Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 26 new messages in 10 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A new WheelChair is being researched by free energy, the Gravity...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/19c62ad38497fc28?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 11:05 am
From: Al Bundy

On Nov 13, 10:39 am, mgulk1234 <musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> An old failure, new success of a Renewable Energy Source: The gravity.
>
> Detailed info is in short youtube vid.s (30 sec each, and similar all)
> here:
>
> mgulk..
>
> Future Energy : The Gravity, For Free...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTlogoPYZs
>
> Energy from gravity: an affordable self popelled wheel chair...www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlR2VEMXMkA
>
> Energy from gravity (pure mechanical) ...www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf7urAWuiu8

The video provides no useful information to understand how such a
device works.
We know a wheel chair will roll down hill. That's gravity working. To
go anywhere else you have to add energy. I can conceive of a device
that would allow a person to use their arms to lift a weight and build
up energy in some storage device. If they could do that, they could
push the wheel instead. That would be free. We know that batteries are
great for storing energy for wheelchairs and the user doesn't have to
be able to do anything except push a toggle on the arm. I don't think
there will be much savings by expecting disabled people to generate
their own power.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Coinstar Offer (and Caveat)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d588469c33c799f3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 11:13 am
From: BigDog1

On Nov 13, 10:10 pm, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> "Brian Elfert" <belf...@visi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0bWdnVLuldAvX4HUnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@posted.visi...
>
> > Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >>So I got three rolls of quarters at the bank ($30) and dumped them in.
> >>The total Coinstar registered was $29.61. I threw in two more quarters
>
> > This seems pretty deliberate since it came up with a number not divisible
> > by 25. I could see being off by 25 or 50 cents, but not 39 cents.
>
> > Someone should find a lawyer hungry for a class action.
>
> Agreed. But it still sounds like a lot of time and gas (trip to the bank,
> trip to the coinstar machine) to make $10, and it's a gift card at that.

Yep. Way more time and trouble than I'd go to for a $10.00 gift
card. Now, if it had been a $10.00 bill I could pickup from the
cashier when I cashed in my ticket.....

Besides, Coinstar is a well known rip. Not that they design their
machines to deliberately undercount, but in most states they're
unregulated and aren't subject to the same kind of testing and
calibration that the coin counters at your bank are.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: black mould washing machine door seal
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/640ed11ee759b1bc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 11:37 am
From: lisajoe@privacy.net

don't waste money on HE detergent!

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:33:29 +0000, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Rod
<polygonum@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Huge wrote:
>> On 2008-11-14, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 4:51 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2008-11-13, Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> US has more started becoming concerned about wash economy too, but
>>>>> you can't simply put a European washing machine in the US,
>>>> W-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-lll. You can buy Bosch front-loaders in the US now, although as
>>>> you say, low foam detergents are hard to find, and rumour has it that Bosch
>>>> don't have much of a service operation in the US, so it will be hard to get it
>>>> fixed if it fails.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Bosch's sold in the US use the same HE detergents that all the
>>> other front loading machines sold in the US use.
>>
>> And there are shitloads of those, right?
>>
>Actually, this thread prompted me to have a quick look at the Maytag
>site. (Couldn't think of another make.) Quite a few front loaders. 6 out
>of 15.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 1:55 pm
From: trader4@optonline.net

On Nov 14, 10:14 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-11-14, trad...@optonline.net <trad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 4:51 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2008-11-13, Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > US has more started becoming concerned about wash economy too, but
> >> > you can't simply put a European washing machine in the US,
>
> >> W-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-lll. You can buy Bosch front-loaders in the US now, although as
> >> you say, low foam detergents are hard to find, and rumour has it that Bosch
> >> don't have much of a service operation in the US, so it will be hard to get it
> >> fixed if it fails.
>
> > The Bosch's sold in the US use the same HE detergents that all the
> > other front loading machines sold in the US use.
>
> And there are shitloads of those, right?

Well, actually yes, there are lots of front loaders being sold. If
you got away from watching cartoons and went to any appliance store
you would see that the stores are full of them.

>
> --
> "I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose
> happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others." - Thomas Jefferson
> [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 3:33 pm
From: S Viemeister

trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Nov 14, 10:14 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2008-11-14, trad...@optonline.net <trad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 14, 4:51 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2008-11-13, Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> US has more started becoming concerned about wash economy too, but
>>>>> you can't simply put a European washing machine in the US,
>>>> W-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-lll. You can buy Bosch front-loaders in the US now, although as
>>>> you say, low foam detergents are hard to find, and rumour has it that Bosch
>>>> don't have much of a service operation in the US, so it will be hard to get it
>>>> fixed if it fails.
>>> The Bosch's sold in the US use the same HE detergents that all the
>>> other front loading machines sold in the US use.
>> And there are shitloads of those, right?
>
> Well, actually yes, there are lots of front loaders being sold. If
> you got away from watching cartoons and went to any appliance store
> you would see that the stores are full of them.
>
>
Be fair, though - it's only fairly recently that front-loaders have been
available in any great numbers in the US.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 5:09 pm
From: Archon

trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Nov 14, 8:39 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2008-11-14, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:26:01 UTC, ghes...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <2l6ph4pvf77e8lssdn7eggq99iv6efb...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Mike <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [ ... ] Then they tumble dry the washing into
>>>>>> submission when they have a house on a 2 acre plot and outside its 80
>>>>>> deg C, with a gentle breeze and blue sky as far as you can see.
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>> Not my words but essentially those of a Professor in fabric technology
>>>>>> at a UK university.
>>>>> You have a professor at a UK university who thinks places in the US
>>>>> routinely have 80C temperatures? That's 176F; doesn't happen.
>>>> Making a lot out of a typo, aren't you?
>>> I suppose the "heat it to boiling for a couple of hours" claim was also
>>> a typo?
>> No, it was the truth.
>
>
> What an ignoramus.

Living in NJ USA, (and I've previously criticized in another thread, the
wonderfully expensive Maytag Neptune for stinking mold if you don't
leave the door open) but you Brits/Europeons (Ha!) forget that 80-90F
heat comes with 90-100% humidity, so, hang your clothes out for a few
days, they won't dry, something will eat them, or make a home in them
and they will smell. I first learned this lesson in Singapore, 99%
humidity does NOT dry clothes, so, you have to use a dryer. The answer
to smelly washers is to run them on 240V and put a freakin heater in
them, jeez theres a heater in the dishwasher, (Which fills from hot,
unlike the UK) can't the Yanks figure out putting a heater in a washing
machine without the Bosch showing them how to do it? Of course a US
washing machine will happily accept a V8 engine through the door which
is nice, but means there is a lot more water in there.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Need a new camera
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32f873581906831f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 11:34 am
From: BigDog1

On Nov 14, 11:36 am, Al Bundy <MSfort...@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> OhioGuy wrote:
> > I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> > for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> > included pictures)
>
> > I need something that is:
>
> > 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
>
> > 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
>
> > 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
>
> > 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
> > (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
> > use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
>
> > 5) under $200
>
> > Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
> > for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
> > to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
> > this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
> > couple weeks for a potential deal.
>
> > For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
> > specs above? Thanks!
>
> I've gone through probably a dozen digital cameras. The battery usage
> has often been very bad. It is so bad on an HP I have that I rigged up
> lithium ion batteries with a greater capacity and voltage to run it
> properly. Then I switched to Canon. The "A" series Canon was designed
> for alkaline batteries. They also allow rechargeable types. I take
> pictures every day. I can be assured of taking over 100 pictures over
> a few days without a problem. The book says 400+ on a charge. I just
> recharge them based on a time basis every few weeks. So I recommend
> Canon. They have models using four AA cells as you wanted. The high
> level of zoom you seek is probably not going to happen for that $200
> price. There are reasons for that too. Unless you use a tripod, even
> the anti-shake won't prevent some fuzzy pictures at that level of
> zoom. In such cases you are better off taking pictures with less zoom
> and cropping them on your computer. I suggest at least 4X optical
> zoom, but more is not really helpful unless you plan to use a tripod.
>
> Partly off topic, I also have an old Sony Mavica that takes pictures
> on a floppy disk. The run time on the battery is over two hours
> continuous operation. The pictures are only about about 75kb
> (640X480) so that's a problem. The big advantage is that it has a 10X
> optical zoom and a 1/4000 speed lens. Those zoomed pictures are very
> clear. No tripod is needed. If I were not stuck on Canon, I would
> consider something more modern from Sony because of their superior
> engineering.

I agree your assessment of battery life, Al. I use a Canon Powershot
that takes two AA batteries as my walking around camera. I don't
shoot as much as you, and don't bother with rechargeables. I use
lithium batteries. They seem expensive, but I get as many shots from
a pair of them, as six or eight alkalines. The down side is that
they're designed to put out full power over their entire life. The
low battery warning doesn't work; they don't get "weak". When they
die you go from fully charged batteries for one shot, and your camera
is a paper weight for the next. After they've been in the camera for
a while you have to have a spare set handy.

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 11:44 am
From: Jeff

Al Bundy wrote:
>
> OhioGuy wrote:
>> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
>> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
>> included pictures)
>>
>> I need something that is:
>>
>> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
>>
>> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
>>
>> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
>>
>> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
>> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
>> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
>>
>> 5) under $200
>>
>> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
>> for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
>> to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
>> this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
>> couple weeks for a potential deal.
>>
>> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
>> specs above? Thanks!
>
> I've gone through probably a dozen digital cameras. The battery usage
> has often been very bad. It is so bad on an HP I have that I rigged up
> lithium ion batteries with a greater capacity and voltage to run it
> properly. Then I switched to Canon. The "A" series Canon was designed
> for alkaline batteries.

The A's are nice cameras, I carry an A95 always. 4 AA. I can take
hundreds and hundreds of pics on a set of NiMh. Usually have a 2GB card
in it. Flash usage will take a severe hit on that, but then on camera
flash pictures tend towards being hideous.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=183&modelid=17482

Personally, I like the fold out screens. You may not need that. But
they really help with composition as the lens and view screen do not
need to be pointing in the same direction.

Canon leads in camera technology, Nikon is catching up. Sony always
does something experimental and I would not buy a Sony product without
an extended warranty. I say that because I've been in the service business.

Most of the other brands are ergonomic monsters. Always test the
camera and if you know little about photography take a photographer with
you. Don't buy solely on megapixels and zoom. There's plenty of bad
cameras out there just for those that fall for catchwords.

Jeff

They also allow rechargeable types. I take
> pictures every day. I can be assured of taking over 100 pictures over
> a few days without a problem. The book says 400+ on a charge. I just
> recharge them based on a time basis every few weeks. So I recommend
> Canon. They have models using four AA cells as you wanted. The high
> level of zoom you seek is probably not going to happen for that $200
> price. There are reasons for that too. Unless you use a tripod, even
> the anti-shake won't prevent some fuzzy pictures at that level of
> zoom. In such cases you are better off taking pictures with less zoom
> and cropping them on your computer. I suggest at least 4X optical
> zoom, but more is not really helpful unless you plan to use a tripod.
>
> Partly off topic, I also have an old Sony Mavica that takes pictures
> on a floppy disk. The run time on the battery is over two hours
> continuous operation. The pictures are only about about 75kb
> (640X480) so that's a problem. The big advantage is that it has a 10X
> optical zoom and a 1/4000 speed lens. Those zoomed pictures are very
> clear. No tripod is needed. If I were not stuck on Canon, I would
> consider something more modern from Sony because of their superior
> engineering.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 1:48 pm
From: Al Bundy

On Nov 14, 2:44 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> Al Bundy wrote:
>
> > OhioGuy wrote:
> >> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> >> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> >> included pictures)
>
> >> I need something that is:
>
> >> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
>
> >> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
>
> >> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
>
> >> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
> >> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
> >> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
>
> >> 5) under $200
>
> >> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
> >> for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
> >> to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
> >> this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
> >> couple weeks for a potential deal.
>
> >> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
> >> specs above? Thanks!
>
> > I've gone through probably a dozen digital cameras. The battery usage
> > has often been very bad. It is so bad on an HP I have that I rigged up
> > lithium ion batteries with a greater capacity and voltage to run it
> > properly. Then I switched to Canon. The "A" series Canon was designed
> > for alkaline batteries.
>
> The A's are nice cameras, I carry an A95 always. 4 AA. I can take
> hundreds and hundreds of pics on a set of NiMh. Usually have a 2GB card
> in it. Flash usage will take a severe hit on that, but then on camera
> flash pictures tend towards being hideous.
>
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcatego...
>
> Personally, I like the fold out screens. You may not need that. But
> they really help with composition as the lens and view screen do not
> need to be pointing in the same direction.
>
> Canon leads in camera technology, Nikon is catching up. Sony always
> does something experimental and I would not buy a Sony product without
> an extended warranty. I say that because I've been in the service business.
>
> Most of the other brands are ergonomic monsters. Always test the
> camera and if you know little about photography take a photographer with
> you. Don't buy solely on megapixels and zoom. There's plenty of bad
> cameras out there just for those that fall for catchwords.
>
> Jeff
>
> They also allow rechargeable types. I take
>
> > pictures every day. I can be assured of taking over 100 pictures over
> > a few days without a problem. The book says 400+ on a charge. I just
> > recharge them based on a time basis every few weeks. So I recommend
> > Canon. They have models using four AA cells as you wanted. The high
> > level of zoom you seek is probably not going to happen for that $200
> > price. There are reasons for that too. Unless you use a tripod, even
> > the anti-shake won't prevent some fuzzy pictures at that level of
> > zoom. In such cases you are better off taking pictures with less zoom
> > and cropping them on your computer. I suggest at least 4X optical
> > zoom, but more is not really helpful unless you plan to use a tripod.
>
> > Partly off topic, I also have an old Sony Mavica that takes pictures
> > on a floppy disk. The run time on the battery is over two hours
> > continuous operation. The pictures are only about about 75kb
> > (640X480) so that's a problem. The big advantage is that it has a 10X
> > optical zoom and a 1/4000 speed lens. Those zoomed pictures are very
> > clear. No tripod is needed. If I were not stuck on Canon, I would
> > consider something more modern from Sony because of their superior
> > engineering.

Good advice there.
At one time I was bringing cameras home from WalMart and they were not
working for me because of battery life or software that can't be
checked in the store. The manager of the department said, "WalMart
will be tracking all these returns and may shut you off at some
point." I pointed out that their store policy allowed the returns and
I considered those cameras defective. I ended up over at Target for a
sale.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 5:58 pm
From: "Dave"

"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:gfk881$k4g$1@aioe.org...
> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)
>
> I need something that is:
>
> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
>
> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
>
> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
>
> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
>
> 5) under $200
>
> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
> for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close to
> Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like this
> tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another couple
> weeks for a potential deal.
>
> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
> specs above? Thanks!

You won't find that camera for $200 on Black Friday or any other day in the
next six months or so. The prices will come down, but less than $200? Give
it 12 months at least, or up your budget. I think the closest you will come
if you buy this year is a Nikon Coolpix P80, which bfads shows an adscan at
Circuit City for ~$300 on Black Friday. I know you said 4 AA batteries, but
any digital camera that uses plain old AA batteries is going to have very
short battery life, even if there's FOUR of them. The P80 has rechargeable
lithium ion. The specs claim 250 pictures per charge. Allowing for the
usual fudge factor, you should get 100 pictures per charge out of it,
easily. And you can always carry a spare battery pack, if you want. You'll
have to buy an SD memory card for it, about another ten bucks. The same CC
Black Friday ad shows SD cards from 2GB to 8GB, ranging from 5 bucks to 25
bucks. ANY of them would work great. I'd probably go for the 4GB Kodak
brand SD memory card for $9.99. MORE than enough room, I don't think you'll
ever fill it up. -Dave

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 6:46 pm
From: Al Bundy

OhioGuy wrote:
> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)
>
> I need something that is:
>
> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
>
> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
>
> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
>
> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
>
> 5) under $200
>
> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
> for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
> to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
> this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
> couple weeks for a potential deal.
>
> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
> specs above? Thanks!

I also have to point out that a 9MPX picture for the purpose of a
generally small magazine article is much more than usable or
necessary. A simple 3.2MPX picture would end up almost identical when
compressed to the size used there. I find the focus and lens speed
more important in landing a clear picture. For that matter, a simple
35mm film camera would do even better. You could have the pictures the
same day and on a disk too. My local CVS drug store does a great job
of enhancing any marginal photos.

It would sure be nice if you would share one of your free lance
articles that has a picture. If this is really more than just a
pastime or hobby, you need to think of professional equipment and
compare reviews of same in the photo group.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 6:49 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <gfk881$k4g$1@aioe.org>, OhioGuy <none@none.net> wrote:

> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)
>
> I need something that is:
>
> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
>
> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
>
> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
>
> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
>
> 5) under $200
>
> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
> for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
> to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
> this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
> couple weeks for a potential deal.
>
> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
> specs above? Thanks!

You really need to re-evaluate your criteria. You're much better off
with a camera that uses a small lithium ion battery. You'll get hundreds
of photos out of each charge that way and the battery will take up no
more space then a book of matches. For a camera that offers 8x or 8x
optical zoom and 8 or 9MP, you're going to have to increase your price
range. Check http://www.dpreview.com to see what's available.

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 8:17 pm
From: The Real Bev

OhioGuy wrote:

> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)

I love my Canon A720IS.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/canon_a720.html

> I need something that is:
>
> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
8 mp

> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
yes

> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
6. In theory you want image stabilization with
this zoom level, but I can't really tell the difference.

> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)

2 AA cells. I use Duracell precharged NiMH batteries, which claim to
maintain charge up to a year. I have two in the camera and another pair
in the case. I've never needed to take so many pictures that battery
death from usage was a problem so I haven't kept count. My guess would
be a couple hundred on a pair of charged batteries.

One thing about the camera -- every once in a while it thinks the
batteries are dead. They're not, and it realizes it when you open and
then close the battery door. I had a previous similar camera which
after a while NEVER realized the batteries were OK, and it was replaced
under warranty with the A720.

> 5) under $200

$199, probably cheaper now.

> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
> for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
> to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
> this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
> couple weeks for a potential deal.
>
> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
> specs above? Thanks!

I wouldn't have a camera with a proprietary battery. You have to buy a
spare (they're never cheap) and keep it charged and ALWAYS have it with
you; in a pinch you can buy AAs just about anywhere.

--
Cheers,
Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
--Revolution Books, New York, New York

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 8:22 pm
From: The Real Bev

OhioGuy wrote:

> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)

One thing I forgot, which I swore I would pay attention to when I bought
my current camera and then didn't -- WHY DO THEY ONLY GIVE YOU ONE
EYELET? No sane person wants a camera to dangle from his wrist or flop
around dangling from his neck; you need TWO for any sort of stability.

I was really bummed that the only cameras with two eyelets were bigger
than I wanted. How much could an extra eyelet cost?

--
Cheers,
Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
--Revolution Books, New York, New York

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 9:59 pm
From: Jeff

The Real Bev wrote:
> OhioGuy wrote:
>
>> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking
>> pictures for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for
>> articles with included pictures)
>
> I love my Canon A720IS.
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/canon_a720.html

I'm not surprised!

The Canon A series just keeps getting better, and cheaper!

How's it look at the higher film speeds?

I just had a look at the rest of the current Canon A line, and yours
looks like the best. I'm depressed they dumped the fold out screen though.

Jeff
>
>> I need something that is:
>>
>> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
> 8 mp
>
>> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
> yes
>
>> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
> 6. In theory you want image stabilization with
> this zoom level, but I can't really tell the difference.
>
>> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
>> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
>> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
>
> 2 AA cells. I use Duracell precharged NiMH batteries, which claim to
> maintain charge up to a year. I have two in the camera and another pair
> in the case. I've never needed to take so many pictures that battery
> death from usage was a problem so I haven't kept count. My guess would
> be a couple hundred on a pair of charged batteries.
>
> One thing about the camera -- every once in a while it thinks the
> batteries are dead. They're not, and it realizes it when you open and
> then close the battery door. I had a previous similar camera which
> after a while NEVER realized the batteries were OK, and it was replaced
> under warranty with the A720.
>
>> 5) under $200
>
> $199, probably cheaper now.
>
>> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am
>> looking for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting
>> pretty close to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end
>> digital cameras like this tend to be discounted, or whether it might
>> be worth waiting another couple weeks for a potential deal.
>>
>> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
>> specs above? Thanks!
>
> I wouldn't have a camera with a proprietary battery. You have to buy a
> spare (they're never cheap) and keep it charged and ALWAYS have it with
> you; in a pinch you can buy AAs just about anywhere.
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Ultimate Online Mall
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bdd553876b0142bf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 1:02 pm
From: kiptu13@gmail.com

I am an entrepreneur with a limitless ambition to create a global
internet space where everyone can shop and get unlimited access to a
variety of products and services regardless of there geographic
location in the world. To do this we at BMO Enterprises LLC have
created an online affiliate platform for anyone with access to
internet to be able to shop. All groups and individuals are welcome
to join us and benefit by utilizing our online space at http://www.bmogems.com

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 1:03 pm
From: kiptu13@gmail.com

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 1:41 pm
From: Al Bundy

kipt...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am an entrepreneur with a limitless ambition to create a global
> internet space where everyone can shop and get unlimited access to a
> variety of products and services regardless of there geographic
> location in the world. To do this we at BMO Enterprises LLC have
> created an online affiliate platform for anyone with access to
> internet to be able to shop. All groups and individuals are welcome
> to join us and benefit by utilizing our online space at http://www.bogusity.com

Yea, you and a billion others.
You didn't create anything. There are plenty of places to shop.
Sorry. All the chairs are taken. You're left standing. Now go home.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 3:04 pm
From: George Grapman

kiptu13@gmail.com wrote:
> I am an entrepreneur with a limitless ambition to create a global
> internet space where everyone can shop and get unlimited access to a
> variety of products and services regardless of there geographic
> location in the world. To do this we at BMO Enterprises LLC have
> created an online affiliate platform for anyone with access to
> internet to be able to shop. All groups and individuals are welcome
> to join us and benefit by utilizing our online space at http://www.bmogems.com

I admit, I was skeptical but then I checked the contact information
ans saw that,like your post, it is a gmail address so now I know it is
legitimate.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 3:52 pm
From: George

George Grapman wrote:
> kiptu13@gmail.com wrote:
>> I am an entrepreneur with a limitless ambition to create a global
>> internet space where everyone can shop and get unlimited access to a
>> variety of products and services regardless of there geographic
>> location in the world. To do this we at BMO Enterprises LLC have
>> created an online affiliate platform for anyone with access to
>> internet to be able to shop. All groups and individuals are welcome
>> to join us and benefit by utilizing our online space at
>> http://www.bmogems.com
>
>
> I admit, I was skeptical but then I checked the contact information
> ans saw that,like your post, it is a gmail address so now I know it is
> legitimate.

You jest but I was at a location and a 20 something person was talking
about some "make money with my special training" deal. I suggested that
the only one making money is whomever devised the "training". He was
absolutely convinced that it was true because thats what the "WWW" means...

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 7:29 pm
From: George Grapman

George wrote:
> George Grapman wrote:
>> kiptu13@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I am an entrepreneur with a limitless ambition to create a global
>>> internet space where everyone can shop and get unlimited access to a
>>> variety of products and services regardless of there geographic
>>> location in the world. To do this we at BMO Enterprises LLC have
>>> created an online affiliate platform for anyone with access to
>>> internet to be able to shop. All groups and individuals are welcome
>>> to join us and benefit by utilizing our online space at
>>> http://www.bmogems.com
>>
>>
>> I admit, I was skeptical but then I checked the contact information
>> ans saw that,like your post, it is a gmail address so now I know it is
>> legitimate.
>
> You jest but I was at a location and a 20 something person was talking
> about some "make money with my special training" deal. I suggested that
> the only one making money is whomever devised the "training". He was
> absolutely convinced that it was true because thats what the "WWW" means...

Thee warning signs for me:

Posts from gmail.
The "contact" information is either a form you have to send to them
or the same gmail address.
"Testimonials" from Bob.W in Seattle and Mary L. in Atlanta.
My company and every firm we do business with have clear contact
details with company names,physical addresses, emails and phone numbers
but,of course, none of us have anything to hide.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Campbell Soup porition size
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/64e2148dd373a346?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 4:52 pm
From: "Lou"

"Roger Shoaf" <shoaf@nospamsyix.com> wrote in message
news:1226682987.466028@news01.syix.com...
>
> "Bartc" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:RKJSk.86829$E41.17760@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > <ant30dio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
news:6106b43b-165b-42a6-badc-083c6accf558@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > > is it my eyes or did Campbell Soup start making there portions smaller
> > > on the canned soup.
> > > I dont have an older can around to check, but it sure looks like it.
> > > Guess they think no one will notice.
> > > This can is 10 3/4 OZ.
> >
> > I vaguely remember them as 298g so sounds about right.
> >
> > But the serving size seems to be 2/5 of a can which is rather odd. Has
> > anyone ever opened a can and only used 2/5 (or 4/5 between two) of the
> > contents?
> >
> > --
> > Bartc
> >
>
> This is a nutri-label gimmick. Portion sizes are arbitrary but if the can
> says that a portion is 2/5 of a can, then the numbers for fat, sodium or
> calories are listed as being less.

Yes and no. Portion sizes are supposed to be standard units. **Serving
size**, on the other hand, is set by the FDA for various categories of food
products - there are 129 or so categories for foods in the general food
supply, and 11 categories for foods intended as infant and toddler foods.
The serving size is the amount of food consumed per eating occasion by
persons 4 years old and older, expressed in common household units
appropriate to the food (like teaspoon of sugar, cup of coffee, slice of
bread). The numbers are based on data collected in 1977-1978 and 1987-1988
by food consumption surveys conducted by the Department of Agriculture.
Reference amounts estimating the amount most likely to be customarily
consumed per eating occasion for each category were estimated by the FDA
based on these surveys.

My guess is that kids eat more canned soups than adults, and that while kids
may eat more frequently than adults they generally consume less at each
"eating occasion". That in turn, would tend to drive the serving size down
to a level that might seem skimpy to an adult. And before say that even
with kids you don't serve 2/5 of a can per person, remember that in spite of
it's name, a "serving size" is not what's put on the plate (or in the bowl)
in front of the kid, it's what actually gets eaten.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: www.brandfusions.com UGG Classic Cardy Boots Grey/Black colors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/75e1acb09efc5bd0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 8:00 pm
From: "brandfusions01@gmail.com"

www.brandfusions.com
UGG Classic Cardy Boots Grey/Black colors
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Grey Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Orange Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Oatmeal Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Mulberry Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Purple Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Black Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Stonewash Blue Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Stout Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Indigo Boots
UGG Australia Women's Classic Cardy #5819 - Dust Rose Boots

www.brandfusions.com B2B ONLINE SHOP
MSN: topbrandbiz01@hotmail.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Americans Get a Dire and Stark Warning From South Africa..
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/acf55633a57ddd61?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 8:08 pm
From: "S'mee"

On Nov 14, 4:32 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <066eafed-5fe8-463e-a29b-a03e94afb...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyway I figure we have the PERFECT government for the idiots that put
> > it in place. I'm going to LOVE the next for years. Why you ask because
> > I LOVE to hear idiots whine...
>
> Just like I have for the last 8 years.

Yes but mine was "FUCK HOW COULD YOU MORONS...never mind you're all
soccer moms in mini-vans the lowest form of life on the planet."

--
Keith

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free Taco Bell Meal Cards ($50 Cards)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a8b6552ede7ea969?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 10:14 pm
From: Seerialmom

On Nov 14, 9:41 am, Cheapo Groovo <c...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <4f677ebb-ccd2-447d-a269-70d1f7afe923
> @a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, blondiewri...@gmail.com says...> Free Taco Bell Meal Cards ($50 Cards)
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/5nnqgm
>
> Requires you make purchases first.
> ----------------------------------http://cheapogroovo.vox.com

Guess what they say is true then, no such thing as a "free lunch"? :p

==============================================================================
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: Fri, Nov 14 2008 10:14 pm
From: OhioGuy

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!

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Friday, November 14, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 26 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: