Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:57:03 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
<p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<p19er6$101g$> <>
<p19rj5$1fqt$> <>
<p1a1a9$1m3j$> <>
<201220171736347927%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <211220171102150664%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 2867
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1927749685
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/21/2017 11:02 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<>, PeterN
> <"peter,newdelete"> wrote:
>>>>>     That's what I don't get. Why did you need to keep
>>>>> buying updates? I don't find that I'm missing functionality.
>>>>> I guess if I bought a new camera I might have to buy a
>>>>> new Aftershot Pro to get RAW support, but aside from
>>>>> that, I have PSP 5 and 16, and most of the time I don't
>>>>> even need the latter.
>>>> There is another point which has been mentioned. Even though an update
>>>> may not appear to bring any new functions it normally is that one or
>>>> more functions in an update provide a better outcome than in the
>>>> previous version. Also, even without changes in functionality,
>>>> software improvements will result in better performance and take
>>>> advantage of improvements in more recent hardware architecture.
>>> tl;dr - bug fixes, security updates, and support for new hardware.
>>>> Of course if you only want the hard core basics you can continue to
>>>> use software originally written for a 286.
>>> which is all he does. he still runs xp, after all.
>> And if that makes him happy, so what. /To paraphrase you it is not your
>> business.
> completely missing the point, as usual.

Your pointless non-points are so poorly made, that they are easily missed.