixel camera, and "resample" the image to one with
fewer and bigger pixels with photo editing software that has such
capability to do that right.
I even researched into what my Canon Powershot A640 10 megapixel camera
would do in comparison with the 8 megapixel variant. I would have
expected the results after processing as I just described above to be
about the same. But the higher megapixel one had noise that would be less
after such treatment and hardly more noise in a picture about 11% bigger
at same pixels per inch. It appears to me that the "DIGIC processing" was
improved for the 10 megapixel version over that in the 8 megapixel
version.
One thing to look for: Overall size of the sensor. Bigger sensor and
same F ratio means more light and higher signal/noise ratio. I chose the
Canon Powershot A640 (and gave serious consideration to a different
megapixel version of basically the same camera, could that be A630?) due
to larger overall sensor size of "1/1.8 inch nominal size", actually close
to effectively 7.1 by 5.325 mm or maybe effectively very close to 7.092
by 5.319 mm. The image dimensions in pixels are 3648 by 2736, and that
uses most but not quite all of a sensor whose dimensions are mentioned in
a review site as being 7.18 by 5.32 mm.
The "nominal size" of a sensor in fraction of an inch is that of the
glass bulb around the sensor should the sensor be a vacuum tube type one,
based on ratios used for such things. The actual effective sensor width
in the wider dimension is close to 50-55% of the "fractional inch" nominal
sensor size, and the actual effective sensor width in the narrower
direction ("image height") is 75% of the actual effective width.
Cameras with high megapixel count, small size and sensors smaller than I
described have sometimes been called "Barbie cameras".
I do say go for larger overall sensor size. Newer versions of the
"DIGIC processing" in the camera helps, and higher megapixels appears
to help slightly with giving more freedom to resample or blur images to
smooth out the noise.
The one downside of larger sensors is that the lens has longer actual
focal lengths, meaning less "depth of field" (ability to stay reasonably
in focus over diverse distances in the same shot, mostly when distances
are shorter and F ratios are smaller).
If you like to take pictures of the sort where something 6 inches away
and something 4 feet (or more) away are simultaneously reasonably in
focus, then that is best done with a camera with shorter actual focal
length lens and smaller sensor size. That task may be done well by what
are sometimes called "Barbie cameras" - ones with smaller sensor sizes, or
smaller sensor size for the megapixel count. Those cameras can have
fairly high megapixel count, and are typically more compact in size and
often simpler to use and are often "derided" by camera reviewers for
having more noise.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: death-dealing L. turn signal near Tampa, Fla
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/89b7d30c1a8bdb92?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 9:53 pm
From: phil scott
On Nov 16, 11:24 am, Dan Birchall <nob...@imaginary-
host.danbirchall.com> wrote:
> I read it twice. I still can't figure out what it's got to do with
> frugality. Is disconnecting traffic signals frugal because it saves
> on electricity?
>
> Or did the original poster aim for misc.consumers and miss?
>
> Baffled...
>
> --
> Screaming in Digital -http://scream.org/- Queensryche fandom since 1991.
whinning about spending money, mispent money by govt, and such is a
part of being frugal... its the frugal mental set.... beyond that, see
the USENET FAQ regarding what is considered off topic for a ng....
summary: normal human interaction is part of any NG, and 25% or so
discusson off the NG topic line is quite fine...if the person posts on
topic the bulk of the rest of the time.
its all part of a social interaction. and thats generally understood
on USENET.
Phil scott
==============================================================================
TOPIC: washable toilet paper?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf8d7de21aeefd01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 10:43 pm
From: phil scott
On Nov 16, 7:42 am, godofbullhitmewithahandof...@gmail.com wrote:
> anyone tried that? shouldnt be too compicated right? a bit like
> washable handkerchiefs exept you need a few more and the washing gets
> a bit more messy!?
>
> could save lots of money in the long term, and also be great for your
> carbon foot print!
the japanese have invented an automatic butt cleaner built into the
toilet seat, two revolvning brushes come up powered by 2 hp 1500 RPM
motors...and an 800 PSIG pressure wash nozzle...and rotating anal
probe insert.
Phil scott
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment