Re: Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?

D
Posted By
danny
Apr 21, 2013
Views
10624
Replies
258
Status
Closed
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:13 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?

I’ve tested every freeware program that was suggested, so I’m not an expert on the payware programs.

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Personally, I don’t have any professional programs installed. Therefore …
May I ask of the Photoshop or PSP folks these three questions:

Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?

Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve as needed to create dashed lines and to flow, as needed, around obstacles?

Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient as simply sweeping out the desired area?

If the answer to the three questions asked of all screenshot annotation programs is YES (which I presume it would be given people PAID for the privilege of ease of use), then those payware programs meet the three critical requirements for annotating screenshots efficiently.
JM
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 21, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D." wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:13 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:
Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?

I’ve tested every freeware program that was suggested, so I’m not an expert on the payware programs.

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.
Personally, I don’t have any professional programs installed. Therefore …
May I ask of the Photoshop or PSP folks these three questions:
Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?

Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve as needed to create dashed lines and to flow, as needed, around obstacles?
Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient as simply sweeping out the desired area?

If the answer to the three questions asked of all screenshot annotation programs is YES (which I presume it would be given people PAID for the privilege of ease of use), then those payware programs meet the three critical requirements for annotating screenshots efficiently.

It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your time. Is it worthless? I don’t understand the fixation of things that are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

Why have you not also tested some "payware" offerings? I use Visio for a lot of the type of markup you mention. It’s not free, but I believe it has a trial version. There is a bit of a learning curve and it doesn’t do everything. ymmv
TC
Tony Cooper
Apr 21, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D." wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:13 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:
Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?

I’ve tested every freeware program that was suggested, so I’m not an expert on the payware programs.

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.
Personally, I don’t have any professional programs installed. Therefore …
May I ask of the Photoshop or PSP folks these three questions:
Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?

No, in Photoshop and Elements.

Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve as needed to create dashed lines and to flow, as needed, around obstacles?

No, in Photoshop and Elements. You have a wide choice of arrows (straight, curved, curve direction, barb style, etc), dashed lines and such. An arrow is like a type character and can be set to size, position, shape, and color. And, it can be rotated.
Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient as simply sweeping out the desired area?

Yes, and there are choices that involve holding down certain keys to make the circle open from the center point or simply open where you start it. You can also set stroke size and color.

If the answer to the three questions asked of all screenshot annotation programs is YES (which I presume it would be given people PAID for the privilege of ease of use), then those payware programs meet the three critical requirements for annotating screenshots efficiently.

Did you read what you wrote? You *don’t* want a YES for Q1. In Q2, you don’t have to bother setting points in Photoshop and Elements.

What you are using is a nice little program, but it’s not a new religion or a cure for cancer. I’m not interested in converting you to an Adobe product, and I’m certainly not interested in stepping back to a minor program.

Most people don’t buy a program to annotate screen shots. That’s one use, but we buy programs to do that and many other things.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
D
danny
Apr 22, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:20:48 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your time.

That I’ve spent an enormous amount of time researching is true.

I’ve often said the biggest expense, by far, of freeware is the cost of the testing required. Asking questions helps ameliorate that a bit because you can take advantage of other people’s tests (and they of yours).

But the same can be said of anything else in life.

Take the well-known example of buying a car.

I researched buying an automobile such that I knew all the internal code names for the vehicles being considered and the costs and code names for the colors and options (which helps immensely when talking seriously with the three types of dealer sales people (lot, fleet, and customer service) so that I used type of salesperson for what they were most useful for.

Lot salesperson: Use him to test drive (leave your wallet at home!) Customer service: Use her to locate the exact options and vehicle. Fleet salesperson: Use them to buy the car at a hundred over cost.

Same concept with freeware.

Use each one for what it does best.
D
danny
Apr 22, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:20:48 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

While that is true, I do not believe in the old adage that you get what you pay for.

Having taken economics 101 (micro and macro), it’s clear you pay what other people are willing to pay for.

You’re competing with the rest of the world – many of whom may not have done the research that you’ve done – so they’re making bad decisions (perhaps).

Why have you not also tested some "payware" offerings?

I’ve been using freeware since the early 1990s, and I’ve concluded there are few programs most ever have to overtly buy. One is Microsoft Office – and even then, it’s only because everyone else uses it and because the replacements (open office, star office, etc.) are not compatible.

Another is a tax program.

But, for photo editing, I’ve never needed a payware solution.

Of course, I’m not CREATING content from scratch – I merely edit screenshots – so the needs will dictate the software.
D
danny
Apr 22, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:20:48 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

I use Visio for a lot of the type of markup you mention.

I’ve used Visio at work for creating huge flowcharts.
It’s a nice program.

But, as you said, it’s not free (and trialware doesn’t count as it will expire or watermark the results).

The question is whether PSP and Photoshop (or Visio) do this:

A) Do they just text without having to draw a bounding box?
B) Do they arrow just by clicking two points & bending as needed?
C) Do they circle just by sweeping out the desired area?

If PSP, or PhotoShop, or Visio can do that (which I hope they do since people PAID for these conveniences), then they meet the simplest requirement of annotating screenshot for DIYS (which I write a lot of).

If not – then that would be sad.
D
danny
Apr 22, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?
No, in Photoshop and Elements.

Good! Efficiency & ease of use is what I’d expect if I paid for these programs.

Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve?

No, in Photoshop and Elements. You have a wide choice of arrows (straight, curved, curve direction, barb style, etc), dashed lines and such. An arrow is like a type character and can be set to size, position, shape, and color. And, it can be rotated.

Hmm… I’m going to presume that means the arrows have an ease of use that is expected, even though I’m not sure how they work if you can’t set the starting and ending points easily, and then subsequently modify the curve to flow around obstacles.

Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient as simply sweeping out the desired area?
Yes,

Good. Of the three critical annotation tasks, this was the one that is most often in most programs – but it’s on the short list because some freeware (e.g., Gimp) can’t do it easily, even though the task is considered a basic one in screenshot annotation.

I thank you for the answers for Photoshop and Elements. I’m a bit confused about the arrow answer – but I presume from your tone that the arrows are easy & intuitive.

It turns out that the arrows are the HARDEST feature to find in freeware! That, and simple texting without drawing bounding boxes (although all freeware does texting but not few freeware does arrowing).

If I had to pick the ONE critical task, it’s ease of arrowing that distinguishes one package from another – therefore it’s good to know that Elements and Photoshop apparently do arrows easily and efficiently.
D
danny
Apr 22, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:
What you are using is a nice little program, but it’s not a new religion or a cure for cancer.

I heartily agree.

In fact, I hate some things about Paint.NET on Windows, such as the fact it is slow as a dog (compared to, say, Irfanview); but, man, does it do arrows well!

I’ll be the arrowing on Paint.NET is (almost?) as good as what you said Elements and Photoshop has. And, the texting is a simple click and type (which is the way it should be).

Unfortunately, on Linux, it’s bothersome that the best I can find, Kolourpaint, doesn’t really do arrows at all (you have to manually draw them and you can’t easily reshape them and it’s nearly impossible to dash them and you have to manually draw the arrow points, etc.).

Plus, you have to draw bounding boxes before you can text in Kolourpaint.

So, I never said they were the cure for cancer – but – they’re free – and, they’re the best I can find for the task of annotating screenshots. If someone suggests better freeware – I’d be ecstatic to test it out.

I’m not interested in converting you to an Adobe product, and I’m certainly not interested in stepping back to a minor program.

This thread originally did not have alt.graphics.photoshop on it; that newsgroup was added to get the answer of how efficiently payware programs handled the three critical tasks:
a) Texting by simply typing
b) Arrowing by simply choosing the points
c) Circling by simply sweeping the area

Of course, there are other tasks (but most freeware does them well already):
d) Cropping (especially limiting the cropping to a given ratio, such as 4:3)
e) Saving as another format (especially with vectors, layers & transparency)
f) Creating collages (mixing photos together as a single composition)

Most people don’t buy a program to annotate screen shots. That’s one use, but we buy programs to do that and many other things.

I agree the professionals have harder goals. For example, one thing I’ve found hard to find in freeware is a good "magic wand" such that you can cut a person out of one photo and insert into another background photo.

But you don’t have that tougher problem set with screenshot annotations.
S
Savageduck
Apr 22, 2013
On 2013-04-21 20:43:56 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?
No, in Photoshop and Elements.

Good! Efficiency & ease of use is what I’d expect if I paid for these programs.

Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve?

No, in Photoshop and Elements. You have a wide choice of arrows (straight, curved, curve direction, barb style, etc), dashed lines and such. An arrow is like a type character and can be set to size, position, shape, and color. And, it can be rotated.

Hmm… I’m going to presume that means the arrows have an ease of use that is expected, even though I’m not sure how they work if you can’t set the starting and ending points easily, and then subsequently modify the curve to flow around obstacles.

Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient as simply sweeping out the desired area?
Yes,

Good. Of the three critical annotation tasks, this was the one that is most often in most programs – but it’s on the short list because some freeware (e.g., Gimp) can’t do it easily, even though the task is considered a basic one in screenshot annotation.
I thank you for the answers for Photoshop and Elements.
I’m a bit confused about the arrow answer – but I presume from your tone that the arrows are easy & intuitive.

It turns out that the arrows are the HARDEST feature to find in freeware! That, and simple texting without drawing bounding boxes (although all freeware does texting but not few freeware does arrowing).
If I had to pick the ONE critical task, it’s ease of arrowing that distinguishes one package from another – therefore it’s good to know that Elements and Photoshop apparently do arrows easily and efficiently.

As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle) application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview". So I can do stuff like this.
< http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >


Regards,

Savageduck
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 22, 2013
In article ,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle) application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview". So I can do stuff like this.
< http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

preview does what he needs but he doesn’t have a mac.
D
danny
Apr 22, 2013
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:39:45 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle) application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview". So I can do stuff like this.
< http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

I was on Linux when I saw this, so, I had the best of the worst for arrows – but sometimes it’s nice to have curved arrows as shown here for your photo.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12755909/img/12755909.jp eg

Does this Macintosh application curve them?

NOTE: The Windows Paint.NET arrows are vastly superior to what I drew just now with Kolourpaint on Linux – but the point is the same.
D
danny
Apr 22, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:23:32 -0400 nospam wrote:

preview does what he needs but he doesn’t have a mac.

This is the USENET, so, we have all types – therefore, it’s nice to answer the questions for all three major platforms:

Best freeware arrows on Windows: Paint.NET (far better than all the others) Best freeware arrows on Linux: Kolourpaint (just so so … nothing special) Best freeware arrows on Mac: Preview? (but does it text & circle?)

Arrows are very important when screenshot anontating because you may wish to flow around objects in a graceful way that follows the inherent curves of the screenshot.
S
Savageduck
Apr 22, 2013
On 2013-04-22 08:26:04 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:39:45 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle) application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview". So I can do stuff like this.
< http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

I was on Linux when I saw this, so, I had the best of the worst for arrows – but sometimes it’s nice to have curved arrows as shown here for your photo.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12755909/img/12755909.jp eg
Does this Macintosh application curve them?

No. It is only intended for making on the fly simple annotations.

With Adobe’s Photoshop and Illustrator, where you have several ways of going about dealing with this sort of thing using text layers and vector graphics all sorts of stuff is possible. Unfortunately you are only seeking free solutions in the Linux World, so there is little point in going further. However, it might be worthwhile for you to check "Inkscape".
< http://inkscape.org/ >

NOTE: The Windows Paint.NET arrows are vastly superior to what I drew just now with Kolourpaint on Linux – but the point is the same.


Regards,

Savageduck
TC
Tony Cooper
Apr 22, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:43:56 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D." wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?
No, in Photoshop and Elements.

Good! Efficiency & ease of use is what I’d expect if I paid for these programs.

Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve?

No, in Photoshop and Elements. You have a wide choice of arrows (straight, curved, curve direction, barb style, etc), dashed lines and such. An arrow is like a type character and can be set to size, position, shape, and color. And, it can be rotated.

Hmm… I’m going to presume that means the arrows have an ease of use that is expected, even though I’m not sure how they work if you can’t set the starting and ending points easily, and then subsequently modify the curve to flow around obstacles.

You place the arrow anywhere in the image and then move it to the specific point you want it to be located. Dead simple. If you want it longer or shorter or fatter or thinner, you use Free Transform. If you want it curved or distorted or whatever, you use Transform.

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
S
Savageduck
Apr 22, 2013
On 2013-04-22 08:52:46 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

On 2013-04-22 08:26:04 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:39:45 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle) application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview". So I can do stuff like this.
< http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

I was on Linux when I saw this, so, I had the best of the worst for arrows – but sometimes it’s nice to have curved arrows as shown here for your photo.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12755909/img/12755909.jp eg
Does this Macintosh application curve them?

No. It is only intended for making on the fly simple annotations.
With Adobe’s Photoshop and Illustrator, where you have several ways of going about dealing with this sort of thing using text layers and vector graphics all sorts of stuff is possible. Unfortunately you are only seeking free solutions in the Linux World, so there is little point in going further. However, it might be worthwhile for you to check "Inkscape".
< http://inkscape.org/ >

NOTE: The Windows Paint.NET arrows are vastly superior to what I drew just now with Kolourpaint on Linux – but the point is the same.

BTW: here are a couple of curved arrows, a circle and some text done in Photoshop on to of what has become my annotation demo.
< http://db.tt/Q5JNM5Fz >


Regards,

Savageduck
AM
Alan Meyer
Apr 23, 2013
On 04/21/2013 02:20 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
….
It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your time. Is it worthless? I don’t understand the fixation of things that are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
….

Doesn’t commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews and testing?

There are a few commercial products that are so well established (Windows, Office, Photoshop, Acrobat, Flash, etc.) that you may not need to test them, but there are a lot of freeware programs in that category too (Linux, Apache, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Perl, Java, Emacs, vim, etc. For image viewing or editing IrfanView [viewing] and the GIMP [editing] have been around forever and are really good.)

Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price, including:

Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
Update to latest version at no extra charge.

If you have 3-4 computers in your household and new versions of the software come out every 3-4 years, over 10 years, the cost advantages add up.

I also like the security you get with open source programs. Security holes get found and plugged. If you’re running Linux, the security and stability updates will happen automatically, not just for Linux itself, but for all of your applications. On Windows, Microsoft will do that for Microsoft’s products, but for the rest you’re dependent on whatever update policies the vendor provides. Oftentimes you get very inconvenient demands from 3 or 4 different programs that clamor for separate updates – where Linux applies all of them automatically and at once.

The authors of open source programs don’t have the same motivation or the same opportunity to bury spyware in their products. Even if they wanted to they know that other programmers would spot it and blast them.

Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved with regard to not installing third party toolbars, not running services, not grabbing file extension handlers without permission, not putting stuff in the Windows registry that doesn’t go away during an uninstall, etc. I’m not saying that all commercial programs are offenders in those areas, or that no open source programs are, but my impression is that the track record for open source is better in these areas.

And if you install a free program and two weeks later learn about a better one, you’re not out any money for the product you no longer want to use.

Alan
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 23, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:24:19 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 08:52:46 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
On 2013-04-22 08:26:04 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:39:45 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle) application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview". So I can do stuff like this.
< http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

I was on Linux when I saw this, so, I had the best of the worst for arrows – but sometimes it’s nice to have curved arrows as shown here for your photo.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12755909/img/12755909.jp eg
Does this Macintosh application curve them?

No. It is only intended for making on the fly simple annotations.
With Adobe’s Photoshop and Illustrator, where you have several ways of going about dealing with this sort of thing using text layers and vector graphics all sorts of stuff is possible. Unfortunately you are only seeking free solutions in the Linux World, so there is little point in going further. However, it might be worthwhile for you to check "Inkscape".
< http://inkscape.org/ >

NOTE: The Windows Paint.NET arrows are vastly superior to what I drew just now with Kolourpaint on Linux – but the point is the same.

BTW: here are a couple of curved arrows, a circle and some text done in Photoshop on to of what has become my annotation demo.
< http://db.tt/Q5JNM5Fz >

Here is something is something as an annotation demo that I did a couple of years ago.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/Cover%201.jpg Warning: an A3 original.
I notice some of the thinner lines have suffered slightly in the multiple translations from the original ‘PSPImage’ (or may be a form of aliasing on my screen?)


Regards,

Eric Stevens
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 23, 2013
In article <kl4p3p$ull$>, Alan Meyer
wrote:

It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your time. Is it worthless? I don’t understand the fixation of things that are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

Doesn’t commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews and testing?

the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class of apps just because he’s too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality software. how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without finding a solution?

There are a few commercial products that are so well established (Windows, Office, Photoshop, Acrobat, Flash, etc.) that you may not need to test them, but there are a lot of freeware programs in that category too (Linux, Apache, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Perl, Java, Emacs, vim, etc. For image viewing or editing IrfanView [viewing] and the GIMP [editing] have been around forever and are really good.)

emacs and vim? seriously? the gimp is not ‘really good’, it’s roughly where photoshop was a decade ago. openoffice might be ok by itself but it won’t work particularly well for those who exchange files with others who use the real thing. apache, mysql, perl and python are not apps people run. java is a security nightmare, as is flash.

Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price, including:

Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
Update to latest version at no extra charge.

depends on the apps.

many paid apps work the same way. all apps from the mac app store do.

If you have 3-4 computers in your household and new versions of the software come out every 3-4 years, over 10 years, the cost advantages add up.

depends on the apps.

meanwhile, using software that does exactly what is needed is usually well worth whatever extra expense might be incurred.

I also like the security you get with open source programs. Security holes get found and plugged. If you’re running Linux, the security and stability updates will happen automatically, not just for Linux itself, but for all of your applications. On Windows, Microsoft will do that for Microsoft’s products, but for the rest you’re dependent on whatever update policies the vendor provides. Oftentimes you get very inconvenient demands from 3 or 4 different programs that clamor for separate updates – where Linux applies all of them automatically and at once.

again, depends on the apps.

some paid apps auto-update, and on a mac, all apps from the app store update automatically (unless disabled). also, linux updates don’t necessarily affect apps.

The authors of open source programs don’t have the same motivation or the same opportunity to bury spyware in their products. Even if they wanted to they know that other programmers would spot it and blast them.

the authors of open source programs don’t have the same motivation to make their products not suck either, namely money. money is a very big motivator.

that’s why commercial software is usually significantly more capable and more reliable than open source solutions. it’s why pros use photoshop instead of the gimp. there is the occasional exception, but it’s rare.

Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved with regard to not installing third party toolbars, not running services, not grabbing file extension handlers without permission, not putting stuff in the Windows registry that doesn’t go away during an uninstall, etc. I’m not saying that all commercial programs are offenders in those areas, or that no open source programs are, but my impression is that the track record for open source is better in these areas.

depends on the app and what options the user picked in the installer. often, avoiding that extra stuff is nothing more than deselecting a checkbox.

And if you install a free program and two weeks later learn about a better one, you’re not out any money for the product you no longer want to use.

that’s why you use the trial version first or do more research before purchase.
D
danny
Apr 23, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:24:19 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

BTW: here are a couple of curved arrows, a circle and some text done in Photoshop on to of what has become my annotation demo.
< http://db.tt/Q5JNM5Fz >

Exactly! Those arrows are beautiful!

I especially like the variable width of the streamlined arrows (although I would have made the point a lot smaller!). 🙂

And the text is fine … as is the circle and ellipse.

Those three things are the hardest to find in freeware, done well:
1. Text (just typing without having to define an area)
2. Arrows (you draw them and the arrows are automatically put in)
3. Circles, boxes, ellipses, etc. (often used to isolate something)

I presume they were all easy to add in both Photoshop & Elements?
D
danny
Apr 23, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.
D
danny
Apr 23, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:48:32 -0400 Alan Meyer wrote:

Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved

Regarding behavior …

One huge difference I’ve noted in installing freeware over bloatware is the HUGE difference in installation & removal times.

For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device services), and doesn’t even respect the place you tell it to put it.

Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install, and anything from Adobe or Oracle (even Quicktime, ironically, takes forever to install).

With almost all freeware, they install quickly – and – best of all, they almost always uninstall just as quickly.
D
danny
Apr 23, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:17:22 -0400 nospam wrote:

the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class of apps just because he’s too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality software. how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without finding a solution?

The canonical rule in all software whenever you have a task to accomplish, is to first perform that task in freeware – and then – only when you can’t possibly perform it in freeware – by then – you know enough to figure out what features in the payware are worth paying for.

If you just dumbly go and buy payware, you’ll never know what could have been done just as easily in freeware – and – worse yet – you may not have the best solution but you’re stuck with it (unless you have infinite money).

For example, if you need to burn a DVD, on Windows, you try imgburn. Likewise, on Linux, you’d try K3b or Brasero to burn DVDs. If the freeware doesn’t do what you need, then (and only then), you bother researching & buying Nero or the equivalent in payware.

The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware – hence – you’ll make a much smarter payware decision.

Bringing it back to the point, were I to consider payware for screen annotation, I know EXACTLY what I want that payware to do BEFORE I lay down the money for the payware.

Freeware is, essentially, the 1st step in the payware decision tree.
P
Poutnik
Apr 23, 2013
Danny D. posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:26:40 +0000 (UTC)

The canonical rule in all software whenever you have a task to accomplish, is to first perform that task in freeware – and then – only when you can’t possibly perform it in freeware – by then – you know enough to figure out what features in the payware are worth paying for.
……….
Freeware is, essentially, the 1st step in the payware decision tree.

Very good point.
To buy it, and to know why I have bought it
are qualitatively very different levels.


Poutnik
D
danny
Apr 23, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:48:32 -0400 Alan Meyer wrote:

Doesn’t commercial software require the same amount of
reading reviews and testing?

Here’s one functional freeware/payware decision tree:

a) Define the task you need to accomplish:
e.g., Let’s say you want to create a pencil drawing from this JPG: http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12760612/img/12760612.jp g

b) Find & test the best freeware for the task:
e.g., Inkscape: Path->Trace Bitmap->(o)Edge detection->Update->OK Or, Gimp: Filters->Edge Detect->Difference of Gaussians etc.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12760601/img/12760601.jp g

c) If that freeware fails, or only partially performs the desired task, then, after having tested it, you now know much more about what to look for in the payware that you shell out your hard-earned cash for.

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better, or easier than the freeware did it – or – it has to do a task that the freeware just couldn’t do.

The point is:
Armed with freeware knowledge, you’ll make better payware decisions!
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 23, 2013
In article <kl56v5$oej$>, Danny D.
wrote:

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better, or easier than the freeware did it – or – it has to do a task that the freeware just couldn’t do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it. they’d use the free stuff.

as they say, you get what you pay for.

The point is:
Armed with freeware knowledge, you’ll make better payware decisions!

nonsense. the best way to make a decision is ask those who have done similar tasks what the various options are.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 23, 2013
In article <kl55o3$oej$>, Danny D.
wrote:

Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved

Regarding behavior …

One huge difference I’ve noted in installing freeware over bloatware is the HUGE difference in installation & removal times.

a huge generalization, contradicted by your other post regarding cd burning software.

installing either of the two examples you list is more involved than paid software which is nothing more than dragging the app to wherever or clicking a download button. but when have facts mattered to linux zealots anyway.

For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device services),

those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.

and doesn’t even respect the place you tell it to put it.

that is a flat out lie.

Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install, and anything from Adobe or Oracle (even Quicktime, ironically, takes forever to install).

big apps take longer to install than small ones.

With almost all freeware, they install quickly – and – best of all, they almost always uninstall just as quickly.

again, it depends on the apps. there is plenty of freeware that’s a bitch to install (particularly on linux) and plenty of paid software that’s trivial, as simple as dragging or clicking a download button.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 23, 2013
In article <kl562f$oej$>, Danny D.
wrote:

the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class of apps just because he’s too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality software. how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without finding a solution?

The canonical rule in all software whenever you have a task to accomplish, is to first perform that task in freeware – and then – only when you can’t possibly perform it in freeware – by then – you know enough to figure out what features in the payware are worth paying for.

that is the stupidest thing i’ve heard in a very long time.

if you don’t know what features you need to do a task, how the hell are you going to find freeware to do it?

there also might be freeware that does whatever it is but the user experience sucks and paid software is just more pleasant to use.

If you just dumbly go and buy payware, you’ll never know what could have been done just as easily in freeware – and – worse yet – you may not have the best solution but you’re stuck with it (unless you have infinite money).

nobody said to ignore freeware. if a free solution does the job, great. however, if a paid solution does a better job, then *that* could be the way to go, rather than suffer with something that doesn’t work that well only because it’s free.

evaluate all options and choose the best tool for the job.

For example, if you need to burn a DVD, on Windows, you try imgburn. Likewise, on Linux, you’d try K3b or Brasero to burn DVDs. If the freeware doesn’t do what you need, then (and only then), you bother researching & buying Nero or the equivalent in payware.

or just use what’s built into the os.

The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware – hence – you’ll make a much smarter payware decision.

nonsense. you need to know that *before* you start looking for any software.

Bringing it back to the point, were I to consider payware for screen annotation, I know EXACTLY what I want that payware to do BEFORE I lay down the money for the payware.

you should know what you want before you look at any solution, free or paid. otherwise you’ll waste your time looking at dozens of apps and get nowhere.

Freeware is, essentially, the 1st step in the payware decision tree.

no it isn’t. look at all options and see which one best fits the task.
S
Savageduck
Apr 23, 2013
On 2013-04-22 22:14:48 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:24:19 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

BTW: here are a couple of curved arrows, a circle and some text done in Photoshop on to of what has become my annotation demo.
< http://db.tt/Q5JNM5Fz >

Exactly! Those arrows are beautiful!

I especially like the variable width of the streamlined arrows (although I would have made the point a lot smaller!). 🙂
And the text is fine … as is the circle and ellipse.

Those three things are the hardest to find in freeware, done well:
1. Text (just typing without having to define an area)
2. Arrows (you draw them and the arrows are automatically put in)
3. Circles, boxes, ellipses, etc. (often used to isolate something)

I presume they were all easy to add in both Photoshop & Elements?

In Photoshop they are added to a unique layer as a vector graphic custom shape, using the tool box provided. Then each can be scaled, rotated, perspective adjusted, warped, and more.

Each element, arrow, circle, text, etc. are added it individual layers, and can be returned to as you proceed to tweak the effect until you are ready to flatten those layers to produce your final product.


Regards,

Savageduck
S
Savageduck
Apr 23, 2013
On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >


Regards,

Savageduck
P
Poutnik
Apr 23, 2013
nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:29 -0400

In article <kl56v5$oej$>, Danny D.
wrote:

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better, or easier than the freeware did it – or – it has to do a task that the freeware just couldn’t do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it. they’d use the free stuff.

There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative. People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.
as they say, you get what you pay for.

It is easy to pay for junk.
Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for…
The point is:
Armed with freeware knowledge, you’ll make better payware decisions!

nonsense. the best way to make a decision is ask those who have done similar tasks what the various options are.

That is already a part of a good decision tree.


Poutnik
P
Poutnik
Apr 23, 2013
nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:33 -0400

The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware – hence – you’ll make a much smarter payware decision.

nonsense. you need to know that *before* you start looking for any software.
Before that you cannot know
what freeware cannot provide you,
or just by sufficient way.

What you should know before is
what you want to do,
eventually ways how it can/usually is done.


Poutnik
P
Poutnik
Apr 23, 2013
Poutnik posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:15:43 +0200
nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:33 -0400
The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware – hence – you’ll make a much smarter payware decision.

nonsense. you need to know that *before* you start looking for any software.
Before that you cannot know
what freeware cannot provide you,
or just by sufficient way.

What you should know before is
what you want to do,
eventually ways how it can/usually is done.

P.S: You may have not noticed he said payware, not software.

You need in payware something you miss in freeware,
otherwise freeware is sufficient.


Poutnik
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 23, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg

(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).


Regards,

Eric Stevens
S
Savageduck
Apr 23, 2013
On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg
(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what probably became German mess kits in 1940.
….and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less than adequate on the track.

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

….and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Savageduck
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 23, 2013
In article , Poutnik
wrote:

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better, or easier than the freeware did it – or – it has to do a task that the freeware just couldn’t do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it. they’d use the free stuff.

There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.

not really. there are a few exceptions, but in general, commercial software is much better, often significantly so.

People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.

bullshit. nobody is tricked into buying anything.

as they say, you get what you pay for.

It is easy to pay for junk.

it’s also easy to not pay for it.

people are smart enough to decide if something is junk or not.

Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for…

sometimes it’s unbelievable the crap people use just because it’s free.
P
Poutnik
Apr 23, 2013
nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:28:50 -0400

In article , Poutnik
wrote:

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better, or easier than the freeware did it – or – it has to do a task that the freeware just couldn’t do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it. they’d use the free stuff.

There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.

not really. there are a few exceptions, but in general, commercial software is much better, often significantly so.

Many exceptions. In spite of the fact avg quality of commercial software is higher. It is the same as with avg life of smokers and non-smokers.

Avg is higher for non-smokers, but there is huge number of smokers living longer than most of non-smokers. And vice versa.
People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.

bullshit. nobody is tricked into buying anything.

You are overestimating people.
as they say, you get what you pay for.

It is easy to pay for junk.

it’s also easy to not pay for it.

You are overestimating people.
people are smart enough to decide if something is junk or not.

Some are, like you. Some are not. There are many not well oriented people, easily convinced to buy crap, thinking they bough great thing.
Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for…

sometimes it’s unbelievable the crap people use just because it’s free.

Sure. Both happens. There is not much to say about payware nor freeware in general, except of one is paid and one is free.

Both manifest huge range of quality and usability, where standard deviation is much bigger than average difference, so statistically the difference is not significant.


Poutnik
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 23, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:50:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg
(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what probably became German mess kits in 1940.

The last time I saw it, it was in the International Automobile Mueum in Geneva. That would have been about 15 years ago. The museum has closed since then and I don’t know what happened to the cars.

…and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less than adequate on the track.

It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.

In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called ‘oozing’ in the 1930s.

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens
S
Savageduck
Apr 24, 2013
On 2013-04-23 16:51:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:50:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg
(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what probably became German mess kits in 1940.

The last time I saw it, it was in the International Automobile Mueum in Geneva. That would have been about 15 years ago. The museum has closed since then and I don’t know what happened to the cars.

That is good news. Since the museum has closed it has probably survived and crossed the boards at some auction house. Check with Jay Leno.

…and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less than adequate on the track.

It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.
In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called ‘oozing’ in the 1930s.

Do you mean I am not permitted to bait Eric?

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.
The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Ae rolithe.html >

The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors such as this Type 54GP:
< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >

You can see the Type 57S in the background/

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Savageduck
S
Savageduck
Apr 24, 2013
On 2013-04-23 16:51:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:50:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg
(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what probably became German mess kits in 1940.

The last time I saw it, it was in the International Automobile Mueum in Geneva. That would have been about 15 years ago. The museum has closed since then and I don’t know what happened to the cars.
…and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less than adequate on the track.

It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.
In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called ‘oozing’ in the 1930s.

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.
The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

Your bugattibuilder.com site seems to have mis-IDed the photos in its story and speculated on replica status.
Note the "?", the writer seems unsure.

This is the reconstructed Type 57SC with a replica body. <
http://www.mullinautomotivemuseum.com/car-20-1936-bugatti-ty pe-57sc-competition-roadster.html

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens


Regards,

Savageduck
P
PeterN
Apr 24, 2013
On 4/21/2013 4:53 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>

What you are using is a nice little program, but it’s not a new religion or a cure for cancer. I’m not interested in converting you to an Adobe product, and I’m certainly not interested in stepping back to a minor program.

Most people don’t buy a program to annotate screen shots. That’s one use, but we buy programs to do that and many other things.

The businessman side of you is showing. It’s all too obvious that you are more interested in photography, than playing with tools.


PeterN
TC
Tony Cooper
Apr 24, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:57:10 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 4:53 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>

What you are using is a nice little program, but it’s not a new religion or a cure for cancer. I’m not interested in converting you to an Adobe product, and I’m certainly not interested in stepping back to a minor program.

Most people don’t buy a program to annotate screen shots. That’s one use, but we buy programs to do that and many other things.

The businessman side of you is showing. It’s all too obvious that you are more interested in photography, than playing with tools.

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in between.

That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart phone.

I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That doesn’t include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that’s included in the basic plan for free.

My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps with me the other night, and I didn’t see one that interested me.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 24, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:47:41 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 16:51:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:50:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg
(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what probably became German mess kits in 1940.

The last time I saw it, it was in the International Automobile Mueum in Geneva. That would have been about 15 years ago. The museum has closed since then and I don’t know what happened to the cars.

That is good news. Since the museum has closed it has probably survived and crossed the boards at some auction house. Check with Jay Leno.
…and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less than adequate on the track.

It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.
In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called ‘oozing’ in the 1930s.

Do you mean I am not permitted to bait Eric?

Why not? After all, I bait you.
The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.
The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Ae rolithe.html >
The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That’s true – and its never been seen since.

I wasn’t suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.

http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world debut – I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis (while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis which may well be that of the Aerolithe.
One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors such as this Type 54GP:
< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >

You can see the Type 57S in the background/

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 24, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:54:48 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 16:51:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:50:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg
(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what probably became German mess kits in 1940.

The last time I saw it, it was in the International Automobile Mueum in Geneva. That would have been about 15 years ago. The museum has closed since then and I don’t know what happened to the cars.
…and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less than adequate on the track.

It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.
In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called ‘oozing’ in the 1930s.

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.
The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

Your bugattibuilder.com site seems to have mis-IDed the photos in its story and speculated on replica status.
Note the "?", the writer seems unsure.

He’s still talking about a replica using Bugatti parts. I think he may be confused by the unusual chassis taper. It may be that he is looking at one of the prototype chassis, maybe even that of the Aerolithe.
This is the reconstructed Type 57SC with a replica body. <
http://www.mullinautomotivemuseum.com/car-20-1936-bugatti-ty pe-57sc-competition-roadster.html

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:02:12 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

In Photoshop they are added to a unique layer as a vector graphic

This is a very useful feature that I’ve never seen in the freeware mentioned.

It allows a series of custom arrows to be cut and pasted so that they’re consistent.

That’s nice – and NOT in the freeware feature set! (AFAIK)
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

Ooops.
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:38:32 +0200 Poutnik wrote:

You need in payware something you miss in freeware,
otherwise freeware is sufficient.

Exactly!

This is the three-step software-purchase process I recommend:
1. Try to do the task with the tools you have at hand;
2. If that fails, find & try the best freeware for that task;
3. If that fails, now you know exactly what you want payware to do!

By the time you get to step 3, you’ll know what the freeware does (which will be basic tasks); but if you need more, then you know exactly what questions to ask of the payware before plunking down your hard-earned dollars on it.

For example, I bought the Adobe Acrobat Writer even though CutePDF (and others) creates PDFs; & Foxit (and others) reads PDFs; & PDF Toolkit (and others) manipulates PDFs.

What I liked about the PDF writer payware was the distiller, the ability to make text edits, and the shrinker, plus the ability to convert an entire web page hierarchy to a
link-clickable 8.5×11-inch format PDF document.

Similarly, I bought Recosoft "Pdf To Office" because the freeware methods failed (however even PDF2Office is highly imperfect).

Interestingly, I bought Microsoft Office not because it did *anything* better than the StarOffice OpenOffice equivalents – but simply because Microsoft Office turns out to be more compatible with what other people were using.

And, certainly, I buy Turbotax because it provides something that I am under the impression that freeware doesn’t do. (Although I haven’t studied that topic in years so maybe that isn’t the case anymore.)

However, when it comes to image editing, I can get almost all I need done with freeware. Likewise with simple video editing (e.g., avidemux); DVD authoring (e.g., DeVeDe); audio editing (e.g., Audacity); mail user agents (e.g., Thunderbird); encryption (e.g., TrueCrypt); Chat clients (e.g., Pidgin); video players (e.g., VLC); recording (e.g., recordmydesktop); DVD burning (e.g., K3b); iPod sharing (e.g., SharePod); EXIF manipulation (e.g., jhead, exiftran); WiFi (e.g., Kismet); etc.

My simple rule that I teach my kids is:
"Never buy payware for a task until/unless freeware can’t do what you need done". You’ll buy wisely because you’ll know (by then) exactly what you need the payware to do!

Freeware is the first step in the payware decision tree!
S
Savageduck
Apr 24, 2013
On 2013-04-23 20:47:42 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:54:48 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 16:51:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:50:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." said:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer and move the arrow on that layer. You don’t have to re-draw the arrow.

That’s a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows, as shown in the Bugatti picture.

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special, is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990 841497.jpg
(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what probably became German mess kits in 1940.

The last time I saw it, it was in the International Automobile Mueum in Geneva. That would have been about 15 years ago. The museum has closed since then and I don’t know what happened to the cars.
…and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less than adequate on the track.

It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.
In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called ‘oozing’ in the 1930s.

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.
The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

Your bugattibuilder.com site seems to have mis-IDed the photos in its story and speculated on replica status.
Note the "?", the writer seems unsure.

He’s still talking about a replica using Bugatti parts. I think he may be confused by the unusual chassis taper. It may be that he is looking at one of the prototype chassis, maybe even that of the Aerolithe.
This is the reconstructed Type 57SC with a replica body. <
http://www.mullinautomotivemuseum.com/car-20-1936-bugatti-ty pe-57sc-competition-roadster.html

….and
then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >

BTW: the term "Electron" or "Elektron" as used in the context o Bugatti bodies, refers to the magnesium-aluminum alloy used in the coachwork.


Regards,

Savageduck
P
Poutnik
Apr 24, 2013
Danny D. posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:18:18 +0000 (UTC)

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:38:32 +0200 Poutnik wrote:

You need in payware something you miss in freeware,
otherwise freeware is sufficient.

Exactly!

This is the three-step software-purchase process I recommend:
1. Try to do the task with the tools you have at hand;
2. If that fails, find & try the best freeware for that task;
3. If that fails, now you know exactly what you want payware to do!
………………
My simple rule that I teach my kids is:
"Never buy payware for a task until/unless freeware can’t do what you need done". You’ll buy wisely because you’ll know (by then) exactly what you need the payware to do!

Freeware is the first step in the payware decision tree!

There are 2 extreme ways in approach to software.
One is celebrating freeware and looking with despect to payware. The other is doing exact opposite.

The reasonable way is to use what in particular case
fits better you overall needs or requirements.

I prefer freeware but do not make from it unbreakable rule, even if I have bought except of Windows just 1 SW ever…


Poutnik
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:31 -0400 nospam wrote:

but when have facts mattered to linux zealots anyway.

Actually, I’m not a Linux zealot.

The main reason I’m on Linux is simply that I had replaced my hard disk and the PC manufacturer wouldn’t give me a replacement installation disk for Windows (even though the license stickers were on the bottom of the PC).

So I put Linux on instead – and I’ve never looked back.

For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device services),

those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.

Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! 🙂

The _only_ thing that I ever needed to do that only iTunes did well was to initialize a brand-new iPod or iPhone. While there are Linux alternatives to iTunes for initializing, iTunes is far easier, in the end for initializing devices.

However, my rule is to IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) remove iTunes once the brand-new device is initialized; then SharePod or copyTransManager or any of a host of much nicer iTunes replacements are used instead.

Unfortunately, due to iTunes bloatware, you _also_ have to uninstall a host of unwanted badly behaved programs that came with iTunes, such as Bonjour, QuickTime, Apple Application Support, Apple Mobile Device Support, Apple Software Update, etc. (Note: QuickTime Alternative is a good alternative to Quicktime if you must have it.)

and doesn’t even respect the place you tell it to put it.
that is a flat out lie.

Trust me. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

I’ve installed hundreds of programs, for example, on Windows, and absolutely NONE of them go into "C:\Program Files".

I know that because I have what I consider to be one of the most organized software hierarchies in the history of PCs. Absolutely nothing is organized by brand name, for instance. And, my menus exactly mirror my installation hierarchy, 1:1, like God meant them to. I could go on and on about how to properly set up a PC – but – suffice to say, for the longest time, I never even had an idiotic "Program Files" or "My Documents" or "Common Files" directory (the defaults being set otherwise in the registry hives).

Suffice to say, you can tell iTunes where to go, and it will go there – but, ALL THE OTHER bloatware that comes with iTunes (see list above, including Bonjour) will NOT respect your decision!

Please don’t say that’s a lie until you’ve actually tried it (like I have, very many times over the years). And, trust me, I’m a detail kind of guy so you can rest assured I took it up with my friends at Apple. It is what it is and I’m not going to change it – but you calling me a liar doesn’t make it a lie.

In fact, when I had no "Program Files" directory, guess what Bonjour did? It CREATED its own "C:\Program Files" directory! Can you believe that?

That tells you how badly written Apple software can be?

Note: I’m in the Silicon Valley and my very good friends at Apple tell me their developers fume about the same stuff that I do … so I can’t blame the coders. It’s a marketing decision. Most Apple customers won’t even understand what I’m talking about because they’re a different class of aficionado. They know stuff I’ll never know – but – I know stuff they can’t even fathom because it’s just not important to them. They’re a wholly different class of thinkers who don’t mind having both a resource fork and a data fork. 🙂

Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install
big apps take longer to install than small ones.

I’d correct that generalization to be the generalization that apps from big companies generally take far (far) longer to install than apps from small companies do. 🙂
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:29 -0400 nospam wrote:

the best way to make a decision is ask those who have done similar tasks what the various options are.

Which is why I posted on the USENET thousands of times, over the past 20 years (under a variety of privacy-protecting nyms) asking questions, testing the answers, and summarizing the results so that others could easily follow in my freeware footsteps.

For example, here are just a few ways to create pencil drawings on Linux from photo portraits using vector tracing and edge detection freeware methods:
– Gimp: Filters->Edge Detect->Difference of Gaussians – Gimp: Filters->Pencil-Drawing->Blur Radius=4,Strength=1,OK – Inkscape: Filters->Image effects->Pencil
– Inkscape: Path->Trace Bitmap->(o)Edge detection->Update->OK etc.

That information was thanks to erudite folks such as
Savage Duck, Bear Ederson, Floyd, Davidson, P-0’0h the cat, Eric Prilovich, wexfordpress, and others, by way of example.
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:28:50 -0400 nospam wrote:

sometimes it’s unbelievable the crap people use just because it’s free.

Offhand, I used the following freeware (from memory) when I was on Windows …

Which of these do you feel is crap?

– editor/photo/edit/{Gimp,FastOne,IrfanView,Paint.NET,VicManPh otoEditor} – archiver/IzArc
– browser/{Firefox,Tor,Curl,Lynx}
– cleaner/os/CCleaner
– cleaner/malware/{ad-aware,spybot,spywareblaster}
– calculator/math/geogebra
– uninstaller/{total,zsoft}
– editor/audio/{audacity,mp3_tag_editor}
– editor/cad/sketchup
– editor/text/{gvim,vim}
– editor/pdf/{ghostscript,ps2edit,gsview}
– editor/hex/hexedit
– editor/suite/openoffice
– player/video/{vmediaplayerclassic,vlc}
– format/codec/k-lite
– hardware/burner/imgburn
– format/converter/super
– hardware/dvd/authoring/dvdflick
– hardware/mp3/ipod/sharepod
– hardware/os/process_explorer
– usenet/40TudeDialog
– hardware/chat/pidgeon
– security/encryption/truecrypt
– mailer/thunderbird
– hardware/vaccine/avast
– hardware/wifi/{netstumbler,netcrumbler,wireshark}
– hardware/voip/skype
– hardware/printer/cutepdf
etc.

DISCLAIMER: This is just from memory … wholly off the cuff … so I’m quite sure I missed a bunch … but tell me which of this freeware that I remembered above are "unbelievable crap"?

Note: In Windows, it’s trivially easy to install into a defined function-based hierarchy, and, most importantly, to mirror that hierarchy with the menus. Surprisingly, organizing your software and mirroring that organization with the menus, is a set of related tasks that are much harder to perform on Linux than on Windows. Go figure.
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:36:39 +0200 Poutnik wrote:

I prefer freeware but do not make from it unbreakable rule, even if I have bought except of Windows just 1 SW ever…

Well, to be clear, no rules are unbreakable – they’re just generalizations.

For example, I told my kids today that processed meats such as liverwurst and bolongna have tons more bacteria than do meats closer to the bovine … so my rule … for them … was buy the food as unprocessed as possible.

Similarly, I’ve told them that sugary candy is often as expensive as fruits and vegetables, so, my rule for them was to look at everything as vitamins per pound, or protein per pound.

And, perhaps more apropos, I’ve often postulated the general rule that most fluids just aren’t worth the money you pay for them at the supermarket … since they’re mostly water anyway … and … more to the point … water is freeware; so it’s just not worth buying the sugary payware (specifically sodas or drink mixes that aren’t anything but sugary flavored water anyway).

To bring it back to freeware vs payware, some payware is nothing but sugary flavored water – in which case – it may be better overall to just use the freeware water instead! 🙂
S
Savageduck
Apr 24, 2013
On 2013-04-24 00:06:21 -0700, "Danny D." said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:36:39 +0200 Poutnik wrote:

I prefer freeware but do not make from it unbreakable rule, even if I have bought except of Windows just 1 SW ever…

Well, to be clear, no rules are unbreakable – they’re just generalizations.

For example, I told my kids today that processed meats such as liverwurst and bolongna have tons more bacteria than do meats closer to the bovine … so my rule … for them … was buy the food as unprocessed as possible.

Obviously you were too busy to read this:
<
http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Study-chicken-gro und-beef-are-riskiest-meats-4456184.php


Regards,

Savageduck
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 24, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in between.

i thought you had a pay as you go phone.

anyway, if you’re considering an iphone, splurge for at least a 4s. the difference is well worth it. also shop around for plans. there are unlimited iphone plans around $30.

That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart phone.

a lot of people say that, but once they have a smartphone they find all sorts of things it can do that they didn’t think of.

I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That doesn’t include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that’s included in the basic plan for free.

the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you’d probably use it at least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better.

My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps with me the other night, and I didn’t see one that interested me.

maybe his choice of apps doesn’t overlap with yours.

you probably don’t have the same selection of apps on your computers either.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 24, 2013
In article <kl7ujd$2om$>, Danny D.
wrote:

sometimes it’s unbelievable the crap people use just because it’s free.

Offhand, I used the following freeware (from memory) when I was on Windows …

Which of these do you feel is crap?

gimp, without any question, but others include, openoffice, sharepod, lynx and skype.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 24, 2013
In article <kl7rj4$rsp$>, Danny D.
wrote:

The main reason I’m on Linux is simply that I had replaced my hard disk and the PC manufacturer wouldn’t give me a replacement installation disk for Windows (even though the license stickers were on the bottom of the PC).

why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can’t you contact microsoft and get it activated?

So I put Linux on instead – and I’ve never looked back.

you gave up on windows because you can’t figure out how to reactivate windows when swapping a hard drive?

For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device services),

those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.

Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! 🙂

not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can’t.

The _only_ thing that I ever needed to do that only iTunes did well was to initialize a brand-new iPod or iPhone. While there are Linux alternatives to iTunes for initializing, iTunes is far easier, in the end for initializing devices.

in other words, you can’t live perfectly well without itunes.

However, my rule is to IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) remove iTunes once the brand-new device is initialized;

very stupid.

then SharePod or copyTransManager
or any of a host of much nicer iTunes replacements are used instead.

sharepod doesn’t do everything itunes does, and you even said as much. one major drawback is it can’t access the itunes store.

in other words, no buying music, videos or apps. while music and videos can be obtained in other ways, such as extracting from one’s own cd collection, apps can’t.

Unfortunately, due to iTunes bloatware, you _also_ have to uninstall a host of unwanted badly behaved programs that came with iTunes, such as Bonjour, QuickTime, Apple Application Support, Apple Mobile Device Support, Apple Software Update, etc. (Note: QuickTime Alternative is a good alternative to Quicktime if you must have it.)

there is absolutely no need to uninstall any of that, nor are they badly behaved. furthermore, quicktime alternative is a pitiful replacement for quicktime, which works just fine.

and doesn’t even respect the place you tell it to put it.
that is a flat out lie.

Trust me. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

based on what you’ve said, you do not.

I’ve installed hundreds of programs, for example, on Windows, and absolutely NONE of them go into "C:\Program Files".

why not? who cares where they go.

I know that because I have what I consider to be one of the most organized software hierarchies in the history of PCs.

that’s wonderful.

Absolutely nothing is organized
by brand name, for instance. And, my menus exactly mirror my installation hierarchy, 1:1, like God meant them to.

god uses windows? and why would god care if something is organized by brand name or not?

I could go on and on about how
to properly set up a PC

i’m sure you could, and much of it would be quickly discounted as stupid. just look at the idiocy above.

– but – suffice to say, for the longest time,
I never even had an idiotic "Program Files" or "My Documents" or "Common Files" directory (the defaults being set otherwise in the registry hives).
Suffice to say, you can tell iTunes where to go, and it will go there

so it does respect your choice.

– but,
ALL THE OTHER bloatware that comes with iTunes (see list above, including Bonjour) will NOT respect your decision!

so what? those are background processes. there are many background processes on a modern computer.

out of the millions and millions of windows users, how many people do you think avoid putting apps in program files? hint: the number is so far off the chart that it can be assumed to be zero.

nobody in their right mind is going to worry about edge cases like that. if you try to fight the way the computer is designed to work, you *are* going to have problems.

Please don’t say that’s a lie until you’ve actually tried it (like I have, very many times over the years). And, trust me, I’m a detail kind of guy so you can rest assured I took it up with my friends at Apple. It is what it is and I’m not going to change it – but you calling me a liar doesn’t make it a lie.

it’s a lie, which you admitted.

you said itunes doesn’t respect where you tell it to go then you said it goes where you tell it. one of those is a lie.

In fact, when I had no "Program Files" directory, guess what Bonjour did? It CREATED its own "C:\Program Files" directory! Can you believe that?

who cares. how often do people look at what’s in the program files directory? how many care?

That tells you how badly written Apple software can be?

that doesn’t make it badly written. not even close.

itunes isn’t perfect (nothing is), but this is without question, extremely minor and affects almost nobody.

Note: I’m in the Silicon Valley and my very good friends at Apple tell me their developers fume about the same stuff that I do … so I can’t blame the coders.

what might that stuff be?

i can guarantee you that developers don’t give a shit about putting apps somewhere *other* than program files. it’s not something that gets a lot of testing because almost nobody does it. there are far bigger issues to resolve.

It’s a marketing decision.

nonsense. it has nothing to do with marketing. the computer is designed for apps to go in a certain place, so that’s how apps are designed to work. move them and you may have problems.

Most Apple customers won’t even
understand what I’m talking about because they’re a different class of aficionado. They know stuff I’ll never know – but – I know stuff they can’t even fathom because it’s just not important to them. They’re a wholly different class of thinkers who don’t mind having both a resource fork and a data fork. 🙂

is that supposed to be some sort of apple-bashing?

anyway, resource forks were way ahead of their time, but they’ve long been deprecated.

and don’t forget, windows supports multi-fork files, not just two.

Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install
big apps take longer to install than small ones.

I’d correct that generalization to be the generalization that apps from big companies generally take far (far) longer to install than apps from small companies do. 🙂

bullshit.
D
danny
Apr 24, 2013
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:11:11 -0400 nospam wrote:

why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can’t you contact microsoft and get it activated?

Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system. Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system?

you gave up on windows because you can’t figure out
how to reactivate windows when swapping a hard drive?

Um, maybe you know something I don’t know.
How do you reactivate something that’s not there?
I must be missing something critical here – so please let me know how.

Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! 🙂
not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can’t.

I just explained that I have my own iPod & my kid has an iPhone, and they work perfectly fine without iTunes. We don’t need to argue because this is extremely well known information.

If you still really think you can’t populate an iPod/iPhone without iTunes, you’ll need more advice than I am prepared to dish out anyway.

in other words, you can’t live perfectly well without itunes.

Wow. Your repeated inability to comprehend shows that you simply want to argue – but I know the old adage … so I refuse to drop down to that level – where your experience will win out anyway.

Since I refuse to drop to the level of a grade schooler, this conversation is over. Good luck.
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 24, 2013
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just to tidy up loose ends:

— snip —

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Ae rolithe.html >
The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That’s true – and its never been seen since.

I wasn’t suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.
http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world debut – I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis (while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis which may well be that of the Aerolithe.

The information accompanying
http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photographs/v/album-19/018+SC 0623.jpg.html throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the ‘Torpedo Competition’ with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body’ which was also exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of that car.
One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors such as this Type 54GP:
< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >

You can see the Type 57S in the background/

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens


Regards,

Eric Stevens
S
Savageduck
Apr 24, 2013
On 2013-04-24 16:14:17 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just to tidy up loose ends:

— snip —

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Ae rolithe.html >
The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That’s true – and its never been seen since.

I wasn’t suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.
http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world debut – I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis (while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis which may well be that of the Aerolithe.

The information accompanying
http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photographs/v/album-19/018+SC 0623.jpg.html throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the ‘Torpedo Competition’ with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body’ which was also exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of that car.

It is more than a "faithful replica", it is a faithful full restoration. There is a difference.
Note: the chassis number for the restoration Type 57S in my shot is #57222, the original Paris Show chassis.

The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.

One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors such as this Type 54GP:
< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >

You can see the Type 57S in the background/

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens


Regards,

Savageduck
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 25, 2013
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-24 16:14:17 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just to tidy up loose ends:

— snip —

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Ae rolithe.html >
The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That’s true – and its never been seen since.

I wasn’t suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.
http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world debut – I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis (while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis which may well be that of the Aerolithe.

The information accompanying
http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photographs/v/album-19/018+SC 0623.jpg.html throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the ‘Torpedo Competition’ with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body’ which was also exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of that car.

It is more than a "faithful replica", it is a faithful full restoration. There is a difference.
Note: the chassis number for the restoration Type 57S in my shot is #57222, the original Paris Show chassis.

I didn’t know about the chassis number but that confirms my guess. Is the engine number also 235S?

In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958.

So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine, certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been built in the wrong material! It’s certainly a stretch to call it a ‘restoration’. Never mind.
The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.
One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors such as this Type 54GP:
< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >

You can see the Type 57S in the background/

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens


Regards,

Eric Stevens
S
Savageduck
Apr 25, 2013
On 2013-04-24 17:56:49 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-24 16:14:17 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just to tidy up loose ends:

— snip —

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Ae rolithe.html >
The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That’s true – and its never been seen since.

I wasn’t suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.
http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world debut – I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis (while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis which may well be that of the Aerolithe.

The information accompanying
http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photographs/v/album-19/018+SC 0623.jpg.html throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the ‘Torpedo Competition’ with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body’ which was also exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of that car.

It is more than a "faithful replica", it is a faithful full restoration. There is a difference.
Note: the chassis number for the restoration Type 57S in my shot is #57222, the original Paris Show chassis.

I didn’t know about the chassis number but that confirms my guess. Is the engine number also 235S?

As best as I can make out from what I have the engine number is 240S.

In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958.
So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine, certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been built in the wrong material! It’s certainly a stretch to call it a ‘restoration’. Never mind.

My understanding is the body material is duplicated "Elektron" Magnesium/aluminum alloy as use in the original.

Anyway, regardless our bantering, restoration, or partial replication of any of these great cars can only be commended, and I for one feel privileged to be able to see them today.

The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.
One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors such as this Type 54GP:
< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >

You can see the Type 57S in the background/

…and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC. < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


Regards,

Eric Stevens


Regards,

Savageduck
TC
Tony Cooper
Apr 25, 2013
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:52:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in between.

i thought you had a pay as you go phone.
The phone that I got from AT&T when I first signed up went kerflooey. I bought a pay-as-you-go phone from Walmart and put the SIM card from the AT&T phone in the new phone. While it started as a PAYG phone, AT&T sees it as the same phone I received originally.

anyway, if you’re considering an iphone, splurge for at least a 4s. the difference is well worth it. also shop around for plans. there are unlimited iphone plans around $30.

Thanks, but you don’t know the entire situation. I pay for four lines; one for me, one for my wife, one for my son, and one for my daughter-in-law. (A gift a few years ago that I’ve extended) Son extended the contract when he went to the iPhone, so the provider is locked in although 3 of the phones are beyond contract.

That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart phone.

a lot of people say that, but once they have a smartphone they find all sorts of things it can do that they didn’t think of.

I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That doesn’t include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that’s included in the basic plan for free.

the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you’d probably use it at least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better.

It doesn’t interest me. I’m an avid photographer, but with my Nikons. If I’m going to go out for photos, I do it with the Nikons. I’ve got a P&S camera in the car for quickies and unexpected shots.

My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps with me the other night, and I didn’t see one that interested me.

maybe his choice of apps doesn’t overlap with yours.

you probably don’t have the same selection of apps on your computers either.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
ES
Eric Stevens
Apr 25, 2013
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:18:35 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-24 17:56:49 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-04-24 16:14:17 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just to tidy up loose ends:

— snip —

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= 2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Ae rolithe.html >
The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That’s true – and its never been seen since.

I wasn’t suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.
http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world debut – I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis (while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis which may well be that of the Aerolithe.

The information accompanying
http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photographs/v/album-19/018+SC 0623.jpg.html throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the ‘Torpedo Competition’ with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body’ which was also exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of that car.

It is more than a "faithful replica", it is a faithful full restoration. There is a difference.
Note: the chassis number for the restoration Type 57S in my shot is #57222, the original Paris Show chassis.

I didn’t know about the chassis number but that confirms my guess. Is the engine number also 235S?

As best as I can make out from what I have the engine number is 240S.

So it’s not the original engine.
In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958.
So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine, certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been built in the wrong material! It’s certainly a stretch to call it a ‘restoration’. Never mind.

My understanding is the body material is duplicated "Elektron" Magnesium/aluminum alloy as use in the original.

One of the comments in the URL I have given above is:

"I did a bit of further research on the Bugatti riveted aluminum cars. Three of them still exist, and they are definitely aluminum bodies. At the time Bugatti called them "Elektron".’

… so may be Phil Reilly and the gang up in Canada (with the duplicate Aerolithe) may have been mislead into using the wrong material.

Anyway, regardless our bantering, restoration, or partial replication of any of these great cars can only be commended, and I for one feel privileged to be able to see them today.

I envy you. One way or another it is a unique motor vehicle.

— snip —



Regards,

Eric Stevens
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 25, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That doesn’t include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that’s included in the basic plan for free.

the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you’d probably use it at least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better.

It doesn’t interest me. I’m an avid photographer, but with my Nikons. If I’m going to go out for photos, I do it with the Nikons. I’ve got a P&S camera in the car for quickies and unexpected shots.

suit yourself, but there is quite a bit that can be done with a smartphone camera that is harder than with other cameras, such as panoramas. pick the best tool for the job.

then again, you like making more work for yourself.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
Apr 25, 2013
In article <kl9oeq$eii$>, Danny D.
wrote:

why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can’t you contact microsoft and get it activated?

Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system. Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system?

same place you got the original.

or just restore from a backup. you do have backups, right?

you gave up on windows because you can’t figure out
how to reactivate windows when swapping a hard drive?

Um, maybe you know something I don’t know.
How do you reactivate something that’s not there?
I must be missing something critical here – so please let me know how.

how did you get windows in the first place?

Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! 🙂
not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can’t.

I just explained that I have my own iPod & my kid has an iPhone, and they work perfectly fine without iTunes. We don’t need to argue because this is extremely well known information.

with limited functionality, they do. who wants limited functionality?

maybe that’s acceptable for you and your kid, but it’s not for the rest of the world. people want more features, not less.

meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people have itunes installed without problems. there’s no reason to avoid it.

If you still really think you can’t populate an iPod/iPhone without iTunes, you’ll need more advice than I am prepared to dish out anyway.

you can, however, functionality is more limited than with itunes, as i said.

some of what can’t be done without itunes includes full backups, smart playlists, editing tags and much more. also, many things are much easier to do in itunes than on an iphone or ipad.

you may be ok with limited functionality, but others certainly are not.

to say that someone doesn’t need itunes is flat out false.

in other words, you can’t live perfectly well without itunes.

Wow. Your repeated inability to comprehend shows that you simply want to argue – but I know the old adage … so I refuse to drop down to that level – where your experience will win out anyway.

i’m not arguing. i’m refuting your ludicrous claims. plus, you’re contradicting yourself.

Since I refuse to drop to the level of a grade schooler, this conversation is over. Good luck.

translated: you know you’re wrong and can’t back anything up so you back out. why am i not surprised.

bye bye.
TC
Tony Cooper
Apr 25, 2013
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:29:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That doesn’t include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that’s included in the basic plan for free.

the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you’d probably use it at least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better.

It doesn’t interest me. I’m an avid photographer, but with my Nikons. If I’m going to go out for photos, I do it with the Nikons. I’ve got a P&S camera in the car for quickies and unexpected shots.

suit yourself, but there is quite a bit that can be done with a smartphone camera that is harder than with other cameras, such as panoramas. pick the best tool for the job.

then again, you like making more work for yourself.

Work? Work? Photography is not work for me. I hope I never get to the point in photography where I choose something because it means less work for me.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 2, 2013
Danny D. wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:13 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?

I’ve tested every freeware program that was suggested, so I’m not an expert on the payware programs.

Have you even googled for >>screenshot annotation tool<<? I get
http://getgreenshot.org/
http://www.screenpresso.com/
http://www.techsmith.com/download/snagit/
http://www.techsmith.com/download/jing/
http://www.bluemangolearning.com/screensteps
http://lifehacker.com/5955051/skitch-our-favorite-screenshot -and-annotation-tool-comes-to-windows http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/amazing-screenshot-e ditor-annotation-tool.htm http://awesomescreenshot.com/
http://szoter.com/#intro
from the first few links ..

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Why should Photoshop care for simple annotations of screen shots? It’s a very powerful, mighty package for professional image work, it’s — as far as I can tell — as unsuitable for trivial screenshot annotation as the Gimp.

These ‘3 critcal requirements’ call for a very dumbed down program, not a professional image tool …

…. and there’s yet another *really* critical requirement you didn’t even mention: easily obfuscate parts of a screen shot.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 2, 2013
Danny D. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:31 -0400 nospam wrote:

but when have facts mattered to linux zealots anyway.

Actually, I’m not a Linux zealot.

To nospam everyone who disagrees on OS choice is a linux zealot. Because only nospam is sane and everyone driving correctly is a wrong-way driver to nospam.

The main reason I’m on Linux is simply that I had replaced my hard disk and the PC manufacturer wouldn’t give me a replacement installation disk for Windows (even though the license stickers were on the bottom of the PC).

MS has for quite a while offered their installation disks for download — for free — via Digital River
(http://msft.digitalrivercontent.net/win/….iso)

Google finds them just fine. And MS’ knowledge base tells you it’s legit.

So I put Linux on instead – and I’ve never looked back.

But unlike Linux you’ll have to find and install every
mainboard, graphics card, ethernet etc.etc.etc. driver yourself. You’ll love collecting all the CDs and DVDs and trying to get to the internet, just because it’s Windows.

Oh, and at least Windows7 will reformat a partition with the boot flag for UEFI — even when it knows it shouldn’t touch *that* HDD at all, even when it had a complete HDD to install itself upon. Cost me lots of time. Thanks, stupid Microsoft.

For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device services),

those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.

Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! 🙂

You can live perfectly well without iPhone, iPod, iTunes and all and any computers.

I know that because I have what I consider to be one of the most organized software hierarchies in the history of PCs. Absolutely nothing is organized by brand name, for instance. And, my menus exactly mirror my installation hierarchy, 1:1, like God meant them to.

Which God? Seth, Apep or Eris?

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 2, 2013
Danny D. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:17:22 -0400 nospam wrote:

the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class of apps just because he’s too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality software. how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without finding a solution?

The canonical rule in all software whenever you have a task to accomplish, is to first perform that task in freeware – and then – only when you can’t possibly perform it in freeware – by then – you know enough to figure out what features in the payware are worth paying for.

Wrong. Much as it pains me … this is only true if your own time is infinite and costs nothing, there’s no need for standardisation in your organisation, there’s no additional cost in training and support …

Many people have an (at least) basic knowledge with MS Office, but not with libreOffice. Assuming that there’s no problems with interoperability at all, the cost of training and
supporting the average worker[1] on libreOffice can easily outweight the cost of buying the proprietary software.

Much as it pains me …

Again, if you have a friend or colleague who’s experienced in some software but not in another and you’re not well versed in computers or that kind of software, it may well be cheaper and much less frustrating to buy the software where you get cheap or free support …

…. and by asking these experienced people first and then following their directions you save many many hours of
unproductive work. Even if you’re really cheap, you usually come out well ahead that way.

For example, if you need to burn a DVD, on Windows, you try imgburn. Likewise, on Linux, you’d try K3b or Brasero to burn DVDs.

…. if you insisted dumbly on a GUI, that is.

-Wolfgang

[1] and you probably can’t underestimate, no matter how hard you try, how many of them can’t transfer knowledge or how hard it is for many of them to use something where the menu positions are different or the buttons have different names.
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 2, 2013
Danny D. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:48:32 -0400 Alan Meyer wrote:

Doesn’t commercial software require the same amount of
reading reviews and testing?

Here’s one functional freeware/payware decision tree:

a) Define the task you need to accomplish:
e.g., Let’s say you want to create a pencil drawing from this JPG: http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12760612/img/12760612.jp g

And the answer is:
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-mp2v4dk/1/X3/i-mp2v4dk-O.jpg http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-6szqcKg/1/X3/i-6szqcKg-O.jpg

b) Find & test the best freeware for the task:
e.g., Inkscape: Path->Trace Bitmap->(o)Edge detection->Update->OK Or, Gimp: Filters->Edge Detect->Difference of Gaussians etc.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12760601/img/12760601.jp g

That’s a real bad job. You’d have to *learn* a *lot* about the Gimp to use it properly. That’ll cost you *at least* a couple hundred dollar in time.

So the right method is to google
turn photo into cartoon
turn photo into drawing
turn photo into pencil sketch
etc. and use the cut-and-dried pre-made versions.
Then try the recipes, if that’s not sufficient.

c) If that freeware fails, or only partially performs the desired task, then,

you probably haven’t used it properly. Go spend another at least 10 or 20 hours seaching for recipes, learn what they actually do and mean, learn how to improve them. Try all the variations.

after having tested it, you now know much more about what to look for in the payware that you shell out your hard-earned cash for.

So you’re wasting 20 hours on testing freeware to save maybe $19.95? Do you only make $1 per hour? You could have worked for 19 of these 20 hours — or enjoyed them — and made much more money, or spend them with stuff and people you *love* spending time with.

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better, or easier than the freeware did it – or – it has to do a task that the freeware just couldn’t do.

The point is:
Armed with freeware knowledge, you’ll make better payware decisions!

The point is: Knowledge costs money. Lots of money. Unless you have infinite free time. Which you have not. You only have a very limited amount of seconds you’ll be alife, and you’re already spending a third of them for sleeping and another third for working … and you need to care for yourself, too.

No amount of money can add you a single second. But
comparatively small amounts of money can *save* you *tons* of time, by going down well trodden and well understood paths, or by outsourcing the work to someone who’s much more experienced than you are.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 2, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in between.

That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart phone.

So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

Google the "Blub Paradox". It’s another domain (computer languages), but the exactly same effect — things you take for granted and use you don’t want to live without, things you don’t use and understand are merely complicated and you don’t get what they might be useful for.

"There’s a world market for maybe 5 computers" (ok, it’s usually misattributed, but there were sentiments by several computer specialists along these lines.)

Who needs the internet anyway?

My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps with me the other night, and I didn’t see one that interested me.

I don’t understand what people get out of Facebook. I don’t do Facebook (there are also political reasons for that).

I don’t really understand Twitter. I don’t do Twitter.

But I *do* understand that I can grok these things only if I use them. Same as the Facebook and Twitter crowd at large will never understand Usenet.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 3, 2013
Danny D. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:02:12 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

In Photoshop they are added to a unique layer as a vector graphic

This is a very useful feature that I’ve never seen in the freeware mentioned.

Good thing that the Gimp isn’t freeware, then, but FOSS. (Paths are vectors)

It allows a series of custom arrows to be cut and pasted so that they’re consistent.

For which you don’t need vector graphics, since you don’t want to scale them.

That’s nice – and NOT in the freeware feature set! (AFAIK)

Just another proof that you need to spend *much* more time with the ‘freeware’ and really learn them.

-Wolfgang
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 3, 2013
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

but when have facts mattered to linux zealots anyway.

Actually, I’m not a Linux zealot.

To nospam everyone who disagrees on OS choice is a linux zealot. Because only nospam is sane and everyone driving correctly is a wrong-way driver to nospam.

completely false. very few use linux as their desktop os and of those, not all are linux zealots.

linux for servers and embedded systems is a totally different story.

So I put Linux on instead – and I’ve never looked back.

But unlike Linux you’ll have to find and install every
mainboard, graphics card, ethernet etc.etc.etc. driver yourself. You’ll love collecting all the CDs and DVDs and trying to get to the internet, just because it’s Windows.

other way around. linux is where you have to find and install drivers and/or end user software, some of which may not even exist or is written by end users because the manufacturer can’t justify supporting linux. too few users to matter.

windows and mac os include drivers for common peripherals. for hardware that doesn’t have a built-in driver, one comes in the box or it’s easily downloaded. it’s rarely a problem.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 3, 2013
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Danny D. wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:13 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?

I’ve tested every freeware program that was suggested, so I’m not an expert on the payware programs.

Have you even googled for >>screenshot annotation tool<<? I get
http://getgreenshot.org/
http://www.screenpresso.com/
http://www.techsmith.com/download/snagit/
http://www.techsmith.com/download/jing/
http://www.bluemangolearning.com/screensteps
http://lifehacker.com/5955051/skitch-our-favorite-screenshot -and-annotation-tool-comes-to-windows http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/amazing-screenshot-e ditor-annotation-tool.htm http://awesomescreenshot.com/
http://szoter.com/#intro
from the first few links ..

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Why should Photoshop care for simple annotations of screen shots? It’s a very powerful, mighty package for professional image work, it’s — as far as I can tell — as unsuitable for trivial screenshot annotation as the Gimp.

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

I don’t *need* Photoshop to simply crop an image. But, I have Photoshop, and use it for more complex editing, so it would be ridiculous to have a program that crops – and not much more – just because cropping is under-utilizing Photoshop’s capability. It’s not like it’s using up a resource to use it for simple tasks. —
Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 4, 2013
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in between.

That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart phone.

So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

No surprise here, but you’ve misread my post. I said I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have smart phone. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t been in the situations you describe. It simply means that I don’t consider it an inconvenience to have dealt with those situations without a smart phone.

Why just last weekend I was in an unfamiliar part of town, remembered that I needed some glove lace for my grandson’s baseball mitt, and stopped in a 7/11 to use their phonebook to look up location of a sporting goods store, bought a cup of coffee to go, and used their bathroom. Now I know a smart phone would have allowed me to look up the store without stopping, but I don’t think smart phones brew coffee or have toilet facilities.

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times. If I don’t want to bring out my big, bulky dslr, I have that at hand.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
M
Mayayana
May 4, 2013
| > That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what | > I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single | > instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart | > phone.
|
| So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all | the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. | browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an | address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a | doctor or usable eating place while outside town?
|

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, a toddler (of any age) with a very entertaining, multi-media pacifier is going to have a very hard time getting weaned off of it. One becomes a slave to diddling, unconsciously convinced that mere boredom is a dangerous bogieman that must be avoided, lest one suffer some dire but undefined fate.

I’m not anti-tech. I write software and do web design on the side. And I’m not against cellphones. I have a Tracphone in case I need to make a call. On the other hand,
I have maps in my truck and a small notebook when I need to write things down. I read news online and in a newspaper. I don’t need to have the latest "breaking news" while I’m waiting at a red light or sitting in a dentist’s waiting room. And I certainly don’t need to spend upward of $100/month for that.

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.

Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" …..whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 4, 2013
In article <km3292$ru9$>, Mayayana
wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over.

you must have done a *lot* more than just watch them to know specifically what they were doing on their phones.

the only way to know they were ‘checking facebook over and over’ would be by looking over their shoulder directly at their phone. not only is that rude but it’s downright creepy.

It’s what young mothers refer to as
a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, a toddler (of any age) with a very entertaining, multi-media pacifier is going to have a very hard time getting weaned off of it. One becomes a slave to diddling, unconsciously convinced that mere boredom is a dangerous bogieman that must be avoided, lest one suffer some dire but undefined fate.

nonsense.

I’m not anti-tech.

yes you are, but a more appropriate description is you’re anti-progress.

I write software and do web design on
the side.

for legacy hardware and legacy operating systems.

you aren’t writing apps for mobile devices. that much is clear.

And I’m not against cellphones. I have a Tracphone
in case I need to make a call.

i don’t think you realize just how funny that is.

On the other hand,
I have maps in my truck and a small notebook when I need to write things down.

paper maps are not as up to date and much harder to use while driving.

or are you one of those idiots who unfolds a map while trying to steer?

I read news online and in a newspaper.
I don’t need to have the latest "breaking news" while I’m waiting at a red light or sitting in a dentist’s waiting room. And I certainly don’t need to spend upward of $100/month for that.

there’s no need to spend $100/mo.

you are so full of misinformation, it’s crazy.

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

who are you to say how someone else spends their time?
S
Shadow
May 4, 2013
On Sat, 4 May 2013 09:29:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, a toddler (of any age) with a very entertaining, multi-media pacifier is going to have a very hard time getting weaned off of it. One becomes a slave to diddling, unconsciously convinced that mere boredom is a dangerous bogieman that must be avoided, lest one suffer some dire but undefined fate.

I’m not anti-tech. I write software and do web design on the side. And I’m not against cellphones. I have a Tracphone in case I need to make a call. On the other hand,
I have maps in my truck and a small notebook when I need to write things down. I read news online and in a newspaper. I don’t need to have the latest "breaking news" while I’m waiting at a red light or sitting in a dentist’s waiting room. And I certainly don’t need to spend upward of $100/month for that.

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.
[]’s

Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
P
POKO
May 4, 2013
In article ,
says…
On Sat, 4 May 2013 09:29:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech.

I’m not anti-tech. I write software and do web design on the side. And I’m not against cellphones. I have a Tracphone in case I need to make a call. On the other hand,
I have maps in my truck and a small notebook when I need to write things down. I read news online and in a newspaper. I don’t need to have the latest "breaking news" while I’m waiting at a red light or sitting in a dentist’s waiting room. And I certainly don’t need to spend upward of $100/month for that.

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.
[]’s

When I design web pages I’m sitting at my desktop. When I’m on a bus/subway I’m looking not to miss my stop. I’ve survived 66 years without a smartphone and fully intend to punch out without one – I don’t need apps. If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,


Best,
POKO – Webmaster
Manitoulin Island Web Design
http://www.manitoulinislandindex.com/revisedfreeware.html
M
Mayayana
May 4, 2013
| > Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" | >….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having | >enough time. 🙂
| >
| You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.

I’m 57. I know lots of older people who are addicted
to smartphones. (And of course there’s Wolfgang.)
But I know what you mean. Younger people have grown
up with cellphones and texting, and younger people
like as much peer feedback as possible. It must be
very hard to resist being in constant contact with
one’s buddies. But I worry about them. They have almost
no experience of actual solitude, or formless time, or
self-reliance. Their world is an abstraction, more wired than physical. One can see it walking down city streets. People seem to be getting more rude and inconsiderate,
but I don’t think that’s actually what’s happening.
Rather, cellphone addicts are radically separated from
their own physical environment. They’re not where they
are, and actually don’t regard their physical location as relevant. …At least not until they get hit by a truck. I have a blind friend who complains that in recent years
he’s had an increasing problem with people walking into
him. And it’s not just hitting his elbow as they walk by. It’s full-speed, head-on collision.
P
PeterN
May 4, 2013
On 5/4/2013 12:31 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| > Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" | >….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having | >enough time. 🙂
| >
| You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.

I’m 57. I know lots of older people who are addicted
to smartphones. (And of course there’s Wolfgang.)
But I know what you mean. Younger people have grown
up with cellphones and texting, and younger people
like as much peer feedback as possible. It must be
very hard to resist being in constant contact with
one’s buddies. But I worry about them. They have almost
no experience of actual solitude, or formless time, or
self-reliance. Their world is an abstraction, more wired than physical. One can see it walking down city streets. People seem to be getting more rude and inconsiderate,
but I don’t think that’s actually what’s happening.
Rather, cellphone addicts are radically separated from
their own physical environment. They’re not where they
are, and actually don’t regard their physical location as relevant. …At least not until they get hit by a truck. I have a blind friend who complains that in recent years
he’s had an increasing problem with people walking into
him. And it’s not just hitting his elbow as they walk by. It’s full-speed, head-on collision.

We are starting to see a backlash against that:
Quiet cars in the commuter trains; people telling the loud chatters to shut up. I and many others, have zero interest in the details of somebody’s latest affair.
Evn though I am semi-retired, I like to use my quiet time to wind down. Though I freely admit, that I will look at my images, to see how I may improve them, during "down time."


PeterN
SP
super.pooh
May 4, 2013
On Sat, 04 May 2013 11:26:41 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sat, 4 May 2013 09:29:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, a toddler (of any age) with a very entertaining, multi-media pacifier is going to have a very hard time getting weaned off of it. One becomes a slave to diddling, unconsciously convinced that mere boredom is a dangerous bogieman that must be avoided, lest one suffer some dire but undefined fate.

I’m not anti-tech. I write software and do web design on the side. And I’m not against cellphones. I have a Tracphone in case I need to make a call. On the other hand,
I have maps in my truck and a small notebook when I need to write things down. I read news online and in a newspaper. I don’t need to have the latest "breaking news" while I’m waiting at a red light or sitting in a dentist’s waiting room. And I certainly don’t need to spend upward of $100/month for that.

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.
[]’s

I refuse to own a phone that’s smarter than me. I’d always be looking over my shoulder.


p-0.0-h the cat

Attention new posters. Beware: ACF is under attack by a small number of trolls who post false and misleading replies to questions here, and run campaigns of lies against some of the long term regulars in order to get them killfiled.

These are my recommendations to filter their malicious trollspam

By filtering out messages containing
<< q34wsk20-at-yahoo.com>> AND <>
in the "From:" header and messages containing "ccountrynet" in the path statement
you will knock out more than half or even three quarters of the trollspamming in this group.

I also recommend filtering all crossposts, anonymous remailers, and any posts with these providers in the path:

eternal-september.org
dotsrc.org
ccountrynet < especially this one
individual.net
easynews.com
anonymous
S
Shadow
May 4, 2013
On Sat, 4 May 2013 12:31:34 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.

I’m 57. I know lots of older people who are addicted
to smartphones. (And of course there’s Wolfgang.)
But I know what you mean. Younger people have grown
up with cellphones and texting, and younger people
like as much peer feedback as possible. It must be
very hard to resist being in constant contact with
one’s buddies. But I worry about them. They have almost
no experience of actual solitude, or formless time, or
self-reliance. Their world is an abstraction, more wired than physical. One can see it walking down city streets. People seem to be getting more rude and inconsiderate,
but I don’t think that’s actually what’s happening.
Rather, cellphone addicts are radically separated from
their own physical environment. They’re not where they
are, and actually don’t regard their physical location as relevant. …At least not until they get hit by a truck. I have a blind friend who complains that in recent years
he’s had an increasing problem with people walking into
him. And it’s not just hitting his elbow as they walk by. It’s full-speed, head-on collision.

My son has friends all over the world. One day I asked him what their gender was. He replied "I dunno, I only know their nicks. Does it matter ? ".
He has yet to talk (face to face) to his neighbors.
I worry about him sometimes. Maybe he’s worried about me. Strange world. Phil K. Dick didn’t imagine anything like this.
[]’s


Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
S
Shadow
May 4, 2013
On Sat, 04 May 2013 21:17:29 +0100, "p-0”0-h the cat (ES)" wrote:

On Sat, 04 May 2013 11:26:41 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sat, 4 May 2013 09:29:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.

I refuse to own a phone that’s smarter than me. I’d always be looking over my shoulder.

No need. The phones do that for you.
🙂
[]’s

Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
ES
Eric Stevens
May 4, 2013
On Sat, 04 May 2013 09:45:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article <km3292$ru9$>, Mayayana
wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over.

you must have done a *lot* more than just watch them to know specifically what they were doing on their phones.

the only way to know they were ‘checking facebook over and over’ would be by looking over their shoulder directly at their phone. not only is that rude but it’s downright creepy.

It’s what young mothers refer to as
a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, a toddler (of any age) with a very entertaining, multi-media pacifier is going to have a very hard time getting weaned off of it. One becomes a slave to diddling, unconsciously convinced that mere boredom is a dangerous bogieman that must be avoided, lest one suffer some dire but undefined fate.

nonsense.

I’m not anti-tech.

yes you are, but a more appropriate description is you’re anti-progress.

Haw!!

I write software and do web design on
the side.

for legacy hardware and legacy operating systems.

you aren’t writing apps for mobile devices. that much is clear.
And I’m not against cellphones. I have a Tracphone
in case I need to make a call.

i don’t think you realize just how funny that is.

On the other hand,
I have maps in my truck and a small notebook when I need to write things down.

paper maps are not as up to date and much harder to use while driving.
or are you one of those idiots who unfolds a map while trying to steer?
I read news online and in a newspaper.
I don’t need to have the latest "breaking news" while I’m waiting at a red light or sitting in a dentist’s waiting room. And I certainly don’t need to spend upward of $100/month for that.

there’s no need to spend $100/mo.

you are so full of misinformation, it’s crazy.

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

who are you to say how someone else spends their time?

Who are you to say how Mayayana should prefer to pass his time? —

Regards,

Eric Stevens
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 4, 2013
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

who are you to say how someone else spends their time?

Who are you to say how Mayayana should prefer to pass his time?

are you actually saying his snooping on what other people are doing on their phones is acceptable behaviour??

and even if he does ‘accidentally’ see it, he’s making a big deal out of what isn’t any of his business. so what if someone uses facebook. they have a billion users, which means the chances of seeing someone use facebook on a subway is not all that low.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 4, 2013
In article <km3cug$qpb$>, Mayayana
wrote:

| > Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" | >….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having | >enough time. 🙂
| >
| You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.

I’m 57. I know lots of older people who are addicted
to smartphones. (And of course there’s Wolfgang.)

how do you know they’re addicted?

and how is it different than ‘being addicted’ to a desktop computer, other than mobility?

But I know what you mean. Younger people have grown
up with cellphones and texting, and younger people
like as much peer feedback as possible. It must be
very hard to resist being in constant contact with
one’s buddies. But I worry about them. They have almost
no experience of actual solitude, or formless time, or
self-reliance.

you don’t know what their experience may or may not be, and why does the experiences of total strangers matter to you?

Their world is an abstraction, more wired
than physical.

so what? the world is changing, whether you like it or not.

One can see it walking down city streets.
People seem to be getting more rude and inconsiderate,

especially those who look over people’s shoulders to see what they’re doing.

but I don’t think that’s actually what’s happening.
Rather, cellphone addicts are radically separated from
their own physical environment. They’re not where they
are, and actually don’t regard their physical location as relevant. …At least not until they get hit by a truck. I have a blind friend who complains that in recent years
he’s had an increasing problem with people walking into
him. And it’s not just hitting his elbow as they walk by. It’s full-speed, head-on collision.

<http://improveverywhere.com/2013/04/30/seeing-eye-people/>
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 4, 2013
In article , Shadow
wrote:

My son has friends all over the world. One day I asked him what their gender was. He replied "I dunno, I only know their nicks. Does it matter ? ".
He has yet to talk (face to face) to his neighbors.
I worry about him sometimes. Maybe he’s worried about me. Strange world. Phil K. Dick didn’t imagine anything like this.

nothing strange about it. it’s one of many things that are different than how it was when you were a kid.

having friends all over the world is a good thing.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 4, 2013
In article ,
POKO wrote:

When I design web pages I’m sitting at my desktop. When I’m on a bus/subway I’m looking not to miss my stop. I’ve survived 66 years without a smartphone and fully intend to punch out without one – I don’t need apps.

then you’d better be planning to punch out in the next couple of years, because beyond that, it will be difficult to *not* have a smartphone.

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it.

who said anything about voice calls? a smartphone can do *so* much more.

I got my wife a
phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

that won’t work for you when you can’t find a phone booth. phone booths are being removed because just about everyone has a cellphone.

and good luck if you break down on a highway, miles from anything. that’s going to be a *really* long walk.
M
Mayayana
May 5, 2013
| > Who are you to say how Mayayana should prefer to pass his time? |
| are you actually saying his snooping on what other people are doing on | their phones is acceptable behaviour??
|

Somehow my observation about cellphone addicts
on the subway has turned into me being a pervert/peeping Tom spying on peoples’ private lives. Methinks the
closet Facebookie doth protest too much. 🙂

Actually I chimed in to provide the minority view.
I find Wolfgang’s view — that anyone who doesn’t
use a smartphone must not "get it" — to be surprisingly common. It’s one thing to find cellphones and GPS
useful. It’s quite another to find them constantly
indispensible and to think that maps are outdated and
"hard to use".
P
PeterN
May 5, 2013
On 5/4/2013 8:42 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| > Who are you to say how Mayayana should prefer to pass his time? |
| are you actually saying his snooping on what other people are doing on | their phones is acceptable behaviour??
|

Somehow my observation about cellphone addicts
on the subway has turned into me being a pervert/peeping Tom spying on peoples’ private lives. Methinks the
closet Facebookie doth protest too much. 🙂

Actually I chimed in to provide the minority view.
I find Wolfgang’s view — that anyone who doesn’t
use a smartphone must not "get it" — to be surprisingly common. It’s one thing to find cellphones and GPS
useful. It’s quite another to find them constantly
indispensible and to think that maps are outdated and
"hard to use".
I would not take an accusation from nospam too seriously.


PeterN
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 5, 2013
In article <km49na$3cc$>, Mayayana
wrote:

Somehow my observation about cellphone addicts
on the subway has turned into me being a pervert/peeping Tom spying on peoples’ private lives. Methinks the
closet Facebookie doth protest too much. 🙂

methinks you’re making incorrect assumptions.

first of all, using a smartphone on a subway train does not mean someone is addicted. how ludicrous. if they read a newspaper instead, would you say they’re addicted to a newspaper?

second, the only way you could see what people were doing on their smartphones to the extent of describing icons and scrolling lists is by intentionally snooping. your intent was to find out what people did with their phones, but without asking.

third, i do not use facebook.

Actually I chimed in to provide the minority view.

at least you realize that.

I find Wolfgang’s view — that anyone who doesn’t
use a smartphone must not "get it" — to be surprisingly common. It’s one thing to find cellphones and GPS
useful. It’s quite another to find them constantly
indispensible and to think that maps are outdated and
"hard to use".

they are quickly becoming as indispensable as laptops and desktops are now.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 5, 2013
On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:31:49 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 04 May 2013 09:45:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article <km3292$ru9$>, Mayayana
wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over.

you must have done a *lot* more than just watch them to know specifically what they were doing on their phones.

the only way to know they were ‘checking facebook over and over’ would be by looking over their shoulder directly at their phone. not only is that rude but it’s downright creepy.

It’s what young mothers refer to as
a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, a toddler (of any age) with a very entertaining, multi-media pacifier is going to have a very hard time getting weaned off of it. One becomes a slave to diddling, unconsciously convinced that mere boredom is a dangerous bogieman that must be avoided, lest one suffer some dire but undefined fate.

nonsense.

I’m not anti-tech.

yes you are, but a more appropriate description is you’re anti-progress.

Haw!!

Pay nospam no mind. He’s like a Jehovah’s Witness or Scientologist but his "god" is the latest technological gadget.

who are you to say how someone else spends their time?

Probably the most hypocritical of all of nospam’s remarks yet. I wonder if he leaves Apple tracts on urinals.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 5, 2013
On Sat, 04 May 2013 20:57:53 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article <km49na$3cc$>, Mayayana
wrote:

Somehow my observation about cellphone addicts
on the subway has turned into me being a pervert/peeping Tom spying on peoples’ private lives. Methinks the
closet Facebookie doth protest too much. 🙂

methinks you’re making incorrect assumptions.

first of all, using a smartphone on a subway train does not mean someone is addicted. how ludicrous. if they read a newspaper instead, would you say they’re addicted to a newspaper?

second, the only way you could see what people were doing on their smartphones to the extent of describing icons and scrolling lists is by intentionally snooping. your intent was to find out what people did with their phones, but without asking.

third, i do not use facebook.

Isn’t that the thing people do where other people "friend" them? No wonder nospam doesn’t do it. He couldn’t get a friend if he had the only life preserver on one of the Titantic’s lifeboats.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
ES
Eric Stevens
May 5, 2013
On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:25:00 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

who are you to say how someone else spends their time?

Who are you to say how Mayayana should prefer to pass his time?

are you actually saying his snooping on what other people are doing on their phones is acceptable behaviour??

No. I’m saying you are not prepared to apply to yourself the standard which you seem to believe Mayayana should apply to himself.
and even if he does ‘accidentally’ see it, he’s making a big deal out of what isn’t any of his business. so what if someone uses facebook. they have a billion users, which means the chances of seeing someone use facebook on a subway is not all that low.

He wasn’t commenting on the behaviour of just one person. —

Regards,

Eric Stevens
S
Savageduck
May 5, 2013
On 2013-05-04 17:42:40 -0700, "Mayayana" said:

| > Who are you to say how Mayayana should prefer to pass his time? |
| are you actually saying his snooping on what other people are doing on | their phones is acceptable behaviour??
|

Somehow my observation about cellphone addicts
on the subway has turned into me being a pervert/peeping Tom spying on peoples’ private lives. Methinks the
closet Facebookie doth protest too much. 🙂

Actually I chimed in to provide the minority view.
I find Wolfgang’s view — that anyone who doesn’t
use a smartphone must not "get it" — to be surprisingly common. It’s one thing to find cellphones and GPS
useful. It’s quite another to find them constantly
indispensible and to think that maps are outdated and
"hard to use".

Well besides some of the silly stuff (I don’t do Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram) there are some Apps this old fart finds useful on his iPhone. ….and I don’t use it to pass the time.
However, when away from my desktop or laptop, I have access to Skype, Dropbox, Evernote, email, online banking, a very good calculator, the ability scan a document to produce a PDF when there is no other means handy, a light meter which measures incident & reflected light, some GPS & mapping apps including Google Earth & maps, a decent calendar, a note book which shares notes taken with my computer and iPad, and of all things a very good level. Then for those photographers who from time to time find it an economic necessity to rent lenses or camera LensProToGo has a very nice App.

There is much more. All I can say is, I am in no way a smartphone power user, but when I find a need for one of those Apps I am happy to have it with me.

Here is a sampling of some of the Apps I find occasionally find useful, none of them are Facebook or Twitter.
< https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/evernote/id281796108?mt=8 > <
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/itriage-health-doctor-sympto ms/id304696939?mt=8
< https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/theodolite/id339393884?mt=8 > < https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fotometerpro/id439913393?mt= 8 > < https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/genius-scan-pdf-scanner/id37 7672876?mt=8 >


Regards,

Savageduck
S
Shadow
May 5, 2013
On Sat, 4 May 2013 19:04:25 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/itriage-health-doctor-sympto ms/id304696939?mt=8

/ Category: Health & Fitness
Updated: Mar 29, 2013
Version: 4.7
Size: 22.9 MB
Language: English
Seller: Healthagen, LLC <—— OT
© iTriage, LLC

Prerequisites:
You must be at least 17 years old to download this app.
Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity
/

I can’t download it. I need Frequent/Intense Sexual Content | Nudity. I don’t qualify for the former, and I only have the latter when I take a bath. And taking a bath can hardly be classified as "intense", unless we have a power cut.
🙁
[]’s

Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 5, 2013
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

who are you to say how someone else spends their time?

Who are you to say how Mayayana should prefer to pass his time?

are you actually saying his snooping on what other people are doing on their phones is acceptable behaviour??

No. I’m saying you are not prepared to apply to yourself the standard which you seem to believe Mayayana should apply to himself.

it’s two totally different things.

i don’t care what people do with their laptops or smartphones. i don’t look at their screen to see what apps they’re running. i don’t consider people addicted to a smartphone just because they use one on a train (which is one of the most ludicrous things i’ve read in a long time). i don’t go into a rant about how kids are having their lives screwed up by smartphones.

so what if a total stranger wants to spend their train ride using facebook or playing angry birds or reading cnn.com or even reading a paper book or newspaper. it’s their time and they get to decide what they’re going to do with it.

and even if he does ‘accidentally’ see it, he’s making a big deal out of what isn’t any of his business. so what if someone uses facebook. they have a billion users, which means the chances of seeing someone use facebook on a subway is not all that low.

He wasn’t commenting on the behaviour of just one person.

exactly. he was commenting on the behaviour of the entire train. that’s much worse.

or, he’s talking out his ass. he really didn’t see everyone’s screen. he just wants to rant about facebook.
S
Savageduck
May 5, 2013
On 2013-05-04 19:35:12 -0700, Shadow said:

On Sat, 4 May 2013 19:04:25 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/itriage-health-doctor-sympto ms/id304696939?mt=8

/ Category: Health & Fitness
Updated: Mar 29, 2013
Version: 4.7
Size: 22.9 MB
Language: English
Seller: Healthagen, LLC <—— OT
© iTriage, LLC

Prerequisites:
You must be at least 17 years old to download this app.
Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity
/

I can’t download it. I need Frequent/Intense Sexual Content | Nudity. I don’t qualify for the former, and I only have the latter when I take a bath. And taking a bath can hardly be classified as "intense", unless we have a power cut.
🙁
[]’s

I believe the "frequent/intense Sexual Content or Nudity" & the 17+ age limitation is standard Apple language when anything below the navel is illustrated or discussed.
The best part of iTriage is you don’t have to "friend" anybody, and you can self-diagnose all your STDs.
….and at least you are 17+ years of age.


Regards,

Savageduck
NE
Neil Ellwood
May 5, 2013
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:31:34 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

| > Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" | >….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having |
enough time. 🙂
| >
| You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.

I’m 57. I know lots of older people who are addicted
to smartphones. (And of course there’s Wolfgang.)
But I know what you mean. Younger people have grown up with cellphones and texting, and younger people like as much peer feedback as possible. It must be very hard to resist being in constant contact with one’s buddies. But I worry about them. They have almost no experience of actual solitude, or formless time, or self-reliance. Their world is an abstraction, more wired than physical. One can see it walking down city streets.
People seem to be getting more rude and inconsiderate,
but I don’t think that’s actually what’s happening.
Rather, cellphone addicts are radically separated from their own physical environment. They’re not where they are, and actually don’t regard their physical location as relevant. …At least not until they get hit by a truck. I have a blind friend who complains that in recent years he’s had an increasing problem with people walking into him. And it’s not just hitting his elbow as they walk by. It’s full-speed, head-on collision.

You should try Peterborough.

In the area around my home I regularly see people on bikes (the pedalled variety) texting on their phones – no hands on the handlebars and the same amount of eyes on the cyclepath or road (whichever they are on). The ages range from young to midforties. I scares me to think of the damage they could do – to the bikes and other path/road users.


Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
S
Shadow
May 5, 2013
On Sat, 4 May 2013 19:56:01 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-05-04 19:35:12 -0700, Shadow said:

On Sat, 4 May 2013 19:04:25 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/itriage-health-doctor-sympto ms/id304696939?mt=8

…..
I can’t download it. I need Frequent/Intense Sexual Content | Nudity. I don’t qualify for the former, and I only have the latter when I take a bath. And taking a bath can hardly be classified as "intense", unless we have a power cut.
🙁
[]’s

I believe the "frequent/intense Sexual Content or Nudity" & the 17+ age limitation is standard Apple language when anything below the navel is illustrated or discussed.

Ah …. thank you for clearing that up. You are a true virtual friend.
The best part of iTriage is you don’t have to "friend" anybody, and you can self-diagnose all your STDs.
…and at least you are 17+ years of age.

Well, I suppose I can download it then. I will, when I get a smartphone.
STDs would hardly apply to me. They used to, but when I found I could no longer maintain the necessary postures long enough to satisfy the client’s wishes, I retired. So I’m free from worrying about them anymore.
BTW, don’t ever try to self diagnose palpitations (a recommend letter on the page above)
* "iTriage proved to be a great comfort to my girlfriend and I as she was suffering from palpitations. We used the app to check every possible symptom/cause and looked at related videos and photos. After seeing all this information she was satisfied that she was indeed fine and nothing was seriously wrong. ITriage saved the both of us a lot of anxiety, a possible hospital visit and provided peace of mind at the touch of a button and did it all for free. I certainly will recommend this very useful app to others." Dan, Pleasantville, NY

The girlfriend could be looking at WPW. Sometimes a visit to the hospital IS best.
[]’s

Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 7, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Why should Photoshop care for simple annotations of screen shots? It’s a very powerful, mighty package for professional image work, it’s — as far as I can tell — as unsuitable for trivial screenshot annotation as the Gimp.

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:
a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.
b) The OP’s looking for freeware.
c) You don’t need any of the power of Photoshop for screenshot annotations. (You don’t need a Saturn V rocket to manage the 4 miles to the mall, either, even if your car won’t
get you to the moon and you happen to have a spare Saturn V lying about.)
d) ‘easily’ is relative. To you, used to complex manipulations in Photoshop, ‘easy’ is one thing, To someone who doesn’t even know where to look for anything in the Photoshop menus.
e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I don’t *need* Photoshop to simply crop an image. But, I have Photoshop, and use it for more complex editing, so it would be ridiculous to have a program that crops – and not much more – just because cropping is under-utilizing Photoshop’s capability. It’s not like it’s using up a resource to use it for simple tasks.

That’s not the point, the example is stupid and does not apply and you KNOW it. Of course, feel free to fire up
Photoshop for JPEGs that come in via email, rotate them clockwise by 90° and place them in a directory. I’d use jpegtran –rotate 90
(which is, unlike Photoshop, lossless) and a tiny bit glue script, ONCE, and be done with it forever.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 7, 2013
Mayayana wrote:

| > That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what | > I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single | > instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart | > phone.

| So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all | the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. | browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an | address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a | doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind.

You have a very disciplined mind. You disciplined it to not accept new ideas that don’t agree with your view of the world.

Next time you read your maps at full speed on the highway or while in dense traffic in your truck … remember while they cut you out of your truck that you could have used a navigation system (e.g. in a smartphone).

Obviously you always carry your maps with you while on foot.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 7, 2013
Shadow wrote:

My son has friends all over the world. One day I asked him what their gender was. He replied "I dunno, I only know their nicks. Does it matter ? ".

DOES it matter?
Maybe if they wanna have sex: it might be one of them is sexually repulsed to the other’s gender. Or if they want to make a child — at least while the relevant technologies aren’t invented and ready yet — then they need (at least) one male and one female somehow involved.

In some backward places of the world marriage might also be a problem with the wrong genders.

But otherwise: Tell me why it matters to you! Do you routinely treat people different just because their squiggly bits are this or that way?

He has yet to talk (face to face) to his neighbors.

Yes, in former times, before the phone was invented, and probably before letters were invented (or you were unlettered), you had to talk to your neighbours because you couldn’t talk to *anybody* else.

I worry about him sometimes. Maybe he’s worried about me. Strange world. Phil K. Dick didn’t imagine anything like this.

So he wasn’t perfect, was he?

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 7, 2013
POKO wrote:

When I design web pages I’m sitting at my desktop. When I’m on a bus/subway I’m looking not to miss my stop. I’ve survived 66 years without a smartphone and fully intend to punch out without one – I don’t need apps.

You also don’t need desktops or web pages. The Amish also manage with lots less.

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 7, 2013
Mayayana wrote:

Actually I chimed in to provide the minority view.
I find Wolfgang’s view — that anyone who doesn’t
use a smartphone must not "get it" — to be surprisingly

That’s NOT WHAT I SAID!

I said:
| Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really | used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it | for;

This is *vastly* different from "if you don’t use it, it’s because you don’t get it".

Maybe you need a smartphone to have it read texts to you aloud, at least then it would be just that you’re hard of hearing instead of functional illiteracy stopping you from understanding what is actually written.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 7, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in between.

That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart phone.

So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

No surprise here, but you’ve misread my post. I said I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have smart phone. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t been in the situations you describe. It simply means that I don’t consider it an inconvenience to have dealt with those situations without a smart phone.

Why just last weekend I was in an unfamiliar part of town, remembered that I needed some glove lace for my grandson’s baseball mitt, and stopped in a 7/11 to use their phonebook to look up location of a sporting goods store, bought a cup of coffee to go, and used their bathroom. Now I know a smart phone would have allowed me to look up the store without stopping, but I don’t think smart phones brew coffee or have toilet facilities.

I know people who are hard of hearing, who think that everybody should simply talk louder, because they think they don’t need hearing aids.

Obviously you think that because it’s possible to be blissfully unaware of some technology there can’t be any advances in that technology.

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car. BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

-Wolfgang
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

Why should Photoshop care for simple annotations of screen shots? It’s a very powerful, mighty package for professional image work, it’s — as far as I can tell — as unsuitable for trivial screenshot annotation as the Gimp.

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:
a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

the full version is.

however, elements isn’t very expensive ($50-60ish) and is more than sufficient for the task. it also does a lot more than the free stuff and is well worth its price.

b) The OP’s looking for freeware.
c) You don’t need any of the power of Photoshop for screenshot annotations. (You don’t need a Saturn V rocket to manage the 4 miles to the mall, either, even if your car won’t
get you to the moon and you happen to have a spare Saturn V lying about.)

but he might want to do more than *just* annotations.

d) ‘easily’ is relative. To you, used to complex manipulations in Photoshop, ‘easy’ is one thing, To someone who doesn’t even know where to look for anything in the Photoshop menus.
e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

to someone who doesn’t know where to look is going to have trouble with any app.

learning photoshop is not very hard. it’s easier than the gimp. it’s a very well designed app. plus, there are a *lot* of resources available for learning photoshop for anyone who needs it, much more than the gimp. a quick google search and they’ll probably find numerous how-tos, both text and on youtube.

I don’t *need* Photoshop to simply crop an image. But, I have Photoshop, and use it for more complex editing, so it would be ridiculous to have a program that crops – and not much more – just because cropping is under-utilizing Photoshop’s capability. It’s not like it’s using up a resource to use it for simple tasks.

That’s not the point, the example is stupid and does not apply and you KNOW it. Of course, feel free to fire up
Photoshop for JPEGs that come in via email, rotate them clockwise by 90° and place them in a directory. I’d use jpegtran –rotate 90

write a script. photoshop isn’t ideal for that, but it will certainly work. or just set the orientation tag to the desired rotation.

let’s see you crop all of the jpegs to a 2:3 aspect ratio with a scripted command line utility, making sure to not cut off anything important. that should be interesting. or how about retouching out a tree, again using a command line.

and why would anyone want to rotate all email photos anyway? can you say contrived scenario?

(which is, unlike Photoshop, lossless) and a tiny bit glue script, ONCE, and be done with it forever.

photoshop can do lossless jpeg rotate.
S
Shadow
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:05:12 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

In some backward places of the world marriage might also be a problem with the wrong genders.

But otherwise: Tell me why it matters to you! Do you routinely treat people different just because their squiggly bits are this or that way?

Of course. It’s my job.
[]’s

Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

-Wolfgang

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:38:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in between.

That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart phone.

So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

No surprise here, but you’ve misread my post. I said I can’t think of a single instance in recent months where I would have liked to have smart phone. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t been in the situations you describe. It simply means that I don’t consider it an inconvenience to have dealt with those situations without a smart phone.

Why just last weekend I was in an unfamiliar part of town, remembered that I needed some glove lace for my grandson’s baseball mitt, and stopped in a 7/11 to use their phonebook to look up location of a sporting goods store, bought a cup of coffee to go, and used their bathroom. Now I know a smart phone would have allowed me to look up the store without stopping, but I don’t think smart phones brew coffee or have toilet facilities.

I know people who are hard of hearing, who think that everybody should simply talk louder, because they think they don’t need hearing aids.

Obviously you think that because it’s possible to be blissfully unaware of some technology there can’t be any advances in that technology.

Again, you misunderstand. While some people, as I am, are aware of the technological advances we don’t feel we need take advantage of all of them. And, frankly, we don’t give a rat’s ass that this bothers you.
Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

Do you have a note card file of ridiculous examples?


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:51:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

| > That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what | > I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single | > instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart | > phone.

| So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all | the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. | browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an | address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a | doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind.

You have a very disciplined mind. You disciplined it to not accept new ideas that don’t agree with your view of the world.

Next time you read your maps at full speed on the highway or while in dense traffic in your truck … remember while they cut you out of your truck that you could have used a navigation system (e.g. in a smartphone).

All this suggests to me is that you are person who is not smart enough to read a map while still parked, make a mental note of the coming turns, and put the map away, and can’t imagine that anyone else is.

Do you wonder how people arrived at their destinations before the advent of mobile devices?


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Why should Photoshop care for simple annotations of screen shots? It’s a very powerful, mighty package for professional image work, it’s — as far as I can tell — as unsuitable for trivial screenshot annotation as the Gimp.

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

b) The OP’s looking for freeware.

I didn’t suggest the OP buy Photoshop. Have someone read what has been written and explain it to you.

c) You don’t need any of the power of Photoshop for screenshot annotations.

But I don’t need the puny power of another app because I have PS.

d) ‘easily’ is relative. To you, used to complex manipulations in Photoshop, ‘easy’ is one thing, To someone who doesn’t even know where to look for anything in the Photoshop menus.

I don’t have someone else use my copy of PS to do a trivial task.

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

I don’t *need* Photoshop to simply crop an image. But, I have Photoshop, and use it for more complex editing, so it would be ridiculous to have a program that crops – and not much more – just because cropping is under-utilizing Photoshop’s capability. It’s not like it’s using up a resource to use it for simple tasks.

That’s not the point,

Of course it is. Get outside help if you need it to follow what I said.

the example is stupid and does not
apply and you KNOW it. Of course, feel free to fire up
Photoshop for JPEGs that come in via email, rotate them clockwise by 90° and place them in a directory. I’d use jpegtran –rotate 90
(which is, unlike Photoshop, lossless) and a tiny bit glue script, ONCE, and be done with it forever.

Is this something you deal with frequently? JPEGs sent to you that need rotating? Rather than worry about what program to use to rotate incoming JPEGs, you should worry about what kind of idiots you are dealing with that constantly email you JPEGs that need rotating.

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another. While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

maybe now. wait a year or two.

there was a time when not having a computer was not a big deal. now it’s pretty much impossible be without a computer.

same for mobile devices, including smartphones.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Next time you read your maps at full speed on the highway or while in dense traffic in your truck … remember while they cut you out of your truck that you could have used a navigation system (e.g. in a smartphone).

All this suggests to me is that you are person who is not smart enough to read a map while still parked, make a mental note of the coming turns, and put the map away, and can’t imagine that anyone else is.

that won’t work that well for a complicated route. just how much of it are you going to memorize?

and what if you encounter traffic? suddenly, your memorized route is no longer ideal.

or if you’re in an unfamiliar place and the street signs aren’t easily seen, and in your attempt to look for it you’re driving very slow (pissing off the people behind you) or not paying full attention to driving (endangering the people both behind and in front of you).

meanwhile, a gps can reroute you around traffic automatically, tell you the names of upcoming streets (so even if you memorized it, you know where to turn) and do so safely. that’s being smart.

Do you wonder how people arrived at their destinations before the advent of mobile devices?

there was a time when people used manual typewriters too. do you want to go back to those times?

technology advances. some people fight it, others welcome it.
N
notbob
May 8, 2013
On 2013-05-08, nospam wrote:

technology advances. some people fight it, others welcome it.

…..and others would be lost without ’em.
NE
Neil Ellwood
May 8, 2013
On Tue, 07 May 2013 22:56:16 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.
-Wolfgang

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

We also both have tablets, mine is an ipad 3. I don’t normally use it for emails and never use it for the wwweb. There are many things that I use it for when I am with the family.

Age is important when thinking about your needs. My wife is a diabetic, has a prolapse, has had breast cancer (and a bilateral mastectomy) and suffers with a faulty sphincter valve at the base of her stomach. My son and daughter persuaded her to get a mobile for emergencies.


Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
NE
Neil Ellwood
May 8, 2013
On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:18:00 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:51:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

| > That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what | > I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single | > instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart | > phone.

| So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all | the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. | browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an | address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a | doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind.

You have a very disciplined mind. You disciplined it to not accept new ideas that don’t agree with your view of the world.

Next time you read your maps at full speed on the highway or while in dense traffic in your truck … remember while they cut you out of your truck that you could have used a navigation system (e.g. in a smartphone).

All this suggests to me is that you are person who is not smart enough to read a map while still parked, make a mental note of the coming turns, and put the map away, and can’t imagine that anyone else is.
Do you wonder how people arrived at their destinations before the advent of mobile devices?

I used to make route cards for a journey and secure them to the dashboard.


Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
N
notbob
May 8, 2013
On 2013-05-08, Neil Ellwood wrote:

I used to make route cards for a journey and secure them to the dashboard.

Yep. When I was in heavy construction, usta get a simple hand drawn map to the job site every morning. Some sites were 4-5 towns away in a crowded metro area. No batteries and I could read it without glasses.

nb
S
Shadow
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:46:15 -0500, Neil Ellwood
wrote:

On Tue, 07 May 2013 22:56:16 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.
-Wolfgang

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

No reason to carry a personal tracking-device/map/weather forecast/FaceKook computer with you. I use a cheapo cellphone when I travel. It sends and receives text and voice. Battery lasts a month. Cost 40 dollars, plus a 10 dollar monthly fee. Two other people know the number (aside from Google, the NSA, Amazon , and World Exploit Inc.)
[]’s

Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:46:15 -0500, Neil Ellwood
wrote:

On Tue, 07 May 2013 22:56:16 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.
-Wolfgang

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

Buying a mobile phone because the person has some health problem and wants to be in a position to be able to contact emergency services at any time and any place is both reasonable and wise. Buying a phone because one might come across an accident in a remote setting is ridiculous. Buying a phone because one fears being in an accident – or even having mechanical problems – in a remote place is also both reasonable and wise, but the example given is ridiculous.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 00:20:34 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

maybe now. wait a year or two.

Certainly, that’s possible, even probable. Waiting until we need a particular application of new technology is not a sign
anti-progressivism. It’s just a sign that the person is capable of making personal decisions suited to the person’s personal situation and not, lemming-like, buying something because it’s the latest new thing.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
MB
Martin Brown
May 8, 2013
On 08/05/2013 03:56, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting
near
a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

-Wolfgang

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

I don’t know what it is like where you live but I no longer know where the nearest public pay phone to my home is. I know where half a dozen nearest ones used to be but they were all rationalised out of existence. The nearest is over ten miles and might well be twenty.

Google maps street view is no help all the ones on there are long gone!

The chances of finding a public pay phone box outside of a major railway station or city centre these days is practically nil in the UK. Everyone has a mobile so there is literally no demand for fixed line public phones. They ceased to be profitable and were ripped out (even in some highly rural locations with little or no mobile coverage).


Regards,
Martin Brown
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

maybe now. wait a year or two.

Certainly, that’s possible, even probable. Waiting until we need a particular application of new technology is not a sign
anti-progressivism. It’s just a sign that the person is capable of making personal decisions suited to the person’s personal situation and not, lemming-like, buying something because it’s the latest new thing.

who said anything about buying something only because it’s new?
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Neil Ellwood
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

not just the uk.

payphones are disappearing everywhere because everyone has a cellphone.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Shadow
wrote:

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

No reason to carry a personal tracking-device/map/weather forecast/FaceKook computer with you.

unless you need a map or want to get weather reports. or many other things.

if you don’t want to use facebook, don’t use facebook.

I use a cheapo cellphone when I
travel.

which is just as trackable. so much for that excuse.

It sends and receives text and voice. Battery lasts a month. Cost 40 dollars, plus a 10 dollar monthly fee. Two other people know the number (aside from Google, the NSA, Amazon , and World Exploit Inc.)

which cheapo cellphone is this, where the battery lasts a month without needing to be recharged?

or are you just full of shit?
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article <FOqit.32887$>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The chances of finding a public pay phone box outside of a major railway station or city centre these days is practically nil in the UK. Everyone has a mobile so there is literally no demand for fixed line public phones. They ceased to be profitable and were ripped out (even in some highly rural locations with little or no mobile coverage).

it’s the same pretty much everywhere.
P
PeterN
May 8, 2013
On 5/8/2013 5:22 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-08, nospam wrote:

technology advances. some people fight it, others welcome it.

….and others would be lost without ’em.

You left off that some are technophiles who seem not to understand that technology has purpose, and they get so lost in a religion of technology, they forget practicality.


PeterN
P
PeterN
May 8, 2013
On 5/8/2013 6:17 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-08, Neil Ellwood wrote:

I used to make route cards for a journey and secure them to the dashboard.

Yep. When I was in heavy construction, usta get a simple hand drawn map to the job site every morning. Some sites were 4-5 towns away in a crowded metro area. No batteries and I could read it without glasses.

nb

And it doesn’t tell you to make a right turn, two lefts and another right, when you want to go straight.


PeterN
P
PeterN
May 8, 2013
On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

maybe now. wait a year or two.

Certainly, that’s possible, even probable. Waiting until we need a particular application of new technology is not a sign
anti-progressivism. It’s just a sign that the person is capable of making personal decisions suited to the person’s personal situation and not, lemming-like, buying something because it’s the latest new thing.

who said anything about buying something only because it’s new?

Did Tony cooper say you did?


PeterN
muttering something about protesting too much…
S
Shadow
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:10:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Shadow
wrote:
………………
I use a cheapo cellphone when I
travel.

which is just as trackable. so much for that excuse.

???
It sends and receives text and voice. Battery lasts a month. Cost 40 dollars, plus a 10 dollar monthly fee. Two other people know the number (aside from Google, the NSA, Amazon , and World Exploit Inc.)

which cheapo cellphone is this, where the battery lasts a month without needing to be recharged?

or are you just full of shit?

Yes, amazing how much the human body contains. Are you on laxatives, or something ?
The battery lasts 10 days, but I only remember to charge once a month, when the phone bill comes in. I put he battery back in for that.
Like I said, I’m not on FaceKook, and I don’t want anyone tracking me. I take it with me if I travel, "just in case". Brazil is not the safest place for your car to break down in.
[]’s

Ah , it’s a LG GS-155b. Is that important ?


Don’t be evil – Google 2004
We have a new policy – Google 2012
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Shadow
wrote:

It sends and receives text and voice. Battery lasts a month. Cost 40 dollars, plus a 10 dollar monthly fee. Two other people know the number (aside from Google, the NSA, Amazon , and World Exploit Inc.)

which cheapo cellphone is this, where the battery lasts a month without needing to be recharged?

or are you just full of shit?

Yes, amazing how much the human body contains. Are you on laxatives, or something ?
The battery lasts 10 days,

so it’s not a month, it’s 10 days.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:38:13 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/2013 03:56, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting
near
a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

-Wolfgang

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

I don’t know what it is like where you live but I no longer know where the nearest public pay phone to my home is. I know where half a dozen nearest ones used to be but they were all rationalised out of existence. The nearest is over ten miles and might well be twenty.

It’s not the pay phone situation that is ridiculous. It’s the same here. It’s buying a phone in anticipation of *other* people being in an accident on a deserted road.

If the road is deserted, but there’s been an accident, it’s probable that the accident was the result of drunk driving or driving while texting. Other possibilities, but these are the common reasons.

Google maps street view is no help all the ones on there are long gone!
The chances of finding a public pay phone box outside of a major railway station

The chances of finding a major railway station are pretty slim in this country.

or city centre these days is practically nil in the UK.

In this area, pay phones are thin on the ground in all areas, but there are more – by a long shot – in the city center. The inner city is the part of town where people are less likely to have a land line or a cell phone, so pay phones are in demand. (But often vandalized) In the suburbs, or nicer areas, you rarely find a pay phone. No one needs them.

I am purely guessing here, and make no claim of personal knowledge and have not done a nospam visual official market survey, but I’d bet that in the inner city where people have less disposable income the people who do have mobile phones are more likely to have an expensive smartphone than the people in the affluent suburbs. Flashy cell phones and $150 a pair sneakers are bling.

The highest density area of smartphone users would be the apartment complexes where the young professionals live.

Just a guess.

Everyone
has a mobile so there is literally no demand for fixed line public phones. They ceased to be profitable and were ripped out (even in some highly rural locations with little or no mobile coverage).

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:52:01 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Well, of course, if you never *had* a smart phone and really used it, you’re not likely to understand what you might need it for; just as someone who only ever had a camera phone probably won’t ever understand what a big, bulky DSLR may be useful for.

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

maybe now. wait a year or two.

Certainly, that’s possible, even probable. Waiting until we need a particular application of new technology is not a sign
anti-progressivism. It’s just a sign that the person is capable of making personal decisions suited to the person’s personal situation and not, lemming-like, buying something because it’s the latest new thing.

who said anything about buying something only because it’s new?

Did Tony cooper say you did?

You didn’t expect critical thinking, did you?


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:48:12 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/8/2013 6:17 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-08, Neil Ellwood wrote:

I used to make route cards for a journey and secure them to the dashboard.

Yep. When I was in heavy construction, usta get a simple hand drawn map to the job site every morning. Some sites were 4-5 towns away in a crowded metro area. No batteries and I could read it without glasses.

nb

And it doesn’t tell you to make a right turn, two lefts and another right, when you want to go straight.

We used our Garmin when traveling from Orlando to a person’s house in Vero Beach. It wanted me to take the tollroads and I didn’t want to. I was in no hurry and I like to be able to stop in case photo opportunity comes up. The Bitch in the Box keep telling to make turns that would take me to the tollroads when I was on a highway that paralleled the tollroad and was just as direct. I finally turned it off.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I don’t know what it is like where you live but I no longer know where the nearest public pay phone to my home is. I know where half a dozen nearest ones used to be but they were all rationalised out of existence. The nearest is over ten miles and might well be twenty.

It’s not the pay phone situation that is ridiculous. It’s the same here. It’s buying a phone in anticipation of *other* people being in an accident on a deserted road.

If the road is deserted, but there’s been an accident, it’s probable that the accident was the result of drunk driving or driving while texting. Other possibilities, but these are the common reasons.

why does that matter? are you saying you’ll let them die because you think they were drunk?

and you have no way of knowing the cause just by looking at the wreckage.

Google maps street view is no help all the ones on there are long gone!
The chances of finding a public pay phone box outside of a major railway station

The chances of finding a major railway station are pretty slim in this country.

actually quite high. perhaps you’ve heard of amtrak.

or city centre these days is practically nil in the UK.

In this area, pay phones are thin on the ground in all areas, but there are more – by a long shot – in the city center. The inner city is the part of town where people are less likely to have a land line or a cell phone, so pay phones are in demand. (But often vandalized) In the suburbs, or nicer areas, you rarely find a pay phone. No one needs them.

although there are significantly fewer payphones than there used to be, they are not restricted to slums.

I am purely guessing here, and make no claim of personal knowledge and have not done a nospam visual official market survey, but I’d bet that in the inner city where people have less disposable income the people who do have mobile phones are more likely to have an expensive smartphone than the people in the affluent suburbs. Flashy cell phones and $150 a pair sneakers are bling.

The highest density area of smartphone users would be the apartment complexes where the young professionals live.

Just a guess.

a bad one.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 8, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

We used our Garmin when traveling from Orlando to a person’s house in Vero Beach. It wanted me to take the tollroads and I didn’t want to.

did you tell it you didn’t want to use toll roads?

I was in no hurry and I like to be able to stop in case photo opportunity comes up. The Bitch in the Box keep telling to make turns that would take me to the tollroads when I was on a highway that paralleled the tollroad and was just as direct. I finally turned it off.

nope. it looks like you didn’t.

don’t blame the gps for routing you on a toll road when you told it you wanted to use toll roads. it did exactly what you told it you wanted.

in other words, user error.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 8, 2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:08:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I don’t know what it is like where you live but I no longer know where the nearest public pay phone to my home is. I know where half a dozen nearest ones used to be but they were all rationalised out of existence. The nearest is over ten miles and might well be twenty.

It’s not the pay phone situation that is ridiculous. It’s the same here. It’s buying a phone in anticipation of *other* people being in an accident on a deserted road.

If the road is deserted, but there’s been an accident, it’s probable that the accident was the result of drunk driving or driving while texting. Other possibilities, but these are the common reasons.

why does that matter? are you saying you’ll let them die because you think they were drunk?

and you have no way of knowing the cause just by looking at the wreckage.

Google maps street view is no help all the ones on there are long gone!
The chances of finding a public pay phone box outside of a major railway station

The chances of finding a major railway station are pretty slim in this country.

actually quite high. perhaps you’ve heard of amtrak.

Why, yes, nospam (who doesn’t argue for argument’s sake), I have. In fact, Amtrak goes through this area and there are three stations in the area (Sanford, Winter Park, Orlando). Major, though? I wouldn’t say so. The Winter Park station has inside seating for maybe a dozen waiting passengers.

However, many places in Florida are 100 miles or more from an Amtrak station.

There are three Amtrak stations in the entire state of Alabama, and just two (on the western edge of) Tennessee. Georgia has five stations.

That’s quite high?

or city centre these days is practically nil in the UK.

In this area, pay phones are thin on the ground in all areas, but there are more – by a long shot – in the city center. The inner city is the part of town where people are less likely to have a land line or a cell phone, so pay phones are in demand. (But often vandalized) In the suburbs, or nicer areas, you rarely find a pay phone. No one needs them.

although there are significantly fewer payphones than there used to be, they are not restricted to slums.

I am purely guessing here, and make no claim of personal knowledge and have not done a nospam visual official market survey, but I’d bet that in the inner city where people have less disposable income the people who do have mobile phones are more likely to have an expensive smartphone than the people in the affluent suburbs. Flashy cell phones and $150 a pair sneakers are bling.

The highest density area of smartphone users would be the apartment complexes where the young professionals live.

Just a guess.

a bad one.

Do a survey, then. Put 5 or 10 minutes into a walking tour of any major town and report back on what you’ve visually spotted and claim that it applies to all cities. Walk briskly through the parts of town where phones and shoes are bling.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
S
Savageduck
May 9, 2013
On 2013-05-08 16:55:02 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:08:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The chances of finding a major railway station are pretty slim in this country.

actually quite high. perhaps you’ve heard of amtrak.

Why, yes, nospam (who doesn’t argue for argument’s sake), I have. In fact, Amtrak goes through this area and there are three stations in the area (Sanford, Winter Park, Orlando). Major, though? I wouldn’t say so. The Winter Park station has inside seating for maybe a dozen waiting passengers.

However, many places in Florida are 100 miles or more from an Amtrak station.

There are three Amtrak stations in the entire state of Alabama, and just two (on the western edge of) Tennessee. Georgia has five stations.

That’s quite high?

As far as Amtrak stations with regular rail service in my area, San Luis Obispo County, goes there are a three. All part of the coast service between Southern California and Washington State. Those are, from the South, Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo, & Paso Robles. There are also bus stations in towns along all the well travelled corridors, and some of the more out of the way places.
I believe you might find a pay phone at both Amtrak & bus stations, but that is just guessing.

On limited access highways California has another solution which also seems to have reached the end of its cost effective life due to the increased proliferation of cell phones, those are the highway emergency phones. These are typically spaced between a quarter to a half mile depending on traffic density on that particular stretch of limited access highway. They are also found on the Bay Area bridges. The Golden Gate Bridge for example has three in each direction of travel, at each tower and midspan.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone >


Regards,

Savageduck
P
PeterN
May 9, 2013
On 5/8/2013 5:50 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:48:12 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/8/2013 6:17 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-08, Neil Ellwood wrote:

I used to make route cards for a journey and secure them to the dashboard.

Yep. When I was in heavy construction, usta get a simple hand drawn map to the job site every morning. Some sites were 4-5 towns away in a crowded metro area. No batteries and I could read it without glasses.

nb

And it doesn’t tell you to make a right turn, two lefts and another right, when you want to go straight.

We used our Garmin when traveling from Orlando to a person’s house in Vero Beach. It wanted me to take the tollroads and I didn’t want to. I was in no hurry and I like to be able to stop in case photo opportunity comes up. The Bitch in the Box keep telling to make turns that would take me to the tollroads when I was on a highway that paralleled the tollroad and was just as direct. I finally turned it off.

When I got my first Garmin one of my friends set it to bicycle mode. I kept telling me to get ff the parkways. My new Garmin and the Nav system in my wife’s Lexus have a setting that to stay off freeways. I can also preplan a scenic route on my computer and send it to the Lexis.


PeterN
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 9, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The chances of finding a public pay phone box outside of a major railway station

The chances of finding a major railway station are pretty slim in this country.

actually quite high. perhaps you’ve heard of amtrak.

Why, yes, nospam (who doesn’t argue for argument’s sake), I have. In fact, Amtrak goes through this area and there are three stations in the area (Sanford, Winter Park, Orlando). Major, though? I wouldn’t say so. The Winter Park station has inside seating for maybe a dozen waiting passengers.

there are payphones there:

< http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2S tation/Stat ion_Page&code=SFA>
< http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2S tation/Stat ion_Page&code=WPK>
< http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2S tation/Stat ion_Page&code=ORL>
D
Drogon
May 9, 2013
Obviously you were too busy to read this:
<
http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Study-chicken-gro und-beef-are-riskiest-meats-4456184.php
Regards,

Savageduck

This Has nothing to do with photoshop
stick with the newsgroup guidelines, you athiest
J
jclarkeusenet
May 9, 2013
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says…
On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:48:12 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/8/2013 6:17 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-08, Neil Ellwood wrote:

I used to make route cards for a journey and secure them to the dashboard.

Yep. When I was in heavy construction, usta get a simple hand drawn map to the job site every morning. Some sites were 4-5 towns away in a crowded metro area. No batteries and I could read it without glasses.

nb

And it doesn’t tell you to make a right turn, two lefts and another right, when you want to go straight.

We used our Garmin when traveling from Orlando to a person’s house in Vero Beach. It wanted me to take the tollroads and I didn’t want to. I was in no hurry and I like to be able to stop in case photo opportunity comes up. The Bitch in the Box keep telling to make turns that would take me to the tollroads when I was on a highway that paralleled the tollroad and was just as direct. I finally turned it off.

Why didn’t you just check the setting to avoid tolls?
J
jclarkeusenet
May 9, 2013
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says…
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:51:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

| > That’s a cute little phone, but – try as I might – I can’t see what | > I’d do with it. Searching my memory, I can’t think of a single | > instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart | > phone.

| So you do carry a dedicated navigation system with you all | the time, and never had the need to kill time waiting by e.g. | browsing news or photos, nor ever had to look up a number, an | address or a description of a thing or procedure or find a | doctor or usable eating place while outside town?

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind.

You have a very disciplined mind. You disciplined it to not accept new ideas that don’t agree with your view of the world.

Next time you read your maps at full speed on the highway or while in dense traffic in your truck … remember while they cut you out of your truck that you could have used a navigation system (e.g. in a smartphone).

All this suggests to me is that you are person who is not smart enough to read a map while still parked, make a mental note of the coming turns, and put the map away, and can’t imagine that anyone else is.
Do you wonder how people arrived at their destinations before the advent of mobile devices?

Do you ever wonder how people made pictures before there were cameras?

Memorizing a map works fine if (a) you have a map and (b) have time to memorize it. If you’re working the kind of job where you may have a dozen appointments at different locations a GPS is a major timesaver. Doubly so when the route you would have otherwise taken is blocked.
J
jclarkeusenet
May 10, 2013
In article ,
says…
In article ,
says…
On Sat, 4 May 2013 09:29:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech.

I’m not anti-tech. I write software and do web design on the side. And I’m not against cellphones. I have a Tracphone in case I need to make a call. On the other hand,
I have maps in my truck and a small notebook when I need to write things down. I read news online and in a newspaper. I don’t need to have the latest "breaking news" while I’m waiting at a red light or sitting in a dentist’s waiting room. And I certainly don’t need to spend upward of $100/month for that.

If one actually relates to here and now, it turns out that it doesn’t particularly require chocolate sauce and sprinkles. One doesn’t actually need to find a device to kill the time just because the mobile over one’s crib has stopped spinning.
Funny how people try so hard to "kill time" or "pass the time" ….whenever we’re not busy frantically worried about not having enough time. 🙂

You must be old. I am, so I agree with this post.
[]’s

When I design web pages I’m sitting at my desktop. When I’m on a bus/subway I’m looking not to miss my stop. I’ve survived 66 years without a smartphone and fully intend to punch out without one – I don’t need apps. If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way

Me too. My boss doesn’t and I like to eat, so . . .
J
jclarkeusenet
May 11, 2013
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says…
On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:46:15 -0500, Neil Ellwood
wrote:

On Tue, 07 May 2013 22:56:16 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

If someone tries to call me and I’m on a subway my answering machine takes the call. I prefer it that way – when I’m not sitting near a phone I’m free from all the crap that follows it. I got my wife a phone (unsmart) to take with her in case her car breaks down. If my truck breaks down I hoof it to a phone booth – works for me,

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.
-Wolfgang

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

Buying a mobile phone because the person has some health problem and wants to be in a position to be able to contact emergency services at any time and any place is both reasonable and wise. Buying a phone because one might come across an accident in a remote setting is ridiculous. Buying a phone because one fears being in an accident – or even having mechanical problems – in a remote place is also both reasonable and wise, but the example given is ridiculous.

The trouble is that if it’s a really remote place a cell phone isn’t going to work.
J
jclarkeusenet
May 11, 2013
In article ,
savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says…
On 2013-05-08 16:55:02 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:08:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The chances of finding a major railway station are pretty slim in this country.

actually quite high. perhaps you’ve heard of amtrak.

Why, yes, nospam (who doesn’t argue for argument’s sake), I have. In fact, Amtrak goes through this area and there are three stations in the area (Sanford, Winter Park, Orlando). Major, though? I wouldn’t say so. The Winter Park station has inside seating for maybe a dozen waiting passengers.

However, many places in Florida are 100 miles or more from an Amtrak station.

There are three Amtrak stations in the entire state of Alabama, and just two (on the western edge of) Tennessee. Georgia has five stations.

That’s quite high?

As far as Amtrak stations with regular rail service in my area, San Luis Obispo County, goes there are a three. All part of the coast service between Southern California and Washington State. Those are, from the South, Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo, & Paso Robles. There are also bus stations in towns along all the well travelled corridors, and some of the more out of the way places.
I believe you might find a pay phone at both Amtrak & bus stations, but that is just guessing.

Don’t assume that an Amtrak "station" is a building with services. In many cases it’s a parking lot and a ramp and not much else. There’s a "station" near me. To use it and not pay a premium I have to either buy my ticket online far enough in advance for it to arrive by snail mail, or drive 20 miles in the opposite direction of the one I usually would be going to a station that actually sells tickets. Then I have to drive back to the other station or pay a hundred bucks a day parking (the station with services doesn’t include a parking lot in those services).
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 12, 2013
Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:05:12 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

In some backward places of the world marriage might also be a problem with the wrong genders.

But otherwise: Tell me why it matters to you! Do you routinely treat people different just because their squiggly bits are this or that way?

Of course. It’s my job.

Urologist, Gynaecologist, Sex worker?

-Wolfgang
D
Drogon
May 14, 2013
THIS CRAP SURE ISN’T PHOTOSHOP !!
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 15, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Why should Photoshop care for simple annotations of screen shots? It’s a very powerful, mighty package for professional image work, it’s — as far as I can tell — as unsuitable for trivial screenshot annotation as the Gimp.

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

…. to the guy who only knows a hammer …

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

…. and only has a hammer, all objects are nails.

b) The OP’s looking for freeware.

I didn’t suggest the OP buy Photoshop. Have someone read what has been written and explain it to you.

Why are you shooting the breeze about something that you KNOW won’t help the OP at all?

c) You don’t need any of the power of Photoshop for screenshot annotations.

But I don’t need the puny power of another app because I have PS.

Hammer, Nail.

d) ‘easily’ is relative. To you, used to complex manipulations in Photoshop, ‘easy’ is one thing, To someone who doesn’t even know where to look for anything in the Photoshop menus.

I don’t have someone else use my copy of PS to do a trivial task.

And that’s relevant to the problem of the OP, because you won’t even let the OP use your Photoshop, I gather?

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

I don’t *need* Photoshop to simply crop an image. But, I have Photoshop, and use it for more complex editing, so it would be ridiculous to have a program that crops – and not much more – just because cropping is under-utilizing Photoshop’s capability. It’s not like it’s using up a resource to use it for simple tasks.

That’s not the point,

Of course it is. Get outside help if you need it to follow what I said.

I follow what you said perfectly: "*I* *I* *I*".

The world really revolves round you, doesn’t it?

the example is stupid and does not
apply and you KNOW it. Of course, feel free to fire up
Photoshop for JPEGs that come in via email, rotate them clockwise by 90° and place them in a directory. I’d use jpegtran –rotate 90
(which is, unlike Photoshop, lossless) and a tiny bit glue script, ONCE, and be done with it forever.

Is this something you deal with frequently?

How often do you deal with just cropping an image,
without *any* other changes?

JPEGs sent to you that
need rotating? Rather than worry about what program to use to rotate incoming JPEGs, you should worry about what kind of idiots you are dealing with that constantly email you JPEGs that need rotating.

Rather than dealing with images that need cropping and
nothing else, you should perhaps deal with how you get such images.

OTOH, many JPEGs need to be rotated: they only contain a flag *how* they are to be rotated instead of being up the right way. And sending a photo via email to be automatically placed in a gallery isn’t half as outlandish as your limited understanding makes it to be.

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 15, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:38:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

I know people who are hard of hearing, who think that everybody should simply talk louder, because they think they don’t need hearing aids.

Obviously you think that because it’s possible to be blissfully unaware of some technology there can’t be any advances in that technology.

Again, you misunderstand.

I understand you perfectly. It’s you who doesn’t understand you. It’s extremely rare that a person can understand the power of e.g. smartphones without having tried them themselves for a significant time. You are no such person.

While some people, as I am, are aware of
the technological advances we don’t feel we need take advantage of all of them. And, frankly, we don’t give a rat’s ass that this bothers you.

| Traditionally, there are only three classes of people who use ‘we’ | in describing themselves: Royalty (which you aren’t), editors (no | evidence that this applies) and people with tapeworms. Please let us | know when you’ve been cured. –Hal Heydt, to Dennis O’Connor

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

For you, with your limited understanding, maybe. For many other people: No car. Smartphone.

BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

Do you have a note card file of ridiculous examples?

So you’re saying the Amish can’t be happy, because they lack cars and probably point-and-shoots?

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 15, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , tonycooper214
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:51:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Mayayana wrote:

I was on the Boston subway yesterday, watching perhaps
1/2 the people diddle their tech. In general it seemed to be one of two things: listening to music with earplugs or checking Facebook over and over. It’s what young mothers refer to as a "pacifier" — something to suck on in order to dull anxiety in an undisciplined mind.

You have a very disciplined mind. You disciplined it to not accept new ideas that don’t agree with your view of the world.

Next time you read your maps at full speed on the highway or while in dense traffic in your truck … remember while they cut you out of your truck that you could have used a navigation system (e.g. in a smartphone).

All this suggests to me is that you are person who is not smart enough to read a map while still parked, make a mental note of the coming turns, and put the map away, and can’t imagine that anyone else is.

Do you wonder how people arrived at their destinations before the advent of mobile devices?

I do remember that time, they took longer, sometimes *much* longer and had way more stress on the way.

Do you ever wonder how people made pictures before there were cameras?

Yep, dabbled in it myself. I much prefer cameras.

Memorizing a map works fine if (a) you have a map

Which is not a given. Or do you carry maps of every village larger than 3 roads in your state with you and never travel outside your state?

and (b) have time to memorize it.

and (c) are good at memorizing maps to the point that you’ll have every street in the vincinity before your mind’s eye when you take a wrong turn or want to avoid a traffic jam, a closed road, etc.

and (d) can plan a reasonable short *and* fast route quickly enough, and can reroute yourself while driving in cicumstances like mentioned in (c).

If you’re working the kind of job where you may have a
dozen appointments at different locations a GPS is a major timesaver. Doubly so when the route you would have otherwise taken is blocked.

But that isn’t important to Tony Cooper, and therefore
shouldn’t be important to anyone else.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 15, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , tonycooper214

We used our Garmin when traveling from Orlando to a person’s house in Vero Beach. It wanted me to take the tollroads and I didn’t want to. I was in no hurry and I like to be able to stop in case photo opportunity comes up. The Bitch in the Box keep telling to make turns that would take me to the tollroads when I was on a highway that paralleled the tollroad and was just as direct. I finally turned it off.

Why didn’t you just check the setting to avoid tolls?

Being too stupid to use technology is always a ‘good’ argument why technology fails.

To add insult to injury, Tony Cooper is the guy who claims to read maps and memorize the route while still parked — a perfect time to review the route the Garmin offered and to set any settings he might like. But obviously Tony was in a hurry to drive off, I wonder why …

Or maybe Tony wanted to cash in on not having to spend time to read and memorize the layout of the roads …

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 15, 2013
Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:46:15 -0500, Neil Ellwood
On Tue, 07 May 2013 22:56:16 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

No reason to carry a personal tracking-device/map/weather forecast/FaceKook computer with you. I use a cheapo cellphone when I travel. It sends and receives text and voice. Battery lasts a month. Cost 40 dollars, plus a 10 dollar monthly fee. Two other people know the number (aside from Google, the NSA, Amazon , and World Exploit Inc.)

Let’s paraphrase that: "I have no need for anything more than X, therefore noone should have a need for anything more than X"

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 15, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

I see, you never reach any area that isn’t well traveled, therfore the idea that such a thing exists is ridiculous.

-Wolfgang
TC
Tony Cooper
May 16, 2013
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn’t meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Why should Photoshop care for simple annotations of screen shots? It’s a very powerful, mighty package for professional image work, it’s — as far as I can tell — as unsuitable for trivial screenshot annotation as the Gimp.

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

… to the guy who only knows a hammer …

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

… and only has a hammer, all objects are nails.
So what you’re suggesting, by this analogy, is that someone should have a selection of programs installed so a different one can be used based on the complexity of the task?

One program crop, one program, to rotate, one program to adjust color, and so on?

b) The OP’s looking for freeware.

I didn’t suggest the OP buy Photoshop. Have someone read what has been written and explain it to you.

Why are you shooting the breeze about something that you KNOW won’t help the OP at all?

c) You don’t need any of the power of Photoshop for screenshot annotations.

But I don’t need the puny power of another app because I have PS.

Hammer, Nail.

d) ‘easily’ is relative. To you, used to complex manipulations in Photoshop, ‘easy’ is one thing, To someone who doesn’t even know where to look for anything in the Photoshop menus.

I don’t have someone else use my copy of PS to do a trivial task.

And that’s relevant to the problem of the OP, because you won’t even let the OP use your Photoshop, I gather?

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

I don’t *need* Photoshop to simply crop an image. But, I have Photoshop, and use it for more complex editing, so it would be ridiculous to have a program that crops – and not much more – just because cropping is under-utilizing Photoshop’s capability. It’s not like it’s using up a resource to use it for simple tasks.

That’s not the point,

Of course it is. Get outside help if you need it to follow what I said.

I follow what you said perfectly: "*I* *I* *I*".
The world really revolves round you, doesn’t it?

the example is stupid and does not
apply and you KNOW it. Of course, feel free to fire up
Photoshop for JPEGs that come in via email, rotate them clockwise by 90° and place them in a directory. I’d use jpegtran –rotate 90
(which is, unlike Photoshop, lossless) and a tiny bit glue script, ONCE, and be done with it forever.

Is this something you deal with frequently?

How often do you deal with just cropping an image,
without *any* other changes?

JPEGs sent to you that
need rotating? Rather than worry about what program to use to rotate incoming JPEGs, you should worry about what kind of idiots you are dealing with that constantly email you JPEGs that need rotating.

Rather than dealing with images that need cropping and
nothing else, you should perhaps deal with how you get such images.

OTOH, many JPEGs need to be rotated: they only contain a flag *how* they are to be rotated instead of being up the right way. And sending a photo via email to be automatically placed in a gallery isn’t half as outlandish as your limited understanding makes it to be.

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Who sends these images to you?


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 16, 2013
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

While some people, as I am, are aware of
the technological advances we don’t feel we need take advantage of all of them. And, frankly, we don’t give a rat’s ass that this bothers you.

| Traditionally, there are only three classes of people who use ‘we’ | in describing themselves: Royalty (which you aren’t), editors (no | evidence that this applies) and people with tapeworms. Please let us | know when you’ve been cured. –Hal Heydt, to Dennis O’Connor
Heydt, whomever he may be, is obviously uninformed. The "Royal ‘We’" is capitalized.
BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

Do you have a note card file of ridiculous examples?

So you’re saying the Amish can’t be happy, because they lack cars and probably point-and-shoots?

In some ways, I envy the Amish. They are not subjected to people insisting that because things like smartphones are useful to them, that everyone else should also have a smartphone.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 16, 2013
On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:54:21 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:46:15 -0500, Neil Ellwood
On Tue, 07 May 2013 22:56:16 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

No reason to carry a personal tracking-device/map/weather forecast/FaceKook computer with you. I use a cheapo cellphone when I travel. It sends and receives text and voice. Battery lasts a month. Cost 40 dollars, plus a 10 dollar monthly fee. Two other people know the number (aside from Google, the NSA, Amazon , and World Exploit Inc.)

Let’s paraphrase that: "I have no need for anything more than X, therefore noone should have a need for anything more than X"
Or, in your case, "I have a perceived need for an X, therefore everyone else should have a need for an X".


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
AB
Alan Browne
May 16, 2013
On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
AB
Alan Browne
May 16, 2013
On 2013.05.16 18:14 , Tony Cooper wrote:

In some ways, I envy the Amish. They are not subjected to people insisting that because things like smartphones are useful to them, that everyone else should also have a smartphone.

Free from some things is imprisoned by other things.

That goes both ways.


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
TC
Tony Cooper
May 16, 2013
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them

Yes, as mentioned in my post (and you trimmed) I can do these things in Bridge. However, I prefer to do them in FastStone. It’s a small thing, but clicking on an image in Bridge opens that file in Photoshop and using the spacebar expands the image to full screen. I constantly open images that I only want to view full screen.

In FastStone, you double-click on the thumbnail to expand it, and right-click to have the option to open the image in your choice of programs.

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

I do a lot of file moving. Images are downloaded to a folder like "2013-May-Raw", and if converted to a .psd or .jpg moved to a folder like "2013-May-JPG". I need only look through the JPG folder to see the processed keepers.

It’s just my personal preferance, and I make no claim that it is a better system.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
S
Savageduck
May 16, 2013
On 2013-05-16 15:14:57 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

While some people, as I am, are aware of
the technological advances we don’t feel we need take advantage of all of them. And, frankly, we don’t give a rat’s ass that this bothers you.

| Traditionally, there are only three classes of people who use ‘we’ | in describing themselves: Royalty (which you aren’t), editors (no | evidence that this applies) and people with tapeworms. Please let us | know when you’ve been cured. –Hal Heydt, to Dennis O’Connor
Heydt, whomever he may be, is obviously uninformed. The "Royal ‘We’" is capitalized.
BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

Do you have a note card file of ridiculous examples?

So you’re saying the Amish can’t be happy, because they lack cars and probably point-and-shoots?

In some ways, I envy the Amish. They are not subjected to people insisting that because things like smartphones are useful to them, that everyone else should also have a smartphone.

I guess you guys haven’t seen the smartphone using, pickup truck & Mercedes driving Amish shown in "Breaking Amish" and "Amish Mafia". It seems the cell phone is ubiquitous in Amish country in Pennsylvania & Ohio, nowadays.


Regards,

Savageduck
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 16, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

the fact you don’t understand this basic fact says a lot.
AB
Alan Browne
May 16, 2013
On 2013.05.16 18:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them

Yes, as mentioned in my post (and you trimmed) I can do these things in Bridge. However, I prefer to do them in FastStone. It’s a small

I didn’t see that.

thing, but clicking on an image in Bridge opens that file in Photoshop and using the spacebar expands the image to full screen. I constantly open images that I only want to view full screen.

Actually a double-click to open in PS – an accidental (or otherwise) single click just selects an image.

I rarely launch into CS by an accidental double-click (which is saying something as it is quite easy to accidentally double-click with the Apple trackpad).

In FastStone, you double-click on the thumbnail to expand it, and right-click to have the option to open the image in your choice of programs.

<repeat> It takes a double-click in Bridge CS3 and CS5 (Mac v.) but I don’t recall it being different in Windows CS3.

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

Nice feature. I also date that way but like:
San Andres 2010 – 20100212_0201

I do a lot of file moving. Images are downloaded to a folder like "2013-May-Raw", and if converted to a .psd or .jpg moved to a folder like "2013-May-JPG". I need only look through the JPG folder to see the processed keepers.

In Bridge you can rate each image (stars) then sort on that criteria. I sometimes create a separate folder for "keepers" in the same folder.

It’s just my personal preferance, and I make no claim that it is a better system.

Sure. I’m satisfied with Br/CS except for searching folders by the first letter (it does not do this). (eg: in the list of folders if I want to go the San Andres folder I would just hit "S" on my keyboard in the OS Finder to get to the top of the "S" folders. But Bridge doesn’t do this obvious and easy trick).

Also wish I could drop a GPS log into a folder, and then have Br tag the files from the log.

Lightroom could be better but I want CS – and I’m not going to have both. May try Apple’s Aperture though – esp. with this Cloud based CS nonsense.


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
AB
Alan Browne
May 16, 2013
On 2013.05.16 19:06 , Savageduck wrote:

I guess you guys haven’t seen the smartphone using, pickup truck & Mercedes driving Amish shown in "Breaking Amish" and "Amish Mafia". It seems the cell phone is ubiquitous in Amish country in Pennsylvania & Ohio, nowadays.

Last I was in the Lancaster area (a few years ago), the Amish were still being pulled by horses. The Mennonites had Prius’ and cell phones. Went to an auction there, parked at a primary school and a school bus (Mennonite) took us to the auction site. Hundreds of horse drawn buggies parked there.

There may be breakaways – but there are still hard core Amish there as well.

As to cash – lots. At the auction the Amish were purchasing $5 – $10K items without a blink other than pulling the roll out of their pockets when they went to the settlement window. (Proceeds were for Haiti (before the earthquake)).


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
AB
Alan Browne
May 16, 2013
On 2013.05.16 19:43 , nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

In Bridge you can "rotate" the "thumbnail" which will cause the file to open in the new orientation. The fact that the data itself was not moved around and only a tag was set, is a quibbling detail.


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 16, 2013
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

In Bridge you can "rotate" the "thumbnail" which will cause the file to open in the new orientation. The fact that the data itself was not moved around and only a tag was set, is a quibbling detail.

it has to open the file to write the tag.
AB
Alan Browne
May 17, 2013
On 2013.05.16 19:57 , nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

In Bridge you can "rotate" the "thumbnail" which will cause the file to open in the new orientation. The fact that the data itself was not moved around and only a tag was set, is a quibbling detail.

it has to open the file to write the tag.

As I said: quibbling detail.


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
J
jclarkeusenet
May 17, 2013
In article , savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says…
On 2013-05-16 15:14:57 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

While some people, as I am, are aware of
the technological advances we don’t feel we need take advantage of all of them. And, frankly, we don’t give a rat’s ass that this bothers you.

| Traditionally, there are only three classes of people who use ‘we’ | in describing themselves: Royalty (which you aren’t), editors (no | evidence that this applies) and people with tapeworms. Please let us | know when you’ve been cured. –Hal Heydt, to Dennis O’Connor
Heydt, whomever he may be, is obviously uninformed. The "Royal ‘We’" is capitalized.
BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

Do you have a note card file of ridiculous examples?

So you’re saying the Amish can’t be happy, because they lack cars and probably point-and-shoots?

In some ways, I envy the Amish. They are not subjected to people insisting that because things like smartphones are useful to them, that everyone else should also have a smartphone.

I guess you guys haven’t seen the smartphone using, pickup truck & Mercedes driving Amish shown in "Breaking Amish" and "Amish Mafia". It seems the cell phone is ubiquitous in Amish country in Pennsylvania & Ohio, nowadays.

Its not grid-connected which removes one of their objections. Whether is is disruptive of their social order is another story.
J
jclarkeusenet
May 17, 2013
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

I see, you never reach any area that isn’t well traveled, therfore the idea that such a thing exists is ridiculous.

I came upon an accident a could of days ago. Car upside down in the middle of the road, way out in the sticks. Someone else had arrived just before I did and already called 911. That meant that there were two of us on scene to get the driver out of the wreck (the gas tank or something in the fuel system had gone bust and it was in a puddle of gas) instead of one having to go find a house with a phone to call for help.

I thought about this discussion at the time.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 17, 2013
On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:43:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 18:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them

Yes, as mentioned in my post (and you trimmed) I can do these things in Bridge. However, I prefer to do them in FastStone. It’s a small

I didn’t see that.

thing, but clicking on an image in Bridge opens that file in Photoshop and using the spacebar expands the image to full screen. I constantly open images that I only want to view full screen.

Actually a double-click to open in PS – an accidental (or otherwise) single click just selects an image.

Yes, it’s a double-click in Bridge, but I’m used to a double-click to open to full screen. I can’t train the instinctive reaction to go to the space bar.

I rarely launch into CS by an accidental double-click (which is saying something as it is quite easy to accidentally double-click with the Apple trackpad).

In FastStone, you double-click on the thumbnail to expand it, and right-click to have the option to open the image in your choice of programs.

<repeat> It takes a double-click in Bridge CS3 and CS5 (Mac v.) but I don’t recall it being different in Windows CS3.

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

Nice feature. I also date that way but like:
San Andres 2010 – 20100212_0201

My system (which works for me but other systems work for others) allows me to display all images in date sequence in Bridge, FastStone, and Lightroom. I like that.
I do a lot of file moving. Images are downloaded to a folder like "2013-May-Raw", and if converted to a .psd or .jpg moved to a folder like "2013-May-JPG". I need only look through the JPG folder to see the processed keepers.

In Bridge you can rate each image (stars) then sort on that criteria. I sometimes create a separate folder for "keepers" in the same folder.
FastStone has a tag system. First pass, I’ll tag the "delete this" images…sort for the tagged…delete all. Second pass I’ll tag multiple shots of the same thing (like several exposures of a play at first base) and use the "compare image" with two images to untag one at a time until I’m left with one. Then, tag the rest that I want to process in CS. I seldom, if ever, process all shots.

I could do the same in Bridge with their star rating system, but I’m used to doing it in FastStone. Or, for that matter, Lightroom and their rating system.

There is no "best" system, only a "best for me" where "me" is any user. You get comfortable with a system.

It’s just my personal preferance, and I make no claim that it is a better system.

Sure. I’m satisfied with Br/CS

Best feature of Bridge, compared to FastStone, is the slider to enlarge the thumbnail individually. In FastStone, you set the size of the thumbnail, but it’s a global setting. Mine are set to 200 x 150.

except for searching folders by the
first letter (it does not do this).

All my folders are by-month. Subject searching is handled in Lightroom by keyword.

(eg: in the list of folders if I
want to go the San Andres folder I would just hit "S" on my keyboard in the OS Finder to get to the top of the "S" folders. But Bridge doesn’t do this obvious and easy trick).

Also wish I could drop a GPS log into a folder, and then have Br tag the files from the log.

Lightroom could be better but I want CS – and I’m not going to have both. May try Apple’s Aperture though – esp. with this Cloud based CS nonsense.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 17, 2013
On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:43:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

the fact you don’t understand this basic fact says a lot.

I know what you’re saying, but it’s not the same in, say, Bridge, where you stay in Bridge and rotate the image and then just move to the next image. In PS, you have to open the file, rotate, and then save and close the file. You have to in PS to do this.

I do understand what you’re saying, though. Perhaps I should have said that you can rotate the image in Bridge without opening PS.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
S
Savageduck
May 17, 2013
On 2013-05-16 16:43:51 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.05.16 18:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them

Yes, as mentioned in my post (and you trimmed) I can do these things in Bridge. However, I prefer to do them in FastStone. It’s a small

I didn’t see that.

thing, but clicking on an image in Bridge opens that file in Photoshop and using the spacebar expands the image to full screen. I constantly open images that I only want to view full screen.

Actually a double-click to open in PS – an accidental (or otherwise) single click just selects an image.

I rarely launch into CS by an accidental double-click (which is saying something as it is quite easy to accidentally double-click with the Apple trackpad).

In FastStone, you double-click on the thumbnail to expand it, and right-click to have the option to open the image in your choice of programs.

<repeat> It takes a double-click in Bridge CS3 and CS5 (Mac v.) but I don’t recall it being different in Windows CS3.

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

Nice feature. I also date that way but like:
San Andres 2010 – 20100212_0201

I do a lot of file moving. Images are downloaded to a folder like "2013-May-Raw", and if converted to a .psd or .jpg moved to a folder like "2013-May-JPG". I need only look through the JPG folder to see the processed keepers.

In Bridge you can rate each image (stars) then sort on that criteria. I sometimes create a separate folder for "keepers" in the same folder.
It’s just my personal preferance, and I make no claim that it is a better system.

Sure. I’m satisfied with Br/CS except for searching folders by the first letter (it does not do this). (eg: in the list of folders if I want to go the San Andres folder I would just hit "S" on my keyboard in the OS Finder to get to the top of the "S" folders. But Bridge doesn’t do this obvious and easy trick).

Also wish I could drop a GPS log into a folder, and then have Br tag the files from the log.

Lightroom could be better but I want CS – and I’m not going to have both.

Why not?
Once I started using LR4 + CS5, my usage of Bridge has been minimized. It is a workflow I find myself comfortable with. Many times I find LR4 does all I need without the need to bring PS into the equation.

May try Apple’s Aperture though – esp. with this Cloud based CS nonsense.

I am not into the CC thing either, but neither LR4 or CS5/6 are going to be part of the CC if you have your licensed hard copies. Before you make any hard decisions, I would check the trial version of LR4. Unfortunately Apple no longer does trial versions of Aperture.


Regards,

Savageduck
Q
q34wsk20
May 17, 2013
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
So why don’t you use Photoshop?

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang, your messages are being cross-posted into the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup. In ACF, we only discuss freeware. Please consider removing ACF from the list of groups you’re posting to in this thread.

TIA


John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares, OR warez for me, please: just freeware -which I define as legally obtainable, local install computer programs that can be used indefinitely at no cost, monetary or otherwise.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 17, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

the fact you don’t understand this basic fact says a lot.

I know what you’re saying, but it’s not the same in, say, Bridge, where you stay in Bridge and rotate the image and then just move to the next image. In PS, you have to open the file, rotate, and then save and close the file. You have to in PS to do this.

no, you don’t have to.

photoshop can be automated. no need to do it manually.
ES
Eric Stevens
May 17, 2013
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:38:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

I know people who are hard of hearing, who think that everybody should simply talk louder, because they think they don’t need hearing aids.

Obviously you think that because it’s possible to be blissfully unaware of some technology there can’t be any advances in that technology.

Again, you misunderstand.

I understand you perfectly. It’s you who doesn’t understand you. It’s extremely rare that a person can understand the power of e.g. smartphones without having tried them themselves for a significant time.

I believe its much the same with methamphetamines.

You are no such person.

While some people, as I am, are aware of
the technological advances we don’t feel we need take advantage of all of them. And, frankly, we don’t give a rat’s ass that this bothers you.

| Traditionally, there are only three classes of people who use ‘we’ | in describing themselves: Royalty (which you aren’t), editors (no | evidence that this applies) and people with tapeworms. Please let us | know when you’ve been cured. –Hal Heydt, to Dennis O’Connor

I carry a very good point-and-shoot in the car at all times.

Obviously one of the people who can’t live without their car.

That’s true. It would be a great inconvenience not to have one. It is not a great inconvenience not to have a smart phone.

For you, with your limited understanding, maybe. For many other people: No car. Smartphone.

BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

Do you have a note card file of ridiculous examples?

So you’re saying the Amish can’t be happy, because they lack cars and probably point-and-shoots?

-Wolfgang


Regards,

Eric Stevens
P
PeterN
May 17, 2013
On 5/16/2013 7:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.05.16 18:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them

Yes, as mentioned in my post (and you trimmed) I can do these things in Bridge. However, I prefer to do them in FastStone. It’s a small

I didn’t see that.

thing, but clicking on an image in Bridge opens that file in Photoshop and using the spacebar expands the image to full screen. I constantly open images that I only want to view full screen.

Actually a double-click to open in PS – an accidental (or otherwise) single click just selects an image.

I rarely launch into CS by an accidental double-click (which is saying something as it is quite easy to accidentally double-click with the Apple trackpad).

In FastStone, you double-click on the thumbnail to expand it, and right-click to have the option to open the image in your choice of programs.

<repeat> It takes a double-click in Bridge CS3 and CS5 (Mac v.) but I don’t recall it being different in Windows CS3.

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

Nice feature. I also date that way but like:
San Andres 2010 – 20100212_0201

I do a lot of file moving. Images are downloaded to a folder like "2013-May-Raw", and if converted to a .psd or .jpg moved to a folder like "2013-May-JPG". I need only look through the JPG folder to see the processed keepers.

In Bridge you can rate each image (stars) then sort on that criteria. I sometimes create a separate folder for "keepers" in the same folder.
It’s just my personal preferance, and I make no claim that it is a better system.

Sure. I’m satisfied with Br/CS except for searching folders by the first letter (it does not do this). (eg: in the list of folders if I want to go the San Andres folder I would just hit "S" on my keyboard in the OS Finder to get to the top of the "S" folders. But Bridge doesn’t do this obvious and easy trick).

Also wish I could drop a GPS log into a folder, and then have Br tag the files from the log.

Lightroom could be better but I want CS – and I’m not going to have both. May try Apple’s Aperture though – esp. with this Cloud based CS nonsense.

Last night I saw a demonstration of DXO. Although I had tried it in the past, I am reconsidering my decision. They claim that within a few months it will have the ability to make selective adjustments, and it will be a free upgrade.


PeterN
AB
Alan Browne
May 17, 2013
On 2013.05.16 23:54 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-16 16:43:51 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.05.16 18:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them

Yes, as mentioned in my post (and you trimmed) I can do these things in Bridge. However, I prefer to do them in FastStone. It’s a small

I didn’t see that.

thing, but clicking on an image in Bridge opens that file in Photoshop and using the spacebar expands the image to full screen. I constantly open images that I only want to view full screen.

Actually a double-click to open in PS – an accidental (or otherwise) single click just selects an image.

I rarely launch into CS by an accidental double-click (which is saying something as it is quite easy to accidentally double-click with the Apple trackpad).

In FastStone, you double-click on the thumbnail to expand it, and right-click to have the option to open the image in your choice of programs.

<repeat> It takes a double-click in Bridge CS3 and CS5 (Mac v.) but I don’t recall it being different in Windows CS3.

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

Nice feature. I also date that way but like:
San Andres 2010 – 20100212_0201

I do a lot of file moving. Images are downloaded to a folder like "2013-May-Raw", and if converted to a .psd or .jpg moved to a folder like "2013-May-JPG". I need only look through the JPG folder to see the processed keepers.

In Bridge you can rate each image (stars) then sort on that criteria. I sometimes create a separate folder for "keepers" in the same folder.
It’s just my personal preferance, and I make no claim that it is a better system.

Sure. I’m satisfied with Br/CS except for searching folders by the first letter (it does not do this). (eg: in the list of folders if I want to go the San Andres folder I would just hit "S" on my keyboard in the OS Finder to get to the top of the "S" folders. But Bridge doesn’t do this obvious and easy trick).

Also wish I could drop a GPS log into a folder, and then have Br tag the files from the log.

Lightroom could be better but I want CS – and I’m not going to have both.

Why not?

I have a perfectly fine editor in CS5 so no need to add another editor even if its purpose is different. IOW: Adobe have made enough off of me, thank you.

Once I started using LR4 + CS5, my usage of Bridge has been minimized. It is a workflow I find myself comfortable with. Many times I find LR4 does all I need without the need to bring PS into the equation.
May try Apple’s Aperture though – esp. with this Cloud based CS nonsense.

I am not into the CC thing either, but neither LR4 or CS5/6 are going to be part of the CC if you have your licensed hard copies. Before you make any hard decisions, I would check the trial version of LR4. Unfortunately Apple no longer does trial versions of Aperture.

OTOH, Aperture is now only $80.


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
TC
Tony Cooper
May 18, 2013
On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:30:59 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 23:54 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-16 16:43:51 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.05.16 18:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.16 17:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Do what? View a file of images as thumbnails? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. (Elements does if you include the images in their Organizer) Re-number a series of images without opening the images? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Move or copy files from one folder to another without opening the files? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this. Rotate an image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

You don’t do those in CS because you do that in the support application Bridge that is included with CS.

-View the thumbnails (re-size the thumbnails as well).
-Rotate the image. (single, selection, all)
-sort by the usual criteria (date, number, …)
-Launches into CS by clicking on the photo (via ACR if raw, or optionally via if not).
-Batch re-naming (more than just re-numbering)
-copy/move files within Bridge or from/to the OS file folder of choice. -rate them

Yes, as mentioned in my post (and you trimmed) I can do these things in Bridge. However, I prefer to do them in FastStone. It’s a small

I didn’t see that.

thing, but clicking on an image in Bridge opens that file in Photoshop and using the spacebar expands the image to full screen. I constantly open images that I only want to view full screen.

Actually a double-click to open in PS – an accidental (or otherwise) single click just selects an image.

I rarely launch into CS by an accidental double-click (which is saying something as it is quite easy to accidentally double-click with the Apple trackpad).

In FastStone, you double-click on the thumbnail to expand it, and right-click to have the option to open the image in your choice of programs.

<repeat> It takes a double-click in Bridge CS3 and CS5 (Mac v.) but I don’t recall it being different in Windows CS3.

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

Nice feature. I also date that way but like:
San Andres 2010 – 20100212_0201

I do a lot of file moving. Images are downloaded to a folder like "2013-May-Raw", and if converted to a .psd or .jpg moved to a folder like "2013-May-JPG". I need only look through the JPG folder to see the processed keepers.

In Bridge you can rate each image (stars) then sort on that criteria. I sometimes create a separate folder for "keepers" in the same folder.
It’s just my personal preferance, and I make no claim that it is a better system.

Sure. I’m satisfied with Br/CS except for searching folders by the first letter (it does not do this). (eg: in the list of folders if I want to go the San Andres folder I would just hit "S" on my keyboard in the OS Finder to get to the top of the "S" folders. But Bridge doesn’t do this obvious and easy trick).

Also wish I could drop a GPS log into a folder, and then have Br tag the files from the log.

Lightroom could be better but I want CS – and I’m not going to have both.

Why not?

I have a perfectly fine editor in CS5 so no need to add another editor even if its purpose is different. IOW: Adobe have made enough off of me, thank you.

I have a perfectly fine editor in CS6, but I added Lightroom. As I have said before, I use it only as a tool to manage my files by keywording. I’ve never done more than experiment with the editing module, and don’t intend to. In my opinion, no folder-based system is as effective in finding a particular type of photo.

I don’t suggest you do so, but if you have any feeling that your present system of image management is lacking in any way, I do suggest you look into Lightroom. Even Lightroom 3, at about $80 on eBay.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 18, 2013
nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

the fact you don’t understand this basic fact says a lot.

The fact that you don’t understand the windows parlance of "opening a file" (which means "reading a file, understanding it AND then displaying the understood data") and "having an open filehandle" (which may be STDIN instead of a physical file on some storage medium) says even more. It says ‘nospam has dangerous half knowledge, but thinks he understands everything’.

In fact I can losslessly rotate a JPEG that never was a file (e.g. straight from the webcam, turned into a JPEG stream, possibly transmitted via TCP from a remote computer, locally rotated losslessly … and then displayed without ever saving it to a file or just dropped, forgotten, ignored.

No file on no SSD, RAMdisk, HDD, USB-Stick, … anywhere that one could open. That you don’t understand this basic fact says a lot.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 18, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

… to the guy who only knows a hammer …

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

… and only has a hammer, all objects are nails.

So what you’re suggesting, by this analogy, is that someone should have a selection of programs installed so a different one can be used based on the complexity of the task?

One program crop, one program, to rotate, one program to adjust color, and so on?

Only if you’re suggesting, by analogy, to only have one single program, which does everything: being the OS, containing all drivers, being all word processors that ever existed and ever will exist, all computer games that exist, special task tools (like underwater sound recognition and classification, high energy physics calculations), and *everything* /and/ the kitchen sink one can ever do with a computer …

ARE you suggesting that?

[…]

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

[…]
I follow what you said perfectly: "*I* *I* *I*".

The world really revolves round you, doesn’t it?
[…]

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

Who sends these images to you?

For example people who want to have their images on a/their gallery and send them in via email. Since I don’t feel like doing it all manually, I trained computers to do things like serving web pages and rotating images. It’s an *extremely* simple concept, but obviously waaay out and not imaginable to you.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 18, 2013
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.05.16 18:56 , Tony Cooper wrote:

Also, in FastStone, you can rearrange the images in a sort order by dragging and then re-number them to retain that sort order. (2013-05-16-01 is my numbering system)

Nice feature. I also date that way but like:
San Andres 2010 – 20100212_0201

Doesn’t sort by date when naively sorting by filename. (Practically) all filesystem viewers can sort naively, but very few by your name scheme.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 18, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:54:21 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:46:15 -0500, Neil Ellwood
On Tue, 07 May 2013 22:56:16 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:11:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

At the next accident far out and with no traffic … remember that you could call for help *and* continue to give first aid because you don’t need to drive for miles and miles and miles to the next phone booth.

Why do people trying to prove a point use such ridiculous examples?

That isn’t really a ridiculous example. It is the main reason both my wife and I have a mobile phone. In the UK public phone boxes are getting as rare as hens teeth.

No reason to carry a personal tracking-device/map/weather forecast/FaceKook computer with you. I use a cheapo cellphone when I travel. It sends and receives text and voice. Battery lasts a month. Cost 40 dollars, plus a 10 dollar monthly fee. Two other people know the number (aside from Google, the NSA, Amazon , and World Exploit Inc.)

Let’s paraphrase that: "I have no need for anything more than X, therefore noone should have a need for anything more than X"

Or, in your case, "I have a perceived need for an X, therefore everyone else should have a need for an X".

Unlike some here around whom the word revolves all the time, I understand that there can be informed decisions that one does not need X, even though I find X useful. (A strikingly simple example: DSLRs. Too heavy, too bulky, too expensive and too complicated for many use cases, yet the best solution I have found for my specific needs in specific circumstances.)

Unlike you, I also understand that an *informed* decision needs information, which you lack at least in this case.

In the case of smartphones, unless you *must* reject them for financial reasons or because the No Such Agency and friends are trying to track you for terrorism, using them in earnest for a couple months is the way to become informed.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 18, 2013
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:38:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

Obviously you think that because it’s possible to be blissfully unaware of some technology there can’t be any advances in that technology.

Again, you misunderstand.

I understand you perfectly. It’s you who doesn’t understand you. It’s extremely rare that a person can understand the power of e.g. smartphones without having tried them themselves for a significant time.

I believe its much the same with methamphetamines.

At least some of the side effects are well known and I don’t feel like experiencing them (nor do I think breaking the law is a rather good career or life decision), no matter how positive the effects may be.

Therefore my decision not to touch that stuff with a 10 foot pole is well informed and reasonable — or am I wrong there?

If you could point me to a similar case of bad side effects of using smartphones …

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 20, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

While some people, as I am, are aware of
the technological advances we don’t feel we need take advantage of all of them. And, frankly, we don’t give a rat’s ass that this bothers you.

| Traditionally, there are only three classes of people who use ‘we’ | in describing themselves: Royalty (which you aren’t), editors (no | evidence that this applies) and people with tapeworms. Please let us | know when you’ve been cured. –Hal Heydt, to Dennis O’Connor

Heydt, whomever he may be, is obviously uninformed. The "Royal ‘We’" is capitalized.

He was right: you’re not Royalty, and not only because you don’t capitalize ‘We’.

Please let us know when you’ve been cured.

BTW: The Amish don’t need cars to be happy. I don’t know if they have point-and-shoots or not. But they are aware of both.

Do you have a note card file of ridiculous examples?

So you’re saying the Amish can’t be happy, because they lack cars and probably point-and-shoots?

In some ways, I envy the Amish. They are not subjected to people insisting that because things like smartphones are useful to them, that everyone else should also have a smartphone.

So give up your car already.

-Wolfgang
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 20, 2013
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

Rotate an
image without opening the file? Photoshop (CS) doesn’t do this.

nothing does.

you *have* to open the file to rotate the image, no matter what app is used. think about it.

the fact you don’t understand this basic fact says a lot.

The fact that you don’t understand the windows parlance of "opening a file" (which means "reading a file, understanding it AND then displaying the understood data") and "having an open filehandle" (which may be STDIN instead of a physical file on some storage medium) says even more. It says ‘nospam has dangerous half knowledge, but thinks he understands everything’.

the file has to be opened to rotate and write back the rotated data. i never said anything about displaying anything.

In fact I can losslessly rotate a JPEG that never was a file (e.g. straight from the webcam, turned into a JPEG stream, possibly transmitted via TCP from a remote computer, locally rotated losslessly … and then displayed without ever saving it to a file or just dropped, forgotten, ignored.

so what?

you originally said you got jpegs emailed to you.

No file on no SSD, RAMdisk, HDD, USB-Stick, … anywhere that one could open. That you don’t understand this basic fact says a lot.

i understand it just fine.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 20, 2013
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:09:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

… to the guy who only knows a hammer …

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

… and only has a hammer, all objects are nails.

So what you’re suggesting, by this analogy, is that someone should have a selection of programs installed so a different one can be used based on the complexity of the task?

One program crop, one program, to rotate, one program to adjust color, and so on?

Only if you’re suggesting, by analogy, to only have one single program, which does everything: being the OS, containing all drivers, being all word processors that ever existed and ever will exist, all computer games that exist, special task tools (like underwater sound recognition and classification, high energy physics calculations), and *everything* /and/ the kitchen sink one can ever do with a computer …

ARE you suggesting that?
There’s no analogy in my statement. For God’s Sake, use words of which you known the meaning.

[…]

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

[…]
I follow what you said perfectly: "*I* *I* *I*".

The world really revolves round you, doesn’t it?
[…]

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it? I’m a non-commercial user, so the program is free to me. If I was a commercial user, there would be a charge. The same conditions hold true for all other users

I suppose you’re trying to make some point, but it eludes me.

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

Maybe so. Perhaps there are hundreds of people out there who are constantly being sent .jpgs that need only to be rotated. If so, there are also hundreds of people who can’t figure out how to pre-rotate .jpgs. I think they deserve each other.

Who sends these images to you?

For example people who want to have their images on a/their gallery and send them in via email.

Oh, so you have contact with lots of people who keep images in their galleries that need to be rotated. How strange. And, you exchange these unrotated images. Even stranger.

Since I don’t feel like
doing it all manually, I trained computers to do things like serving web pages and rotating images. It’s an *extremely* simple concept, but obviously waaay out and not imaginable to you.

A simpler concept is to keep images in one’s gallery that are properly rotated and to block the idiots who constantly send out unrotated images.

Training your computer sounds interesting. How do you do that? Put a shock collar on it? Give it a treat when it obeys your command? What tricks can it do?

Do you have goldfish? Have you tried training them? How about your toaster? Is it trainable?


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 20, 2013
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:21:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

In the case of smartphones, unless you *must* reject them for financial reasons or because the No Such Agency and friends are trying to track you for terrorism, using them in earnest for a couple months is the way to become informed.

Evidently, you and I are different. I don’t need to try everything in order to know if I have interest in it. I’ve never tried having a high colonic, a pedicure, a bikini wax, or a cucumber facial. I somehow know, instinctively, that these things are of no interest to me.

I’ve never given a three-month trial to owning a hot air balloon, a turret lathe, or a subscription to "The Joys of Beastiality and Masochism" magazine. I don’t need to try these things to know that they are without interest to me.

I am also a bit more decisive than you are, evidently. If I felt that a smartphone would be useful to me, I wouldn’t have to diddle around for three months making the decision.

Do continue on your path, though. The world *is* about you in decisions involving what you need to own or try. Else, you will continue to be a person who feels that what other people do is important for you to do…even if it’s for no good reason.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
T
Tommy
May 20, 2013
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:21:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Evidently, you and I are different. I don’t need to try everything in order to know if I have interest in it.

Snipped a few various coloured herrrings 😐

.. Else, you will
continue to be a person who feels that what other people do is important for you to do…even if it’s for no good reason.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL

Is there an irony meter in ‘some of the things you’ve no need to try’

Yet feel the need to remark on other peoples needs

Cheers
Tommy
ES
Eric Stevens
May 21, 2013
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:38:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

Obviously you think that because it’s possible to be blissfully unaware of some technology there can’t be any advances in that technology.

Again, you misunderstand.

I understand you perfectly. It’s you who doesn’t understand you. It’s extremely rare that a person can understand the power of e.g. smartphones without having tried them themselves for a significant time.

I believe its much the same with methamphetamines.

At least some of the side effects are well known and I don’t feel like experiencing them (nor do I think breaking the law is a rather good career or life decision), no matter how positive the effects may be.

Therefore my decision not to touch that stuff with a 10 foot pole is well informed and reasonable — or am I wrong there?
If you could point me to a similar case of bad side effects of using smartphones …
You are leading with your chin 🙂

Just using your words "bad side effects of using smartphones":

http://www.howtolearn.com/2012/05/4-dangers-posed-by-smartph ones-on-kids

http://www.dgupost.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1269

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725101222.ht m

…. and a whole lot more.



Regards,

Eric Stevens
P
PeterN
May 21, 2013
On 5/20/2013 5:36 PM, Tommy wrote:
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:21:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Evidently, you and I are different. I don’t need to try everything in order to know if I have interest in it.

Snipped a few various coloured herrrings 😐

. Else, you will
continue to be a person who feels that what other people do is important for you to do…even if it’s for no good reason.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL

Is there an irony meter in ‘some of the things you’ve no need to try’
Yet feel the need to remark on other peoples needs

And then there ws the herring who did not want to be his brother’s kipper.


PeterN
S
Savageduck
May 21, 2013
On 2013-05-20 17:16:52 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/20/2013 5:36 PM, Tommy wrote:
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:21:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Evidently, you and I are different. I don’t need to try everything in order to know if I have interest in it.

Snipped a few various coloured herrrings 😐

. Else, you will
continue to be a person who feels that what other people do is important for you to do…even if it’s for no good reason.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL

Is there an irony meter in ‘some of the things you’ve no need to try’
Yet feel the need to remark on other peoples needs

And then there ws the herring who did not want to be his brother’s kipper.

I thought that story was about an inseparable whale and herring. When the whale went missing, the herring was asked his location and responded, "I am not my blubber’s kipper."


Regards,

Savageduck
J
jclarkeusenet
May 21, 2013
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says…
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:09:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

… to the guy who only knows a hammer …

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

… and only has a hammer, all objects are nails.

So what you’re suggesting, by this analogy, is that someone should have a selection of programs installed so a different one can be used based on the complexity of the task?

One program crop, one program, to rotate, one program to adjust color, and so on?

Only if you’re suggesting, by analogy, to only have one single program, which does everything: being the OS, containing all drivers, being all word processors that ever existed and ever will exist, all computer games that exist, special task tools (like underwater sound recognition and classification, high energy physics calculations), and *everything* /and/ the kitchen sink one can ever do with a computer …

ARE you suggesting that?
There’s no analogy in my statement. For God’s Sake, use words of which you known the meaning.

[…]

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

[…]
I follow what you said perfectly: "*I* *I* *I*".

The world really revolves round you, doesn’t it?
[…]

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it? I’m a non-commercial user, so the program is free to me. If I was a commercial user, there would be a charge. The same conditions hold true for all other users
I suppose you’re trying to make some point, but it eludes me.
While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

Maybe so. Perhaps there are hundreds of people out there who are constantly being sent .jpgs that need only to be rotated. If so, there are also hundreds of people who can’t figure out how to pre-rotate .jpgs. I think they deserve each other.

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 21, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:09:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

… to the guy who only knows a hammer …

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

… and only has a hammer, all objects are nails.

So what you’re suggesting, by this analogy, is that someone should have a selection of programs installed so a different one can be used based on the complexity of the task?

One program crop, one program, to rotate, one program to adjust color, and so on?

Only if you’re suggesting, by analogy, to only have one single program, which does everything: being the OS, containing all drivers, being all word processors that ever existed and ever will exist, all computer games that exist, special task tools (like underwater sound recognition and classification, high energy physics calculations), and *everything* /and/ the kitchen sink one can ever do with a computer …

ARE you suggesting that?

There’s no analogy in my statement.

There is: you’re transferring the meaning of hammer-nail to "must have a different DIGITAL DARKROOM tool for every task".

Additionally, *I* am making an analogy: From your "Photoshop über alles" to "a single program for everything on the computer".

So it’s correct for me to say "by analogy".

For God’s Sake, use words of
which you known the meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake
is arguably not what you meant to convey.

Can you please only write words of which you know the meaning? Not only for Ambrosia? Pretty please?

[…]

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

[…]
I follow what you said perfectly: "*I* *I* *I*".

The world really revolves round you, doesn’t it?
[…]

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it?

"FastStone is a proprietary program which I, due to an exception, am allowed to use without charge".

I’m a non-commercial user, so
the program is free to me.

You’re not allowed to look at it’s guts or fix a bug yourself, you’re not even allowed to produce copies or give the program to your neighbour (see copyright).

And while I don’t need that for every software I have, I occasionally need it to train my computer to perform better or properly handle e.g. an old XY-Table with a spectrometer which is mispositioning sometimes, despite cleaning.

Something you can’t manage with your no-charge-for-you FastStone.

If I was a commercial user, there would be
a charge. The same conditions hold true for all other users

I suppose you’re trying to make some point, but it eludes me.

You may only say things that are approved by The Party, but you’re not charged for chanting The Party’s slogans.
Obviously, such speech is free.

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

Maybe so. Perhaps there are hundreds of people out there who are constantly being sent .jpgs that need only to be rotated. If so, there are also hundreds of people who can’t figure out how to pre-rotate .jpgs. I think they deserve each other.

I think you’re either dumb or you play dump.

Who sends these images to you?

For example people who want to have their images on a/their gallery and send them in via email.

Oh, so you have contact with lots of people who keep images in their galleries that need to be rotated. How strange. And, you exchange these unrotated images. Even stranger.

I can lead you to the water, I can add some sugar and fruit juice, but I can’t make you drink.

Since I don’t feel like
doing it all manually, I trained computers to do things like serving web pages and rotating images. It’s an *extremely* simple concept, but obviously waaay out and not imaginable to you.

A simpler concept is to keep images in one’s gallery that are properly rotated and to block the idiots who constantly send out unrotated images.

As I said: I can but lead you to the water …

Training your computer sounds interesting. How do you do that? Put a shock collar on it? Give it a treat when it obeys your command? What tricks can it do?

Well, it’s much easier than training you. I only need to tell it things once and it’s not a blockhead on purpose.

If you want tp

Do you have goldfish? Have you tried training them? How about your toaster? Is it trainable?

Naa, the toaster has no circuity — i.e. it’s almost as dumb as someone I could name, but unlike that someone it does it’s job —, and the goldfish would get eaten too fast for training them. Though they’d be a good cat’s TV channel.

-Wolfgang

[1] theoretically it should match any previous read, not just the one just immediately prior, but it’s not that smart
yet.
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 21, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:21:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

In the case of smartphones, unless you *must* reject them for financial reasons or because the No Such Agency and friends are trying to track you for terrorism, using them in earnest for a couple months is the way to become informed.

Evidently, you and I are different.

Oh, you found out at that there is at least one person who’s different from you?
Congratulations.
Your first step towards puberty has been taken.

I don’t need to try everything in
order to know if I have interest in it.

And therefore you conclude there can’t be *anything* that you might need to try in order to know if you have interest in it. Yep, definitely the hormones are clouding the logic in onsetting puberty.

I’ve never tried having a
high colonic, a pedicure, a bikini wax, or a cucumber facial. I somehow know, instinctively, that these things are of no interest to me.

Ah, yes, thinking about it would be work. Knee-jerk is
easier. Note: it doesn’t matter if your knee-jerk reaction is right or wrong, it matters that it’s a knee-jerk reaction.

I’ve never given a three-month trial to owning a hot air balloon, a turret lathe, or a subscription to "The Joys of Beastiality and Masochism" magazine. I don’t need to try these things to know that they are without interest to me.

You’re a liar. Someone who’s /found/ the "The Joys of Beastiality and Masochism" magazine must have looked in very, *very* special places, given that not even Google, Bing or DuckDuckGo have ever heard of them (outside your posting). The only reason you have no subscription to that magazine is that you’re afraid your parents could find out about your hidden desires. Bucking conformance is one of the things of puberty — as is a terrible shame about sexuality (especially towards one’s parents and other grown ups) — so you’ll be in a bind.

But at least you’ve found where the good stuff is, so there’s an even chance you’ll remember about safer sex, think about SSC, remember for instance what gag types to use (you’ll want some that won’t cut off your air, no matter what), that oxygen deprivation is a risky game, what bondages are only painful and which ones risk life and limb, how to deal with blood (see safer sex) and what a safeword is. Stuff like that is certainly a lot to keep in mind when one is playing, but it’s important.

I am also a bit more decisive than you are, evidently.

Evidently you’re (not only a bit) more prejudiced and think that’s decisive.

If I felt that
a smartphone would be useful to me, I wouldn’t have to diddle around for three months making the decision.

Neither did I say that was the right way of making a decision *for* a smartphone. Reading comprehension isn’t your forte, os it.

Do continue on your path, though. The world *is* about you in decisions involving what you need to own or try. Else, you will continue to be a person who feels that what other people do is important for you to do…even if it’s for no good reason.

From which self-help book of the 1950’s did you copy that one?

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 21, 2013
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:38:10 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 01:59:20 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:

Obviously you think that because it’s possible to be blissfully unaware of some technology there can’t be any advances in that technology.

Again, you misunderstand.

I understand you perfectly. It’s you who doesn’t understand you. It’s extremely rare that a person can understand the power of e.g. smartphones without having tried them themselves for a significant time.

I believe its much the same with methamphetamines.

At least some of the side effects are well known and I don’t feel like experiencing them (nor do I think breaking the law is a rather good career or life decision), no matter how positive the effects may be.

Therefore my decision not to touch that stuff with a 10 foot pole is well informed and reasonable — or am I wrong there?
If you could point me to a similar case of bad side effects of using smartphones …
You are leading with your chin 🙂

Just using your words "bad side effects of using smartphones":

http://www.howtolearn.com/2012/05/4-dangers-posed-by-smartph ones-on-kids

0. I’m not a kid, and have not been one for decades, so it doesn’t apply to me.
1. "Smartphones detach kids from the true essence of social interaction."
Alonso Quijano read too many books on chivalry and
detached from the true essence of social interaction,
became Don Quixote.

That meme can thus be traced to 1605 and it’s been
attached to about every mass media since: Books, radio,
TV, internet, smartphones — and always children have
been told to go outside and play instead.

It’s a case that’s so self-evident that no proof seems
needed — just like it’s obvious that granaries gestate mice (instead of them being born normally and finding a
granary by luck and having baby mice there).

2. "Smartphones can weaken children’s eye sight." And reading (and writing) in school doesn’t?

There was an enormous jump in myopia with the inuit that in the time frame where going to school became common.

Note that no proof has been offered.

3. "Smartphones can affect brain development." About anything can affect brain development. Did you
notice that with the same words you could claim that
smartphones can cause people be struck by lightning?

Proof? Not even hints. And TV, especially ads, do jump lots and lots, too.

4. "Smartphone can have detrimental effects on children’s body development."
"Online and video games are terribly addicting" — and they can only be played on smartphones, not on computers or tablets or notebooks or netbooks!

It’s just a rehash of 1).

http://www.dgupost.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1269

Nice one.
Let’s tackle the numbers: Most students (i.e. probably away from home, young, insecure, money usually not a problem) use the smartphone for communications. They did so with dumb mobile phones before (text messages AKA SMS, 22 won a piece), but were limited by the costs — which means quite a few went into debt because of it.

"Have you ever not paid attention to your work or studies because of your smart phone?" (30 no 68 yes)

Sure. Happens. Ask about notes passed in the classroom, reading a book instead of listening, comics, TV, radio, landline phone — I guess there might be a rare person who *never* was distracted in school, in university or when doing homework. Guess the TV and the radio generation also grew up and managed, even though they were at one point (or even a number of points) inattentive.

Guess I was inattentive in classroom a couple times, too. Once by just gazing out of the window and ignoring the Latin lesson. Maybe classroom windows are dangerous, too.

"Have you experienced stress from battery charging or updating applications?" (21 no 77 yes)

Have you ever experienced stress from your car’s fuel running low or not having access to your car (e.g. it being serviced or repaired)? Sure. It seems very common, too. So
obviously we are all addicted to cars. How many people die every year due to car accidents — and how many due to
smartphone accidents?

The "group of Smart Island" people have always existed. They’ve been monks in the Middle Ages, Nerds in the modern time[1] (using email and usenet and IRC where available), (some) are diagnosed with Asberger’s syndrome (at least in some expressions), others are called Geeks — they feel insecure socially in the real world. The dumb phone and smartphone allow them to communicate easier — they’d mostly have
very few if any social contacts otherwise. Ascribing their completely phone-independent troubles to a danger of the smartphone is disingenuous, to say the least.

As to pain from overuse — that’s a self-correcting problem.

Left and right brain development: So it’s bad to train the left brain half? Sure, OVERuse can be bad. Noone’s saying you should let childen watch everything on TV either, see every horror (replace with "pornographic", if in the US) movie, read every book, right?

"Also, having a stooped posture causes the possibility of having cervical disc injuries." Last I heard herniated discs still thought of as random events of bad luck — at least that’s what the doctors were telling me. Maybe they lied.

"Many Korean people are addicted to smart phones." (By the same standards, most US people are addicted to cars. See above.)

Kakao Talk — yep, that’s one (apparently locally popular) app. Let’s talk about, uh, the bugs of the Korean version of Internet Explorer to classify all computers — as very very dangerous.

"Messenger apps have been used as a medium of prostitution and obscene information." Now I am really worried — as if there wasn’t a playboy in every second newsstand and the internet and street prostitution available anyways.

"adolescents can use these apps with no limitation" So install a protection software, like you do with your kid’s computer.

All in all a impressive looking numbers which mean not much at all, a lot of FUD and woetelling.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725101222.ht m

Habits can form. Like, say, driving to the bakery
next door or to fetch cigarettes.

Habits are supposedly a problem: ‘"What concerns us here is that if your habitual response to, say, boredom, is that you pick up the phone to find interesting stimuli, you will be systematically distracted from the more important things happening around you."’ If you are *bored*, by definition NO more important things (as measured by the only scale that counts) are happening and be interesting. So that’s probably a problem when you use boredom as a punishment or think it must be morally bad to not suffer boredom gladly.

"studies are already starting to associate smartphone use to dire consequences like driving accidents …"
That’s why at least here using the phone (except no-hands) is illegal. As is driving without seat belt. BTW: this is no problem of smartphones, but of phones in general.

"… and poor work-life balance"
Yep, if you’re always on call, that’s bad for you. It means there must be a rule that you’re not called outside your paid on-call times, or be at least financially compensated well for it. That means it must be OK for you to not respond to your boss calling you. But again: that’s a problem of phones in general, even landline telephones, and of dumb cellular phones just as much as to smart phones.

… and a whole lot more.

And a lot more of the same vein: either problems that happen with other, common usages (e.g. bad eyes -> reading,
phoning/texting while driving -> dumb cell phones), are very speculative or are age-old worries about "the kids" (as if parents had to give up all control with smartphones — and that’s overuse problems), single apps misbehaving or stuff you’ll find much worse on the internet.

Or collecting completely different phenomena and ascribing them to the smartphone as a danger.

I’ll tell you a problem you haven’t named: happy slapping.

The smartphone is not the problem, it’s ‘just’ an enabler. (A feature phone works just as well.)
And it’s obvious proof how video surveillance doesn’t stop crime. (And it seems it’s way overreported by media.)

-Wolfgang

[1] in fact, Nerd used to be solely a negative word, connoting especially social isolation, before it was adopted as
a self-description.
One expansion of Nerd is "Non Emotionally Responding Dude". see a theme?
T
Tommy
May 21, 2013
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
On 2013-05-20 17:16:52 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/20/2013 5:36 PM, Tommy wrote:
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:21:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Is there an irony meter in ‘some of the things you’ve no need to try’
Yet feel the need to remark on other peoples needs

And then there ws the herring who did not want to be his brother’s kipper.

I thought that story was about an inseparable whale and herring. When the whale went missing, the herring was asked his location and responded, "I am not my blubber’s kipper."


Regards,

Savageduck

As the old seahorse said "Stop with your codding – theres a time and plaice for this – We know you’re fishing for compliments – but all you’ll get around here is crabs 🙂
TC
Tony Cooper
May 21, 2013
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:32:59 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says…
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:09:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:40:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:39:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Danny D. wrote:

If a you have Photoshop, as I do, it is hardly unsuitable for trivial tasks. What is unsuitable is *adding* a program to do a trivial task when it can be performed easily in Photoshop.

The facts:

I would use Photoshop on a trivial task because:

… to the guy who only knows a hammer …

a) Photoshop is mighty expensive.

I already own it and I purchased it for other purposes. There is no expense to me to use it on a trivial task.

… and only has a hammer, all objects are nails.

So what you’re suggesting, by this analogy, is that someone should have a selection of programs installed so a different one can be used based on the complexity of the task?

One program crop, one program, to rotate, one program to adjust color, and so on?

Only if you’re suggesting, by analogy, to only have one single program, which does everything: being the OS, containing all drivers, being all word processors that ever existed and ever will exist, all computer games that exist, special task tools (like underwater sound recognition and classification, high energy physics calculations), and *everything* /and/ the kitchen sink one can ever do with a computer …

ARE you suggesting that?
There’s no analogy in my statement. For God’s Sake, use words of which you known the meaning.

[…]

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

[…]
I follow what you said perfectly: "*I* *I* *I*".

The world really revolves round you, doesn’t it?
[…]

Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of rotation, I would use FastStone (a free program) for this purpose. I use FastStone as an image viewer, image re-numbering program, and a program that easily moves or copies files from one place to another.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it? I’m a non-commercial user, so the program is free to me. If I was a commercial user, there would be a charge. The same conditions hold true for all other users
I suppose you’re trying to make some point, but it eludes me.
While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

Maybe so. Perhaps there are hundreds of people out there who are constantly being sent .jpgs that need only to be rotated. If so, there are also hundreds of people who can’t figure out how to pre-rotate .jpgs. I think they deserve each other.

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.
Dunno myself. Ask Wolfgang. He’s the one who is being deluged with images that need rotating. No one’s sending me images that need rotating.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 22, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.

So you think having to save the image to an USB stick or some shared area on the HD, shut down your OS, boot windows (which you have to pay for, just to rotate images), rotate the
image, save it to the shared space, shut down windows, boot your OS again and continue working is a good idea?

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

-Wolfgang
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 22, 2013
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

I’m a non-commercial user, so
the program is free to me.

You’re not allowed to look at it’s guts or fix a bug yourself,

so what? users aren’t interested in fixing other people’s bugs, even if they knew how. they have more important things to do, and if the tool is buggy they’ll choose something else that isn’t.

you’re not even allowed to produce copies

who cares. if another person wants the program they can get it directly from the developer, which is a good idea anyway.

or give the program
to your neighbour (see copyright).

yes you can, assuming you retain no copies of it. not that it matters.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 22, 2013
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.

I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.

That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

Certainly. All he need do is make an appointment, come to my house, and pay a reasonable fee for my time.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it?

"FastStone is a proprietary program which I, due to an exception, am allowed to use without charge".

I am part of a group that is allowed to use it at no charge.

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

The time to rotate an image sent in need of rotation is when the image is first viewed. If I received a slew of images in need of rotation as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.
I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

I’m still wondering.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 23, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.
I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.
That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

Certainly. All he need do is make an appointment, come to my house, and pay a reasonable fee for my time.

Ah, so the idea is to spend ~$400 PER YEAR /plus/ your tution fees of a couple $100 (and that’s assuming you have Windows or OS X) for a simple task that doesn’t need either.

I understand you can’t tell Adobe for how much they rent Photoshop, but your fees you can influence.

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it?

"FastStone is a proprietary program which I, due to an exception, am allowed to use without charge".

I am part of a group that is allowed to use it at no charge.

OK, so you can express the concept properly. We are making progress here!

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

The time to rotate an image sent in need of rotation is when the image is first viewed.

Ah — no. The time to rotate an image is somewhere before it’s displayed and probably before it’s edited, but not
necessarily at first viewing. (In fact, from what I hear, sports photos shot for an agency would often be initially viewed without rotation, even when rotation info was available, because the time it takes/took the computer to display it ‘correctly’ would slow down the first rough triaging too much. Machine gun photography? Probably.)

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

I’m still wondering.

That’s OK, I’m wondering how you could still be wondering.

-Wolfgang
J
jclarkeusenet
May 23, 2013
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
J. Clarke wrote:

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.

So you think having to save the image to an USB stick or some shared area on the HD, shut down your OS, boot windows (which you have to pay for, just to rotate images), rotate the
image, save it to the shared space, shut down windows, boot your OS again and continue working is a good idea?

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned. I gave up on the other stuff ages ago–I found out that I was getting what I paid for.

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 24, 2013
On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:27:43 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.

So you think having to save the image to an USB stick or some shared area on the HD, shut down your OS, boot windows (which you have to pay for, just to rotate images), rotate the
image, save it to the shared space, shut down windows, boot your OS again and continue working is a good idea?

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!
Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

Next time someone sends me an image that needs rotation, I’ll pay particular note of how complicated the process is and report back to you. I don’t get many, though, so I’ll need some time.

Can we set a deadline? How about February, 2016. I should receive one by then.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 24, 2013
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:01:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.
I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.
That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

Certainly. All he need do is make an appointment, come to my house, and pay a reasonable fee for my time.

Ah, so the idea is to spend ~$400 PER YEAR /plus/ your tution fees of a couple $100 (and that’s assuming you have Windows or OS X) for a simple task that doesn’t need either.
Hey…it’s *your* idea. If he’s sucker enough, I’ll be glad to oblige.

I understand you can’t tell Adobe for how much they rent Photoshop, but your fees you can influence.

Can you re-do that in English?

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it?

"FastStone is a proprietary program which I, due to an exception, am allowed to use without charge".

I am part of a group that is allowed to use it at no charge.

OK, so you can express the concept properly. We are making progress here!

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

The time to rotate an image sent in need of rotation is when the image is first viewed.

Ah — no. The time to rotate an image is somewhere before it’s displayed and probably before it’s edited, but not
necessarily at first viewing. (In fact, from what I hear, sports photos shot for an agency would often be initially viewed without rotation, even when rotation info was available, because the time it takes/took the computer to display it ‘correctly’ would slow down the first rough triaging too much. Machine gun photography? Probably.)

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?
Photoshop is not a viewer. Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a viewer. Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

I am still wondering how rotating images that are sent to you is a significant enough issue for you to either be concerned about or to go to the bother of adding a program to do just this.

Since the world revolves around you, I don’t think anyone could explain to you that other people *are* different and *have* different needs.

I’m still wondering.

That’s OK, I’m wondering how you could still be wondering.

Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 24, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.

So you think having to save the image to an USB stick or some shared area on the HD, shut down your OS, boot windows (which you have to pay for, just to rotate images), rotate the
image, save it to the shared space, shut down windows, boot your OS again and continue working is a good idea?

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned.

I see — so you’re on your own if you use anything but a mobile phone camera (or maybe a compact camera), as DSLRs and so on are certainly not mainstream.

And even in DSLRs, there’s only Canon. And (maybe) Nikon. And certainly no third party lenses. And only lenses that autofocus.

I gave up on the other stuff ages ago–I found
out that I was getting what I paid for.

If that’s true for you, there are many places that are glad to take your money and handhold you day and night. In fact you can spend vastly more than a copy of Windows costs, if you like to.

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access? Does it run Windows? Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7 or 8?

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

I know of many applications that look at the EXIF and
determine the correct orientation.

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.

Please provide proof. Use scientific methods.
That *you* don’t see a need for it is obvious, but that
doesn’t say anything.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 24, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:01:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.
I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.
That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

Certainly. All he need do is make an appointment, come to my house, and pay a reasonable fee for my time.

Ah, so the idea is to spend ~$400 PER YEAR /plus/ your tution fees of a couple $100 (and that’s assuming you have Windows or OS X) for a simple task that doesn’t need either.

Hey…it’s *your* idea. If he’s sucker enough, I’ll be glad to oblige.

If that’s my idea, how come
Message-ID:
?

I understand you can’t tell Adobe for how much they rent Photoshop, but your fees you can influence.

Can you re-do that in English?

I don’t blame you for Adobe setting their prices. You can however do something about your price.

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a
viewer. Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

Screenshot annotating software does exist.
That also doesn’t stop you from using Photoshop for such tasks.

-Wolfgang
J
jclarkeusenet
May 24, 2013
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says…
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:01:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.
I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.
That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

Certainly. All he need do is make an appointment, come to my house, and pay a reasonable fee for my time.

Ah, so the idea is to spend ~$400 PER YEAR /plus/ your tution fees of a couple $100 (and that’s assuming you have Windows or OS X) for a simple task that doesn’t need either.
Hey…it’s *your* idea. If he’s sucker enough, I’ll be glad to oblige.

I understand you can’t tell Adobe for how much they rent Photoshop, but your fees you can influence.

Can you re-do that in English?

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it?

"FastStone is a proprietary program which I, due to an exception, am allowed to use without charge".

I am part of a group that is allowed to use it at no charge.

OK, so you can express the concept properly. We are making progress here!

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

The time to rotate an image sent in need of rotation is when the image is first viewed.

Ah — no. The time to rotate an image is somewhere before it’s displayed and probably before it’s edited, but not
necessarily at first viewing. (In fact, from what I hear, sports photos shot for an agency would often be initially viewed without rotation, even when rotation info was available, because the time it takes/took the computer to display it ‘correctly’ would slow down the first rough triaging too much. Machine gun photography? Probably.)

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?
Photoshop is not a viewer. Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a viewer. Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

In Lightroom some edits are possible directly from the viewer, others by going to the "developer" module which views only the selected items, if that doesn’t suffice then you can go to the full Photoshop.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 24, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?
Photoshop is not a viewer. Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a viewer.

if lightroom is a viewer then so is photoshop.

Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

if it’s opened for editing, it’s more than a ‘viewer’.

quicklook is a viewer. that’s all it does. and it doesn’t use *any* app at all.
S
Savageduck
May 24, 2013
On 2013-05-24 06:03:18 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?
Photoshop is not a viewer. Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a viewer.

if lightroom is a viewer then so is photoshop.

Photoshop CS(x) contains a viewer and library/catalog/assets management module "Bridge" which functions independently of PS CS(x). So Photoshop is not exactly a "viewer". "Mini-Bridge" is found within PS CS5&6, but is just a beens of accessing the assets managed by "Bridge" and is not a "viewer" in the most commonly used sense.

Lightroom is "Bridge" on steroids.

Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

if it’s opened for editing, it’s more than a ‘viewer’.

quicklook is a viewer. that’s all it does. and it doesn’t use *any* app at all.

….and "Preview" is a "viewer" with some limited editing capability, including rotation.


Regards,

Savageduck
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 24, 2013
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.

So you think having to save the image to an USB stick or some shared area on the HD, shut down your OS, boot windows (which you have to pay for, just to rotate images), rotate the
image, save it to the shared space, shut down windows, boot your OS again and continue working is a good idea?

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned.

I see — so you’re on your own if you use anything but a mobile phone camera (or maybe a compact camera), as DSLRs and so on are certainly not mainstream.

slrs are definitely mainstream and sold in just about every camera store.

contrast that to medium format and certainly large format, which very few stores carry, or you have to mail order it because it’s so niche that it’s not worth it for a store to bother.

And even in DSLRs, there’s only Canon. And (maybe) Nikon. And certainly no third party lenses. And only lenses that autofocus.

no maybe. canon and nikon are the two dominant players with several others taking up the rest. third party lenses are also very common.

what’s not mainstream are things like lytro or 3d cameras.

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access? Does it run Windows? Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7 or 8?

people don’t plug a keyboard and a display into a router and run apps on it, so it does not matter what operating system is in it.

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

it’s isn’t always lossless on linux or any other system either.

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

I know of many applications that look at the EXIF and
determine the correct orientation.

that’s the correct way to do it.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 24, 2013
On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:35:32 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:01:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.
I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.
That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

Certainly. All he need do is make an appointment, come to my house, and pay a reasonable fee for my time.

Ah, so the idea is to spend ~$400 PER YEAR /plus/ your tution fees of a couple $100 (and that’s assuming you have Windows or OS X) for a simple task that doesn’t need either.

Hey…it’s *your* idea. If he’s sucker enough, I’ll be glad to oblige.

If that’s my idea, how come
Message-ID:
?
Dunno. That link opens a message that doesn’t seem to relate at all to question you asked about my willingness to the train the OP.

I understand you can’t tell Adobe for how much they rent Photoshop, but your fees you can influence.

Can you re-do that in English?

I don’t blame you for Adobe setting their prices. You can however do something about your price.

I haven’t named a price for my time, and already you’re objecting to it?

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a
viewer. Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

Screenshot annotating software does exist.
That also doesn’t stop you from using Photoshop for such tasks.

Haven’t you circled back here? Your position is to have multiple individual programs with specialty function. My position is to use what I have to do it if it can be done with what I have.

That’s OK. If one of your running commentaries didn’t eventually break down into an Ouroboros, it just wouldn’t seem like Wolfgang.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 24, 2013
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:57:23 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says…
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:01:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

e) The learning curve for ‘easy’ in Photoshop is way steeper.
I’ve mastered the curve. Well, for most functions.
That’s relevant to the OP because you’re offering to teach him, right?

Well?

Certainly. All he need do is make an appointment, come to my house, and pay a reasonable fee for my time.

Ah, so the idea is to spend ~$400 PER YEAR /plus/ your tution fees of a couple $100 (and that’s assuming you have Windows or OS X) for a simple task that doesn’t need either.
Hey…it’s *your* idea. If he’s sucker enough, I’ll be glad to oblige.

I understand you can’t tell Adobe for how much they rent Photoshop, but your fees you can influence.

Can you re-do that in English?

Faststone is not "a free program", absolutely not as in FOSS and only in very limited circumstances as in beer. Let someone read http://www.faststone.org/order.htm
to you and then let someone explain the meaning to you.

Yes, I read it. It says the FastStone’s image viewer is free for personal and educational use, but there is a charge for commercial use. Since "I" am a non-commercial user, the program is free.

Ah, yes, the world really revolves around you and everybody is just like you, too: a non-commercial user. Can’t be
anything else.

What other way is there to express it?

"FastStone is a proprietary program which I, due to an exception, am allowed to use without charge".

I am part of a group that is allowed to use it at no charge.

OK, so you can express the concept properly. We are making progress here!

While I could do this in Bridge, FastStone does some things Bridge doesn’t do so I use it.

So why don’t you use Photoshop?

Do what?

Reading service: you said (it’s still visible above):
| Actually, while people don’t send me JPEGs in need of
| rotation, I would use FastStone
If you have problems remembering what you wrote so recently, get help. If you’re just playing dense, get lost.

The time to rotate an image sent in need of rotation is when the image is first viewed.

Ah — no. The time to rotate an image is somewhere before it’s displayed and probably before it’s edited, but not
necessarily at first viewing. (In fact, from what I hear, sports photos shot for an agency would often be initially viewed without rotation, even when rotation info was available, because the time it takes/took the computer to display it ‘correctly’ would slow down the first rough triaging too much. Machine gun photography? Probably.)

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?
Photoshop is not a viewer. Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a viewer. Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

In Lightroom some edits are possible directly from the viewer, others by going to the "developer" module which views only the selected items, if that doesn’t suffice then you can go to the full Photoshop.
Yes, for that matter, Irfanview and FastStone are viewers in which you can do some editing. My point is that the Lightroom Library module’s basic function is that of a viewer. But, that is not the only function.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 24, 2013
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:03:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?
Photoshop is not a viewer. Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a viewer.

if lightroom is a viewer then so is photoshop.

I suppose it depends on how you define "Viewer". If you define "Viewer" as any program that has the capability of displaying an image, then even something like "Paint" is a viewer. Personally, I define "Viewer" as a program that allows one to view multiple images in a gallery format. You may not use the same definition.

Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

if it’s opened for editing, it’s more than a ‘viewer’.

That doesn’t make sense. The viewer isn’t opened for editing. The viewer opens the file for editing.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 24, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

very easily. select a bunch of images and open them.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 24, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

if it’s opened for editing, it’s more than a ‘viewer’.

That doesn’t make sense.

yes it does.

The viewer isn’t opened for editing.

nobody said it was.

The viewer opens the file for editing.

which means it’s not a viewer, it’s an editor which is being used only for viewing.
TC
Tony Cooper
May 24, 2013
On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:09:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

very easily. select a bunch of images and open them.

And who is the one who constantly whines about "arguing for the sake of arguing"? If you have Photoshop, you know it is not a practical viewer in any sense of the word.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
TC
Tony Cooper
May 24, 2013
On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:09:30 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

if it’s opened for editing, it’s more than a ‘viewer’.

That doesn’t make sense.

yes it does

The viewer isn’t opened for editing.

nobody said it was.

Use an ambiguous "it", and you should expect not be understood.

The viewer opens the file for editing.

which means it’s not a viewer, it’s an editor which is being used only for viewing.

Nonsense. The viewer links to the file which is opened in the editor.

What you have said is similar to saying the door to the kitchen is used for cooking because one goes through the door to get to where the cooking is done.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 25, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

very easily. select a bunch of images and open them.

And who is the one who constantly whines about "arguing for the sake of arguing"? If you have Photoshop, you know it is not a practical viewer in any sense of the word.

i guess all of the times i’ve used it to view images never happened.

usually i use quicklook but a lot of times i will use photoshop, especially if it’s already running, which means i don’t have to launch yet another app.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 25, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

if it’s opened for editing, it’s more than a ‘viewer’.

That doesn’t make sense.

yes it does

The viewer isn’t opened for editing.

nobody said it was.

Use an ambiguous "it", and you should expect not be understood.

it’s fairly obvious what was meant. the discussion was about viewing images, not editing a viewer which doesn’t even make sense.

The viewer opens the file for editing.

which means it’s not a viewer, it’s an editor which is being used only for viewing.

Nonsense. The viewer links to the file which is opened in the editor.

except when it’s the same app, such as photoshop, preview, etc.

if you mean bridge, that can do limited editing, such as rotation, which is what this was about in the first place.

What you have said is similar to saying the door to the kitchen is used for cooking because one goes through the door to get to where the cooking is done.

nothing like that at all.
S
Savageduck
May 25, 2013
On 2013-05-24 16:40:03 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:09:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

very easily. select a bunch of images and open them.

And who is the one who constantly whines about "arguing for the sake of arguing"? If you have Photoshop, you know it is not a practical viewer in any sense of the word.

….and what the hell is Bridge for?

Regards,

Savageduck
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 25, 2013
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:35:32 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:01:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Hey…it’s *your* idea. If he’s sucker enough, I’ll be glad to oblige.

If that’s my idea, how come
Message-ID:
?
Dunno. That link opens a message that doesn’t seem to relate at all to question you asked about my willingness to the train the OP.

Seems you have lost the context. Try finding it again.

I understand you can’t tell Adobe for how much they rent Photoshop, but your fees you can influence.

Can you re-do that in English?

I don’t blame you for Adobe setting their prices. You can however do something about your price.

I haven’t named a price for my time, and already you’re objecting to it?

Of course. You advocate expensive photoshop because you object to no cost and free software that does photo editing on the basis that a can-do-everything-program like photoshop is somehow superior for that task. Then you also don’t want to train the OP for free.

If I received a slew of images in need of rotation
as you seem to be plagued with, I’d view the folder into which they were downloaded with FastStone. I’d only open them in PS if I wanted to do some additional editing functions.

| So why don’t you use Photoshop?
for initial viewing. You seem to advocate that a limited, special case handling of screen shots shouldn’t be done with a specialized software — so why should viewing be handled by a specialized software?

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

Open several photoshop windows? Why use a program that can do less, even if it’s better for a specific task at hand?

Bridge is a viewer. Lightroom is a
viewer. Elements has a viewer module. In all three cases, an image can be opened for editing from the viewer.

Screenshot annotating software does exist.
That also doesn’t stop you from using Photoshop for such tasks.

Haven’t you circled back here? Your position is to have multiple individual programs with specialty function.

My position is that a program should do one task and do it well; and that they are able to be used as building blocks wherever possible.
My standard example is the ‘ls’ program, which lists files in a directory. No, unlike the Windows exporer it doesn’t move them and doesn’t even allow you to change the current directory. But it can do a lot of tricks the explorer can’t.

For special tasks that happen repeatedly to you a matching special task software usually makes sense. OK, if you know photoshop and annotate 1 screenshot a year this may be
different, but that’s obviously not what the OP wants.

My position is to use
what I have to do it if it can be done with what I have.

If all you have is a hammer … yes, you *can* hammer in screws, lenses, window panes. That doesn’t make that a great idea, though, just because a screw driver is more limited in application.

-Wolfgang
TC
Tony Cooper
May 25, 2013
On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:17:33 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-05-24 16:40:03 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:09:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

very easily. select a bunch of images and open them.

And who is the one who constantly whines about "arguing for the sake of arguing"? If you have Photoshop, you know it is not a practical viewer in any sense of the word.

…and what the hell is Bridge for?

Snippage is a problem here. I said Bridge is a viewer.

While it is possible to open, say, 10 images in PS and use it as a viewer, it’s a very impractical operation. If they are RAW files, they will open in RAW module. If they are .psd or .jpg or .tiff, they will open in PS. In any case, you will have to take the extra step of closing ten files or "close all". In Bridge, you will have a gallery-type display and merely arrow to the next image with no need to close any.

The whole idea of a viewer is to see each file and decide which need opening and editing. If you are going open and edit every file, you can do it in PS but you really aren’t using PS as a viewer with that method.

By "editing", I mean anything from converting a RAW file to a .psd, ..tiff, or .jpg to re-sizing or cropping. Nothing more need be done to be "editing", but much more can be done.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
S
Savageduck
May 25, 2013
On 2013-05-24 19:40:55 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:17:33 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-05-24 16:40:03 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:09:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

very easily. select a bunch of images and open them.

And who is the one who constantly whines about "arguing for the sake of arguing"? If you have Photoshop, you know it is not a practical viewer in any sense of the word.

…and what the hell is Bridge for?

Snippage is a problem here. I said Bridge is a viewer.

I know! I know!
I guess my rhetorical question flag wasn’t prominent enough. 😉

While it is possible to open, say, 10 images in PS and use it as a viewer, it’s a very impractical operation. If they are RAW files, they will open in RAW module. If they are .psd or .jpg or .tiff, they will open in PS. In any case, you will have to take the extra step of closing ten files or "close all". In Bridge, you will have a gallery-type display and merely arrow to the next image with no need to close any.

The whole idea of a viewer is to see each file and decide which need opening and editing. If you are going open and edit every file, you can do it in PS but you really aren’t using PS as a viewer with that method.

By "editing", I mean anything from converting a RAW file to a .psd, .tiff, or .jpg to re-sizing or cropping. Nothing more need be done to be "editing", but much more can be done.

Yup!
That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?


Regards,

Savageduck
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 25, 2013
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

While it is possible to open, say, 10 images in PS and use it as a viewer, it’s a very impractical operation.

actually it works rather well for it.

If they are RAW files,
they will open in RAW module. If they are .psd or .jpg or .tiff, they will open in PS.

depends on the settings, and camera raw can display multiple thumbnail images.

In any case, you will have to take the extra step of
closing ten files or "close all".

close all is one step.

In Bridge, you will have a
gallery-type display and merely arrow to the next image with no need to close any.

it’s a different app and neither is ‘better’. it depends what you want to do. if you want bigger images than thumbnails, you might end up opening them in photoshop *anyway*.

The whole idea of a viewer is to see each file and decide which need opening and editing. If you are going open and edit every file, you can do it in PS but you really aren’t using PS as a viewer with that method.

if you view images, you are using it as a viewer. it’s certainly overkill but it can be used for that purpose.
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 25, 2013
In article ,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?

if ps is currently running, why not?

also, if the image to be viewed is a photoshop document, then it’s likely the best choice.
J
jclarkeusenet
May 25, 2013
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

I don’t understand why anybody would want a program to rotate images. Windows has this built in with what I find to be very acceptable functionality.

So you think having to save the image to an USB stick or some shared area on the HD, shut down your OS, boot windows (which you have to pay for, just to rotate images), rotate the
image, save it to the shared space, shut down windows, boot your OS again and continue working is a good idea?

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned.

I see — so you’re on your own if you use anything but a mobile phone camera (or maybe a compact camera), as DSLRs and so on are certainly not mainstream.

And even in DSLRs, there’s only Canon. And (maybe) Nikon. And certainly no third party lenses. And only lenses that autofocus.

So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

I gave up on the other stuff ages ago–I found
out that I was getting what I paid for.

If that’s true for you, there are many places that are glad to take your money and handhold you day and night. In fact you can spend vastly more than a copy of Windows costs, if you like to.

Nobody "handholds" me, I handhold others. But there’s not as much market for that as there used to be.

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access?

Yes.

Does
it run Windows?

Yes.

Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7
or 8?

I was not aware that Western Electric phones had operating systems.

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

Yes, the one provided by the OS is alwasy lossless. It flips a bit indicating orientation.

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

I know of many applications that look at the EXIF and
determine the correct orientation.

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.

Please provide proof. Use scientific methods.
That *you* don’t see a need for it is obvious, but that
doesn’t say anything.

You’re the one asserting need, it’s up to you to show that the need exists.
S
Savageduck
May 25, 2013
On 2013-05-24 21:13:15 -0700, nospam said:

In article ,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?

if ps is currently running, why not?

also, if the image to be viewed is a photoshop document, then it’s likely the best choice.

Not necessarily. Actually not the best choice at all for multiple image files. For example, I shoot RAW, not RAW+JPEG, but RAW. Try opening, say 10 NEF image files in CS6 at once. Each of those would have to be processed through ACR before being opened in Photoshop. This is not exactly an efficient way to "view" a bunch of RAW image files.

Personally, my workflow uses LR+CS in tandem, both are quite capable of handling Photoshop documents, as is the Bridge+CS workflow combo which I use from time to time.

If I am using CS6 for a single file I might have an opportunity to work on, I have no need for a "viewer" I just open that file, RAW or otherwise in CS6. If RAW, ACR will open to give me the various process options I need to get the RAW into CS6.

All my "viewing" I will do in LR4, Bridge, or Preview, each of those has little trouble with Photoshop documents or RAW files.


Regards,

Savageduck
TC
Tony Cooper
May 25, 2013
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:13:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

While it is possible to open, say, 10 images in PS and use it as a viewer, it’s a very impractical operation.

actually it works rather well for it.

If they are RAW files,
they will open in RAW module. If they are .psd or .jpg or .tiff, they will open in PS.

depends on the settings, and camera raw can display multiple thumbnail images.

In any case, you will have to take the extra step of
closing ten files or "close all".

close all is one step.

In Bridge, you will have a
gallery-type display and merely arrow to the next image with no need to close any.

it’s a different app and neither is ‘better’. it depends what you want to do. if you want bigger images than thumbnails, you might end up opening them in photoshop *anyway*.

I assume you’ve never used Bridge. Tapping the space bar when a thumbnail is active in Bridge makes the image display full screen. This is a larger view than the image in PS because no screen space is taken by anything other than the image.

With the image as full screen, use of the arrow keys will move to the next image, and in full screen view.

If you do want to view thumbnails, there is a slider adjustment that sets the size of the thumbnail. Using the "Light Table" module, on my screen, the smallest setting displays a row of 39 thumbnails, and on the largest setting it displays 2.5 images on my primary screen and a single image 10" wide on my second screen. The larger setting displays a image on my primary screen at 7" wide.

With two screens, as I have, I can use Bridge as a viewer of very large images on one screen, and open and edit a file on the other screen.

Let’s make a deal: I won’t tell you how iPhone apps work because I’ve never used any, and you don’t tell me how a program that you’ve never used works.


Tony Cooper – Orlando FL
P
PeterN
May 25, 2013
On 5/25/2013 12:13 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

While it is possible to open, say, 10 images in PS and use it as a viewer, it’s a very impractical operation.

actually it works rather well for it.

If they are RAW files,
they will open in RAW module. If they are .psd or .jpg or .tiff, they will open in PS.

depends on the settings, and camera raw can display multiple thumbnail images.

In any case, you will have to take the extra step of
closing ten files or "close all".

close all is one step.

In Bridge, you will have a
gallery-type display and merely arrow to the next image with no need to close any.

it’s a different app and neither is ‘better’. it depends what you want to do. if you want bigger images than thumbnails, you might end up opening them in photoshop *anyway*.
Have you tried fiilmstrip mode in Brodge.

The whole idea of a viewer is to see each file and decide which need opening and editing. If you are going open and edit every file, you can do it in PS but you really aren’t using PS as a viewer with that method.

if you view images, you are using it as a viewer. it’s certainly overkill but it can be used for that purpose.
Can be, yes. Practical to do so, no.


PeterN
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 25, 2013
In article ,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?

if ps is currently running, why not?

also, if the image to be viewed is a photoshop document, then it’s likely the best choice.

Not necessarily.

what do you suggest as a better alternative for a photoshop document than photoshop itself?

you can see the embedded composite in other apps but that’s not always useful.

Actually not the best choice at all for multiple image
files.

depends. sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

For example, I shoot RAW, not RAW+JPEG, but RAW. Try opening, say 10 NEF image files in CS6 at once. Each of those would have to be processed through ACR before being opened in Photoshop. This is not exactly an efficient way to "view" a bunch of RAW image files.

i was talking about psd. if you want to talk about nefs, then you can easily open multiple raws, see thumbnails of all of them and process them together, all in camera raw, and then open all of them into separate photoshop documents.

Personally, my workflow uses LR+CS in tandem, both are quite capable of handling Photoshop documents, as is the Bridge+CS workflow combo which I use from time to time.

i use lightroom almost exclusively, unless i want to do something specific for a single photo.

If I am using CS6 for a single file I might have an opportunity to work on, I have no need for a "viewer" I just open that file, RAW or otherwise in CS6. If RAW, ACR will open to give me the various process options I need to get the RAW into CS6.

All my "viewing" I will do in LR4, Bridge, or Preview, each of those has little trouble with Photoshop documents or RAW files.

nearly all of my ‘viewing’ is quicklook. what could be easier than tap and view?

however, if photoshop is already open, i might open it there. there is no one perfect app for all situations.

many times i drag the image to a browser. this even works from another web page.
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 25, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned.

I see — so you’re on your own if you use anything but a mobile phone camera (or maybe a compact camera), as DSLRs and so on are certainly not mainstream.

And even in DSLRs, there’s only Canon. And (maybe) Nikon. And certainly no third party lenses. And only lenses that autofocus.

So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

Oh, I’d say most any household contains windows and glass. But most any window is to not conductive to quality photography.

I gave up on the other stuff ages ago–I found
out that I was getting what I paid for.

If that’s true for you, there are many places that are glad to take your money and handhold you day and night. In fact you can spend vastly more than a copy of Windows costs, if you like to.

Nobody "handholds" me, I handhold others. But there’s not as much market for that as there used to be.

What does it say when "you get what you paid for" when you’re actually *paid* to touch that stuff?

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access?

Yes.

Does
it run Windows?

Yes.

Which make and model is your modem and your router?

Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7
or 8?

I was not aware that Western Electric phones had operating systems.

Oh, you’re still on a purely mechanical switching board, too?

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

Yes, the one provided by the OS is alwasy lossless. It flips a bit indicating orientation.

That’s not rotation, and you know it.

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

I know of many applications that look at the EXIF and
determine the correct orientation.

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

Really? Then my camera is half-broken, because I can tell it to disregard the so-called ‘correct’ orientation from the EXIF.

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.

Please provide proof. Use scientific methods.
That *you* don’t see a need for it is obvious, but that
doesn’t say anything.

You’re the one asserting need,

You first asserted no need. So it’s up to you to prove it.

it’s up to you to show that the need
exists.

"E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …" Over to you.

I do need you to consider paying me for handholding you
through reading postings.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 25, 2013
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
On 2013-05-24 21:13:15 -0700, nospam said:
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?

if ps is currently running, why not?

also, if the image to be viewed is a photoshop document, then it’s likely the best choice.

Not necessarily. Actually not the best choice at all for multiple image files. For example, I shoot RAW, not RAW+JPEG, but RAW. Try opening, say 10 NEF image files in CS6 at once. Each of those would have to be processed through ACR before being opened in Photoshop. This is not exactly an efficient way to "view" a bunch of RAW image files.

You found the crucial point of the whole discussion: "Possible but not exactly efficient".

-Wolfgang
J
jclarkeusenet
May 26, 2013
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned.

I see — so you’re on your own if you use anything but a mobile phone camera (or maybe a compact camera), as DSLRs and so on are certainly not mainstream.

And even in DSLRs, there’s only Canon. And (maybe) Nikon. And certainly no third party lenses. And only lenses that autofocus.

So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

Oh, I’d say most any household contains windows and glass. But most any window is to not conductive to quality photography.

Are you on the same drugs as Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes?

I gave up on the other stuff ages ago–I found
out that I was getting what I paid for.

If that’s true for you, there are many places that are glad to take your money and handhold you day and night. In fact you can spend vastly more than a copy of Windows costs, if you like to.

Nobody "handholds" me, I handhold others. But there’s not as much market for that as there used to be.

What does it say when "you get what you paid for" when you’re actually *paid* to touch that stuff?

Now you ask. Freeware that I have used has a variety of shortcomings ranging from poor performance and crappy documentation to just plain lack of features. I resisted Windows for a long long time before finally recognizing that it just plain wasn’t worth the effort.

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access?

Yes.

Does
it run Windows?

Yes.

Which make and model is your modem and your router?

J. Clarke 005.

Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7
or 8?

I was not aware that Western Electric phones had operating systems.

Oh, you’re still on a purely mechanical switching board, too?

I have no idea what relevance a "switching board" whatever that might be has to the discussion.

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

Yes, the one provided by the OS is alwasy lossless. It flips a bit indicating orientation.

That’s not rotation, and you know it.

Actually that is how 90 degree rotations work with JPEGs.

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

I know of many applications that look at the EXIF and
determine the correct orientation.

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

Really? Then my camera is half-broken, because I can tell it to disregard the so-called ‘correct’ orientation from the EXIF.

Your telling it to ignore something that it has successfully recognized is not breakage.

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.

Please provide proof. Use scientific methods.
That *you* don’t see a need for it is obvious, but that
doesn’t say anything.

You’re the one asserting need,

You first asserted no need. So it’s up to you to prove it.

You are aware are you not that if you tried that one in a US court the opposing council would say "objection" and the judge would say "sustained"?

it’s up to you to show that the need
exists.

"E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …" Over to you.

I have no idea what relevance Smugmug has to the discussion.

I do need you to consider paying me for handholding you
through reading postings.

First you need to provide something of value.
S
Savageduck
May 26, 2013
On 2013-05-26 07:12:37 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:

In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
J. Clarke wrote:

<<< Le Snip >>>
So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

Oh, I’d say most any household contains windows and glass. But most any window is to not conductive to quality photography.

Are you on the same drugs as Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes?

It sounds more like a Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Never mind" moment.


Regards,

Savageduck
GK
George Kerby
May 26, 2013
On 5/26/13 10:17 AM, in article
, "Savageduck"
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-05-26 07:12:37 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
J. Clarke wrote:

<<< Le Snip >>>
So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

Oh, I’d say most any household contains windows and glass. But most any window is to not conductive to quality photography.

Are you on the same drugs as Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes?

It sounds more like a Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Never mind" moment.

That was Emily, not Roseanne, Duck…
AB
Alan Browne
May 26, 2013
On 2013.05.24 20:07 , nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not a viewer.

So what?
Photoshop is also not a screenshot annotator, that doesn’t stop you from using it as such.

But I can annotate screenshots in PS. I don’t know how I could use PS as a viewer of multiple images.

very easily. select a bunch of images and open them.

And who is the one who constantly whines about "arguing for the sake of arguing"? If you have Photoshop, you know it is not a practical viewer in any sense of the word.

i guess all of the times i’ve used it to view images never happened.
usually i use quicklook but a lot of times i will use photoshop, especially if it’s already running, which means i don’t have to launch yet another app.

I would use PS to "view" a few images if PS were already running – agreed.

But to look at a bunch, I would open Bridge (or even the underwhelming Apple Preview) even if PS were already running.

Quicklook doesn’t always render .jpg’s sharply for some reason.

Launch times for apps and memory penalties are nearing no-impact. My next computer will get an immediate upgrade to 24 GB and eventually 32 GB. It will likely have a fusion drive meaning very fast loads for even large programs.

Although with that much memory I’ll probably just leave PS and Bridge (and several other large apps) loaded at all times.


"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton
S
Savageduck
May 26, 2013
On 2013-05-26 08:26:57 -0700, George Kerby said:

On 5/26/13 10:17 AM, in article
, "Savageduck"
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2013-05-26 07:12:37 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
J. Clarke wrote:

<<< Le Snip >>>
So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

Oh, I’d say most any household contains windows and glass. But most any window is to not conductive to quality photography.

Are you on the same drugs as Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes?

It sounds more like a Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Never mind" moment.

That was Emily, not Roseanne, Duck…

Just Gilda Radner wackiness all the same. 😉


Regards,

Savageduck
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 26, 2013
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

usually i use quicklook but a lot of times i will use photoshop, especially if it’s already running, which means i don’t have to launch yet another app.

I would use PS to "view" a few images if PS were already running – agreed.
But to look at a bunch, I would open Bridge (or even the underwhelming Apple Preview) even if PS were already running.

i use preview sometimes too.

Quicklook doesn’t always render .jpg’s sharply for some reason.

it should be the same if they’re both displayed at the same size.

Launch times for apps and memory penalties are nearing no-impact. My next computer will get an immediate upgrade to 24 GB and eventually 32 GB. It will likely have a fusion drive meaning very fast loads for even large programs.

that’s the thinking behind auto-quit. it relaunches so fast and saved state, you don’t realize it wasn’t running.

Although with that much memory I’ll probably just leave PS and Bridge (and several other large apps) loaded at all times.

what if the os quits it for you?
ES
Eric Stevens
May 26, 2013
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:47:08 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

There still cameras around which haven’t a clue which way up they are being held and hence don’t any orientation data in the EXIF. No application can tell the correct orientation of their photographs from the EXIF.


Regards,

Eric Stevens
ES
Eric Stevens
May 26, 2013
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:59:32 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
On 2013-05-24 21:13:15 -0700, nospam said:
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?

if ps is currently running, why not?

also, if the image to be viewed is a photoshop document, then it’s likely the best choice.

Not necessarily. Actually not the best choice at all for multiple image files. For example, I shoot RAW, not RAW+JPEG, but RAW. Try opening, say 10 NEF image files in CS6 at once.

Yet I have done that more than once with NX2. The slowest part is clicking through the various overlapping open windows.

Each of those would have to be
processed through ACR before being opened in Photoshop. This is not exactly an efficient way to "view" a bunch of RAW image files.

You found the crucial point of the whole discussion: "Possible but not exactly efficient".

-Wolfgang


Regards,

Eric Stevens
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 26, 2013
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

There still cameras around which haven’t a clue which way up they are being held and hence don’t any orientation data in the EXIF. No application can tell the correct orientation of their photographs from the EXIF.

not many, and those cameras are broken.
S
Savageduck
May 26, 2013
On 2013-05-26 15:13:23 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:59:32 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
On 2013-05-24 21:13:15 -0700, nospam said:
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?

if ps is currently running, why not?

also, if the image to be viewed is a photoshop document, then it’s likely the best choice.

Not necessarily. Actually not the best choice at all for multiple image files. For example, I shoot RAW, not RAW+JPEG, but RAW. Try opening, say 10 NEF image files in CS6 at once.

Yet I have done that more than once with NX2. The slowest part is clicking through the various overlapping open windows.

It can be done, most commonly in batch RAW processing. However, PS still makes a rather tedious "viewer" when there are others which do a better job.
The two very good "viewers" to use in combination with PS are Bridge or Lightroom.

Each of those would have to be
processed through ACR before being opened in Photoshop. This is not exactly an efficient way to "view" a bunch of RAW image files.

You found the crucial point of the whole discussion: "Possible but not exactly efficient".

-Wolfgang


Regards,

Eric Stevens


Regards,

Savageduck
ES
Eric Stevens
May 27, 2013
On Sun, 26 May 2013 18:13:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

There still cameras around which haven’t a clue which way up they are being held and hence don’t any orientation data in the EXIF. No application can tell the correct orientation of their photographs from the EXIF.

not many, and those cameras are broken.

Hardly ‘broken’ if they have been made that way.


Regards,

Eric Stevens
AS
Axel Siebenwirth
May 27, 2013
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

There still cameras around which haven’t a clue which way up they are being held and hence don’t any orientation data in the EXIF. No application can tell the correct orientation of their photographs from the EXIF.

not many, and those cameras are broken.

Hardly ‘broken’ if they have been made that way.

broken design. they’re not writing necessary information that every other camera has written for over a decade.
P
PeterN
May 27, 2013
On 5/26/2013 6:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-26 15:13:23 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:59:32 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
On 2013-05-24 21:13:15 -0700, nospam said:
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

That leaves one question to be asked; who would actually use PS of any
flavor as a "viewer" when there are far better tools to use, especially
when one of those tools (Bridge) is a part of the PS CS package?

if ps is currently running, why not?

also, if the image to be viewed is a photoshop document, then it’s likely the best choice.

Not necessarily. Actually not the best choice at all for multiple image files. For example, I shoot RAW, not RAW+JPEG, but RAW. Try opening, say 10 NEF image files in CS6 at once.

Yet I have done that more than once with NX2. The slowest part is clicking through the various overlapping open windows.

It can be done, most commonly in batch RAW processing. However, PS still makes a rather tedious "viewer" when there are others which do a better job.
The two very good "viewers" to use in combination with PS are Bridge or Lightroom.

Nikon View and DXO are up there too, if we disregard that they can’t see PSD files.

Each of those would have to be
processed through ACR before being opened in Photoshop. This is not exactly an efficient way to "view" a bunch of RAW image files.

You found the crucial point of the whole discussion: "Possible but not exactly efficient".

-Wolfgang


Regards,

Eric Stevens


PeterN
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 28, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned.

I see — so you’re on your own if you use anything but a mobile phone camera (or maybe a compact camera), as DSLRs and so on are certainly not mainstream.

And even in DSLRs, there’s only Canon. And (maybe) Nikon. And certainly no third party lenses. And only lenses that autofocus.

So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

Oh, I’d say most any household contains windows and glass. But most any window is to not conductive to quality photography.

Are you on the same drugs as Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes?

I don’t know them, but if you give me the list of drugs
they’re on, I cna tell you.

I gave up on the other stuff ages ago–I found
out that I was getting what I paid for.

If that’s true for you, there are many places that are glad to take your money and handhold you day and night. In fact you can spend vastly more than a copy of Windows costs, if you like to.

Nobody "handholds" me, I handhold others. But there’s not as much market for that as there used to be.

What does it say when "you get what you paid for" when you’re actually *paid* to touch that stuff?

Now you ask.

Well?

Freeware that I have used has a variety of shortcomings ranging from poor performance and crappy documentation to just plain lack of features.

Well, that’s Freeware for you. You should try free (libre) software one day.

I resisted Windows for a long long time before
finally recognizing that it just plain wasn’t worth the effort.

"Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing" (I sing the song of the one who’s bread I eat.)
So you’re getting paid for using Windows, and resisted it before that?

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access?

Yes.

Does
it run Windows?

Yes.

Which make and model is your modem and your router?

J. Clarke 005.

You’re whistling into your phone at 300 baud?

Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7
or 8?

I was not aware that Western Electric phones had operating systems.

Oh, you’re still on a purely mechanical switching board, too?

I have no idea what relevance a "switching board" whatever that might be has to the discussion.

It seems you’re living a century or two before our time.

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

Yes, the one provided by the OS is alwasy lossless. It flips a bit indicating orientation.

That’s not rotation, and you know it.

Actually that is how 90 degree rotations work with JPEGs.

Is that the only way because you take drugs or because you didn’t take your drugs?

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

I know of many applications that look at the EXIF and
determine the correct orientation.

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

Really? Then my camera is half-broken, because I can tell it to disregard the so-called ‘correct’ orientation from the EXIF.

Your telling it to ignore something that it has successfully recognized is not breakage.

"Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken." I can tell my camera not to "determine the correct orientation from the EXIF". Do you need help connecting the dots?

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.

Please provide proof. Use scientific methods.
That *you* don’t see a need for it is obvious, but that
doesn’t say anything.

You’re the one asserting need,

You first asserted no need. So it’s up to you to prove it.

You are aware are you not that if you tried that one in a US court the opposing council would say "objection" and the judge would say "sustained"?

You are aware that I don’t give a s**t how *you* imagine *your* broken law system handles a situation?

You’re the one telling the judge that there should be no X, because there’s no need.

it’s up to you to show that the need
exists.

"E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …" Over to you.

I have no idea what relevance Smugmug has to the discussion.

How do you imagine they rotate images — which they allow? Pray tell.

I do need you to consider paying me for handholding you
through reading postings.

First you need to provide something of value.

Bringing your overblown ego down.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 28, 2013
Alan Browne wrote:

Launch times for apps and memory penalties are nearing no-impact.

Dream on. They’ve been nearing no-impact since forever.

My
next computer will get an immediate upgrade to 24 GB and eventually 32 GB. It will likely have a fusion drive meaning very fast loads for even large programs.

Unfortunately, load times are small compared to setup times.

-Wolfgang
J
jclarkeusenet
May 29, 2013
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says…
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

Hey, if you’re not using the mainstream OS then you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned.

I see — so you’re on your own if you use anything but a mobile phone camera (or maybe a compact camera), as DSLRs and so on are certainly not mainstream.

And even in DSLRs, there’s only Canon. And (maybe) Nikon. And certainly no third party lenses. And only lenses that autofocus.

So what percentage of US households contain one of those? What percentage contain Windows?

Oh, I’d say most any household contains windows and glass. But most any window is to not conductive to quality photography.

Are you on the same drugs as Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes?

I don’t know them, but if you give me the list of drugs
they’re on, I cna tell you.

I gave up on the other stuff ages ago–I found
out that I was getting what I paid for.

If that’s true for you, there are many places that are glad to take your money and handhold you day and night. In fact you can spend vastly more than a copy of Windows costs, if you like to.

Nobody "handholds" me, I handhold others. But there’s not as much market for that as there used to be.

What does it say when "you get what you paid for" when you’re actually *paid* to touch that stuff?

Now you ask.

Well?

Freeware that I have used has a variety of shortcomings ranging from poor performance and crappy documentation to just plain lack of features.

Well, that’s Freeware for you. You should try free (libre) software one day.

Lay off the drugs. If you think you’re making some kind of meaningful distinction with that statement you have no contact with reality.

I resisted Windows for a long long time before
finally recognizing that it just plain wasn’t worth the effort.

"Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing" (I sing the song of the one who’s bread I eat.)
So you’re getting paid for using Windows, and resisted it before that?

If there is a way to get paid for using Windows please enlighten me. I could use the money.

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access?

Yes.

Does
it run Windows?

Yes.

Which make and model is your modem and your router?

J. Clarke 005.

You’re whistling into your phone at 300 baud?

Nope. Homebrew.

Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7
or 8?

I was not aware that Western Electric phones had operating systems.

Oh, you’re still on a purely mechanical switching board, too?

I have no idea what relevance a "switching board" whatever that might be has to the discussion.

It seems you’re living a century or two before our time.

In other words you’re just coughing up word salad.

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

Yes, the one provided by the OS is alwasy lossless. It flips a bit indicating orientation.

That’s not rotation, and you know it.

Actually that is how 90 degree rotations work with JPEGs.

Is that the only way because you take drugs or because you didn’t take your drugs?

OK, tell us how it does work with JPEGs since you’re so sure that there’s some other way that it works. Works that way with RAW too.

Automatic rotation, without having to click and mouse around? Oh, but you sit in front of the computer anyway?

You know of an application that analyzes the content and determines the correct orientation?

I know of many applications that look at the EXIF and
determine the correct orientation.

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

Really? Then my camera is half-broken, because I can tell it to disregard the so-called ‘correct’ orientation from the EXIF.

Your telling it to ignore something that it has successfully recognized is not breakage.

"Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken." I can tell my camera not to "determine the correct orientation from the EXIF". Do you need help connecting the dots?

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.

Please provide proof. Use scientific methods.
That *you* don’t see a need for it is obvious, but that
doesn’t say anything.

You’re the one asserting need,

You first asserted no need. So it’s up to you to prove it.

You are aware are you not that if you tried that one in a US court the opposing council would say "objection" and the judge would say "sustained"?

You are aware that I don’t give a s**t how *you* imagine *your* broken law system handles a situation?

You’re the one telling the judge that there should be no X, because there’s no need.

Huh? Who has stated that "there should be no X"
it’s up to you to show that the need
exists.

"E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …" Over to you.

I have no idea what relevance Smugmug has to the discussion.

How do you imagine they rotate images — which they allow? Pray tell.

I really don’t give a crap how they do it.

I do need you to consider paying me for handholding you
through reading postings.

First you need to provide something of value.

Bringing your overblown ego down.

ROF,L
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 29, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

Freeware that I have used has a variety of shortcomings ranging from poor performance and crappy documentation to just plain lack of features.

Well, that’s Freeware for you. You should try free (libre) software one day.

Lay off the drugs. If you think you’re making some kind of meaningful distinction with that statement you have no contact with reality.

| On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray, | Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right | answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of | confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. –Charles Babbage

I’m also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that there’s no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1] and free (libre) software[2]. I can only assume a lack of basic knowledge or serious illness like dementia.

I resisted Windows for a long long time before
finally recognizing that it just plain wasn’t worth the effort.

"Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing" (I sing the song of the one who’s bread I eat.)
So you’re getting paid for using Windows, and resisted it before that?

If there is a way to get paid for using Windows please enlighten me. I could use the money.

About any job they pay you for and where using Windows is not a choice you can make, but is a given. You never held a job in the last 15 where part of the work was using a computer, I take it?

Oh, but yes, everyone uses Windows, so that’s not a problem! I see!

Not for most people no.

Do you have a modem or router for your internet access?

Yes.

Does
it run Windows?

Yes.

Which make and model is your modem and your router?

J. Clarke 005.

You’re whistling into your phone at 300 baud?

Nope. Homebrew.

You soldered the DSPs in yourself? And it plugs directly into the phone line or TV cable or glass fibre you get your internet over?

Does your phone run Windows — XP, Vista, 7
or 8?

I was not aware that Western Electric phones had operating systems.

Oh, you’re still on a purely mechanical switching board, too?

I have no idea what relevance a "switching board" whatever that might be has to the discussion.

It seems you’re living a century or two before our time.

In other words you’re just coughing up word salad.

Let me rephrase that, since maybe I’m not as versed in the variant of the language you speak as you are and since you are not very flexible in that area — the technology that is used by the telephone company to connect your pnone to another phone when you dial is still fully mechanical apparently.

How about lossless rotation? Overrated, yep, you’re right!

Windows rotation is lossless.

Not always.

Yes, the one provided by the OS is alwasy lossless. It flips a bit indicating orientation.

That’s not rotation, and you know it.

Actually that is how 90 degree rotations work with JPEGs.

Is that the only way because you take drugs or because you didn’t take your drugs?

OK, tell us how it does work with JPEGs since you’re so sure that there’s some other way that it works.

Another way is
http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~ece533/project/f06/sanchez.pd f

This is btw. yet another good reason for "a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function".

Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken.

Really? Then my camera is half-broken, because I can tell it to disregard the so-called ‘correct’ orientation from the EXIF.

Your telling it to ignore something that it has successfully recognized is not breakage.

"Applications that do not determine the correct orientation from the EXIF are broken." I can tell my camera not to "determine the correct orientation from the EXIF". Do you need help connecting the dots?

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

Says the guy who doesn’t want to understand what I write.

Writing comprehensibly, on the other hand, does not seem to be your strong suit.

Well, of course, you’re right — I see it now! There’s no need for anything else. E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …

There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application that has no other function.

Please provide proof. Use scientific methods.
That *you* don’t see a need for it is obvious, but that
doesn’t say anything.

You’re the one asserting need,

You first asserted no need. So it’s up to you to prove it.

You are aware are you not that if you tried that one in a US court the opposing council would say "objection" and the judge would say "sustained"?

You are aware that I don’t give a s**t how *you* imagine *your* broken law system handles a situation?

You’re the one telling the judge that there should be no X, because there’s no need.

Huh? Who has stated that "there should be no X"

| There’s no need for a dedicated image-rotation application | that has no other function.
was stated by a certain "J. Clarke ".

Sure, you’ll claim that that’s something *completely*
different. But if it was so, then why does it matter to you if there is such an application?

it’s up to you to show that the need
exists.

"E.g. when you rotate images in, say, smugmug, they have someone who instantly handles the request manually by mousing it in Windows …" Over to you.

I have no idea what relevance Smugmug has to the discussion.

How do you imagine they rotate images — which they allow? Pray tell.

I really don’t give a crap how they do it.

So you don’t even have the slightest idea if a dedicated image-rotation application would make sense for them or not — yet you claim with utter conviction that there is no need for one.

Can you connect the dots?

I do need you to consider paying me for handholding you
through reading postings.

First you need to provide something of value.

Bringing your overblown ego down.

ROF,L

Nice that you agree.

-Wolfgang

[1] Stuff you don’t need to pay for if you fall into a narrow class of users or kind of usage, all other rights,
including copyright, being withheld by the author. In
other words, not even freedom 0 from [2] applies, never
mind the rest.

[2] A program is free software if the program’s users have the four essential freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified
versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can
give the whole community a chance to benefit from your
changes. Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
J
jclarkeusenet
May 31, 2013
Wolfgang, you remind me of the kid in my junior high school who was convinced that steel was harder than diamonds because nobody would present him with a diamond that he could hit with a hammer.

In other words, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, you’re a loon of the sort that gives Linux users and by extesion Linux a bad name. Nobody likes a proselyte except another proselyte of the same faith.

I’m not wasting any more time on this discussion since it is not a discussion, it is you launching harangues that have little relation to objective reality.
M
Mayayana
May 31, 2013
| I’m also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion | of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that | there’s no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1] | and free (libre) software[2].

There’s no consistent distinction. Both are free to use. One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available. Beyond that? There’s lots of free software that is arguably the best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were originally written independently by one person before Microsoft bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there’s lots of OSS that will never be ready for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference, but that’s because he’s a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code is free. But for the vast majority of people that’s not a relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 1, 2013
Mayayana wrote:
| I’m also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion | of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that | there’s no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1] | and free (libre) software[2].

There’s no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.

Then there’s also no consistent distinction between eating at a soup kitchen and being in jail: you don’t need to pay for your food.

One is produced cooperatively

Sometimes, but not necessarily. I point you to Argyllcms. One-man show *and* restrictions as to what patches he’ll take (outside the usual ‘good code’, ‘correctly formatted’, ‘makes sense to have’, etc.) since the creator wants to be able to license the code commercially, too.

and the source code is available.
Beyond that?

You make it sound as if being in jail wasn’t a big deal: you never wanted to go out of your cell anyways.

On the other hand, there’s lots of OSS that will never be ready for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or more geeks.

The same is true for commercial closed source software.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop them from being sold!

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference, but that’s because he’s a programmer.

Next time you buy a car, consider if a welded down engine hood would be acceptabe. You’d have to drive to your car maker’s garages for any work. Even for checking oil outside an "oil alert" lamp. Now, I am not a car mechanic. I probably never will change spark plugs. I don’t mind going to garages cooperating with my car maker. But I can, and have, checked oil, refilled oil, giving stater help through tapping my car’s battery contacts.

I’ve been on the receiving end of roadside assistance which would not have been possible with a welded down engine hood.

Another example: You might know that (some) games have a vibrant modding community, fixing oversights and adding features and in the case of sims, correcting stats to historically correct values. Some games are only still alife and going strong in their respective circles because there are modders that still work on them — the publisher has abandoned them. While the source code to the engine is not available (and it’s a pity, as this makes it much harder or impossible to fix some bugs — sometimes an exceptional modder manages to decode small parts of the binary and add a few important features through trial and error). Now, you don’t need to be a programmer to enjoy the works of these modders and you don’t need to be a
programmer to grasp what could have been if there had been sourcecode (and the necessary rights to change and pass on) available.

Yet another example: Google for "Magic Lantern". Imagine Nikon opened their firmware sources a bit — just offering an API, just offering hooks for such a mod to hook into the right places … now what could happen if there was full access to the hardware via the firmware.

For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code is free. But for the vast majority of people that’s not a relevant distinction,

…. because noone except programmers use programs altered by programmers. Nobody uses Magic Lantern, for example. Or Firefox. Or the Apache webserver, for example.

As to ‘not a relevant distinction’:
For the vast majority of people whether a camera can do RAW is not a relevant distinction. So basically we all should shoot JPEGs, all the time.
For the vast majority of people whether a camera can have a lens changed is not a relevant distinction. So basically we all should use compact cameras.
For the vast majority of people whether the higher the megapixel count and the larger the mm-number in the tele end, the better the camera — that’s therefore a relevant distinction.

so quality and usability issues do not
necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

Lemmings always run in circles, so so quality and usability issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That’s just as correct a logic and claim.

-Wolfgang
WW
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 1, 2013

J. Clarke wrote:
[a personal attack on me]

Well, if that’s the only argument you are willing to present …

-Wolfgang
F
floyd
Jun 2, 2013
"Mayayana" wrote:
| I’m also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion | of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that | there’s no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1] | and free (libre) software[2].

There’s no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.

That is the only consistent *similarity*. The
distinctions are huge.

One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available.

That may or may not be true. It is not a distinction,
and is also insignificant.

Beyond that? There’s lots of free software that is arguably the best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were originally written independently by one person before Microsoft bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there’s lots of OSS that will never be ready for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,

Lets not throw rocks at someone with the genius that
Stallman has. He might not be the nicest socialite in
the world, but his contributions to society have been
huge.

but that’s because he’s a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code is free. But for the vast majority of people that’s not a relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That is a broken view, because it misses the most
significant point: *somebody* certainly can alter and
recompile it, and that benefits everyone who is not a
programmer.

I certainly am not qualified to add to the Linux kernel, to the GNU C Compiler, to GNUEMACS, or many many other
really fantastic programs; but I don’t have to mostly
because people like Richard Stallman can, and do. Not
just a few of them either, but hundreds of them do.

You simply cannot tell what is in a Freeware program,
because we are not all allowed to muck with the code.
But FOSS programs are guaranteed to have been reviewed
by at least someone with priorities other than those of
the original author.


Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
F
floyd
Jun 2, 2013
"Mayayana" wrote:
| I’m also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion | of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that | there’s no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1] | and free (libre) software[2].

There’s no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.

That is the only consistent *similarity*. The
distinctions are huge.

One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available.

That may or may not be true. It is not a distinction,
and is also insignificant.

Beyond that? There’s lots of free software that is arguably the best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were originally written independently by one person before Microsoft bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there’s lots of OSS that will never be ready for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,

Lets not throw rocks at someone with the genius that
Stallman has. He might not be the nicest socialite in
the world, but his contributions to society have been
huge.

but that’s because he’s a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code is free. But for the vast majority of people that’s not a relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That is a broken view, because it misses the most
significant point: *somebody* certainly can alter and
recompile it, and that benefits everyone who is not a
programmer.

I certainly am not qualified to add to the Linux kernel, to the GNU C Compiler, to GNUEMACS, or many many other
really fantastic programs; but I don’t have to mostly
because people like Richard Stallman can, and do. Not
just a few of them either, but hundreds of them do.

You simply cannot tell what is in a Freeware program,
because we are not all allowed to muck with the code.
But FOSS programs are guaranteed to have been reviewed
by at least someone with priorities other than those of
the original author.


Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
F
floyd
Jun 2, 2013
"Mayayana" wrote:
| I’m also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion | of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that | there’s no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1] | and free (libre) software[2].

There’s no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.

That is the only consistent *similarity*. The
distinctions are huge.

One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available.

That may or may not be true. It is not a distinction,
and is also insignificant.

Beyond that? There’s lots of free software that is arguably the best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were originally written independently by one person before Microsoft bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there’s lots of OSS that will never be ready for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,

Lets not throw rocks at someone with the genius that
Stallman has. He might not be the nicest socialite in
the world, but his contributions to society have been
huge.

but that’s because he’s a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code is free. But for the vast majority of people that’s not a relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That is a broken view, because it misses the most
significant point: *somebody* certainly can alter and
recompile it, and that benefits everyone who is not a
programmer.

I certainly am not qualified to add to the Linux kernel, to the GNU C Compiler, to GNUEMACS, or many many other
really fantastic programs; but I don’t have to mostly
because people like Richard Stallman can, and do. Not
just a few of them either, but hundreds of them do.

You simply cannot tell what is in a Freeware program,
because we are not all allowed to muck with the code.
But FOSS programs are guaranteed to have been reviewed
by at least someone with priorities other than those of
the original author.


Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
F
floyd
Jun 2, 2013
"Mayayana" wrote:
| I’m also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion | of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that | there’s no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1] | and free (libre) software[2].

There’s no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.

That is the only consistent *similarity*. The
distinctions are huge.

One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available.

That may or may not be true. It is not a distinction,
and is also insignificant.

Beyond that? There’s lots of free software that is arguably the best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were originally written independently by one person before Microsoft bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there’s lots of OSS that will never be ready for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,

Lets not throw rocks at someone with the genius that
Stallman has. He might not be the nicest socialite in
the world, but his contributions to society have been
huge.

but that’s because he’s a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code is free. But for the vast majority of people that’s not a relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That is a broken view, because it misses the most
significant point: *somebody* certainly can alter and
recompile it, and that benefits everyone who is not a
programmer.

I certainly am not qualified to add to the Linux kernel, to the GNU C Compiler, to GNUEMACS, or many many other
really fantastic programs; but I don’t have to mostly
because people like Richard Stallman can, and do. Not
just a few of them either, but hundreds of them do.

You simply cannot tell what is in a Freeware program,
because we are not all allowed to muck with the code.
But FOSS programs are guaranteed to have been reviewed
by at least someone with priorities other than those of
the original author.


Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
B
biswyujl
Oct 10, 2013
JERUSALEM, Aug. 11 (Xinhua) — Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said Wednesday that the army lacked enough intelligence, especially about the Turkish Foundation for Human escarpin louboutin Rights and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), one of the main organizers of the flotilla, before its raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in late May.
"We didn’t know enough about the (IHH) organization, and we didn’t investigate it. It was not on our list of priorities like other groups," Ashkenazi told members of the Turkel Commission on the third day of the testimony into the raid, during which nine activists were killed.
Responding to questioning by the retired Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel, who heads the investigation, Ashkenazi said that the assumption was that Turkey was not an enemy state, and the IHH was not considered as a terrorist group but "outlawed."
The Israeli government charges that talons louboutin the IHH is affiliated with groups that a number of governments have designated as terrorist organizations, which the IHH denied.
Turkey on Tuesday rebutted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticism over Turkey’s support for the Gaza-bound ships, saying Israel should first take responsibility for the basket louboutin raid.
"Israel should first take responsibility for killing innocent people on international waters instead of accusing us," Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said at a press conference.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections