"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:ttop40d82d4j7k29msodrklpq3mjom2a5k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:04:11 -0600, "Mike Raiford"
> <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> This is a newserver not a web server. Dear me, if this is how you
> start your rant you've already lost major respect-possibilities.

Hmm, Perhaps you may have noticed there are two interfaces: Web-based, and
newsreader-based, they're the same host name. I'm sorry if I confused you.

> I did not realise that the use of an FTP server made one's face go
> blue. Can you demonstrate this for me?

It's amazing how litterally children take things. Really.

> "Honestly" - the hallmark of a liar.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

> >1) You're being rude, and you continue to be rude on these groups,
> >disrespecting every single indvidual on here. You're a self-centered
> >foul-mouth twit.
>
> You know full well why I am rude. I have numerous (now) of my images
> adulterated by rude people. I also notice I am not the only person who
> get's rude treatment here. Read the following:

It was rude of you to post something so far out of convention for binary
images that people have to hunt around for another app or a plug-in to view
the image. I don't necessarily think re-posting the image in a format that
others can more readily view is rude. I think they were doing a service to
the community as a whole.

> > I've been lucky enough to get hold of a second flat-panel LCD monitor
for my
> > PC, but the colour profile is quite different from my main monitor. Does
> > anyone have any recommendations for getting them to match?
>
> You have to calibrate both, isn't that obvious?  The simplest way is
> to use

In your words: "Well, DUH!"

> whatever tool came with your graphics card or (if it was expensive)
> LCD
> display to do gamma correction.  That will get you somewhat close.
> However,
> for proper calibration you will need to rent (or buy, with serious
> ones
> starting not below US$200) an external calibration device.  It will
> build a
> color profile of your display, and then you of course need a graphics
> card
> (or display, if it was expensive) to make use of that calibration
> data.

Thorsten was being genuinely helpful, here.

> That first line just smacks of sheer rudeness. It's not obvious to
> some so try being a bit more generous in tone. What follows after that
> is some ridulous fob off with reference to some expensive equipment.

While I can agree that Thorsten is very direct, I'm hesitant to say he's
downright rude, I don't think he uses profanity as a way to respond to
others' posts.

> >2) JPEG2000 may very well be a better JPEG, obviously very few companies
and
> >individuals have adopted this format. People are having difficulties
viewing
> >the images.
>
> No, only the lazy ones and the unfortunate that have wandered into an
> unsupported format ghetto.

Geez.. I throw you a bone (or does the metaphor fly over your head, too?)
and this is the response? "Everyone's too lazy, wah wah wah!" You've been
spouting this repeately over and over, get some new material.

> >3) Someone, in a misguided act of kindness decided to post your image in
JPG
> >format so everyone can see it, since this is what you wanted, then why
whine
> >about it so much?
>
> Because it was and is an extremely rude thing to do. No permission was
> given to have this done. People are wasting even more HD by posting
> inflated badly-artifacted replicas of my work. They are ruining them
> in effect.

And, the act of kindness was misguided because it threw you on a tyrade. If
you're that concerned about quality, use PNG, it has the same bpcc as
JPEG2000, and is lossless, and -- GET THIS!! -- people in most browsers can
decode a PNG with no problem.

> Well, duh. I've already come to the conclusion that the 16-bit aspect
> of this is probably a non-starter.

I think banging your head against the compatibility wall is a bigger flaw
with your reasoning.

> The proper thing to do is let me post what I like within the
> guidelines. If necessary I will explain viewing solutions to those who
> reply that they cannot see the image. But more realistically, the FAQ
> perhaps needs updating to mention JPEG2000.

I think the proper thing to do would to post like you're part of the
community, which is what this newsserver is all about. In a community you
work together, find a common ground, and don't go against every sane person
in the group.

> The improper thing to do is repost my butchered work.

Nobody changed the image, just the format it was encoded in. Let me repeat:
NO ONE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ALTERED YOUR IMAGE FROM IT'S ORIGINAL FORM.
IT IS STILL YOUR ORIGINAL ARTWORK.

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> spewed forth:

> Fine. I shall call him an idiot. And I shall continue to post as I see
> fit.

Ahh, what it's like to be a "sub"-genius..

Post a reply to this message

In article <nodn40dt662s43d4ptqtcfeiunsit493gi@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
says...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:40:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott
> <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
> >In article <u2vm409qvgdd339nmqov7ecjrbsup3l58a@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
> >says...
> >> Mmm, perhaps. But imagine if the camera makers decide to plump for
> >> JPEG2000 then we shall see.
> >> 
> >
> >Oh joy.. From one lossy compression method in a camera to another 
> >slightly improved one for a device that you can't really afford to lose 
> 
> Slightly!? I beg to differ.
> 
Well.. I haven't really looked at the format yet, but some posts from 
today imply that at least some solutions that could be useful are in fact 
broken. Since I use Opera and the one for it is broken... Maybe when the 
viewers/editors improve a bit more, but for now I don't need another half 
functioning program on my system.

> Actually, I'd rather not have a JPEG2000-supporting camera - I'd refer
> TIIF or RAW.
> 
Given absolutely no other choice, so would I. However, that still means 
my camera that 'could' have taken around 30 high quality images (at 
around 2MB a piece with PNG, maybe less) can only take at most 10 images 
*if* I am using a 64MB memory card in it (with RAW and TIFF taking 5-6MB 
per image). I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos 
and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100 times 
the normal photograph size. A digital camera *needs* to be able to at 
least match the same number of photos a normal camera can or what is the 
point?

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:00:46 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> Like the UK is still part of Europe, Alaska is a part of the USA, this
> server is part of usenet.

Wrong example.

Usenet is not every newsserver ever existed. Usenet is network of servers
where every server eexchange its data. Usenet groups can be accessed by
anyone, and contain informal messages on a variety of topics. POVRay groups
can be accessed by selected members (in other words you can be banned here)
and does not contain groups available on any other server. Usenet is
completely decentralized and does not represent any particular server.
news.povray.org is localized and unique. The only thing shared between Usenet
and news.povray.org is shared protocol and viewer for operating. Usenet
predates Internet and not every Usenet machine is in the internet.
news.povray.org can be closed and data can be lost. Usenet if reality can't be
simply closed because it is equally distributed over the world.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:27:22 -0600, "GreyBeard" <r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet>
wrote:

>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:bb0q40leif2781gqsib3mn0ltgm10a7jrg@4ax.com...
>>
>> Pay attention to what I was actually saying. It's the fault of people
>> if they cannot be bothered to determine wherher or not they should
>> support a format. Dismissing it at first hand without thinking about
>> it is their fault.
>>
>I have.  What you have been trying to get across is something like "I am
>right, the rest of the world is wrong".  

The World? You think this is the World? Dear me. Get out more.

>Like all the others that believe as
>you do, you have about a snowballs chance in a blast furnace of being right
>on any subject.  

Well duh. I wasn't even entirely right on JPEG2000. The 16-bit aspect
seems to have been proved to be a non-starter.

>You will never have anything to post that would be worth
>putting experimental software in an already unstable system.  (Windoze 98,
>unstable since '98 and worse with the upgrades.)

A sweeping generalisation. Just hope for your sake that you've not
replied to some of my earlier works in the images group praising them.
Boy, that would sure make that last comment of yours look wrongheaded.
And don't assume I always post under the same name either.

>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:45:23 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

>In article <ttop40d82d4j7k29msodrklpq3mjom2a5k@4ax.com>,
> IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>
>> >Then why waste the POV-Team's webspace with your images? You have your own
>> 
>> This is a newserver not a web server. Dear me, if this is how you
>> start your rant you've already lost major respect-possibilities.
>
>It is both a news server and a web server, among other things. You're 
>picking on a meaningless detail and missing the point (again), 

A bit like most of the people here I'd say.

>which is 
>that you are being rude and wasting space that belongs to someone else. 
>You are abusing a freely provided service and spoiling it for other 
>users, you can expect people to object when you do so.

Abusing?

Any rules I have broken I have corrected myself on. I'm no longer
using foul language. The format postings were, after all, permitted.
Yes, I certainly appear rude to some, but let's face it, when in
argument with others, one certainly will appear rude.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:40:26 -0600, "Michael Raiford"
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:ttop40d82d4j7k29msodrklpq3mjom2a5k@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:04:11 -0600, "Mike Raiford"
>> <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> This is a newserver not a web server. Dear me, if this is how you
>> start your rant you've already lost major respect-possibilities.
>
>Hmm, Perhaps you may have noticed there are two interfaces: Web-based, and
>newsreader-based, they're the same host name. I'm sorry if I confused you.

No confusion - I just wanted clarification. There's no point in
debating this issue if the facts aren't in from - I hope - the horse's
mouth.

>
>> I did not realise that the use of an FTP server made one's face go
>> blue. Can you demonstrate this for me?
>
>It's amazing how litterally children take things. Really.

Amazing how you will change the subject to avoid the issue at hand.

>
>> "Honestly" - the hallmark of a liar.
>
>*cough*bullshit*cough*

Now look who's using foul language? Such hypocracy I've come to expect
from this group.

>
>> >1) You're being rude, and you continue to be rude on these groups,
>> >disrespecting every single indvidual on here. You're a self-centered
>> >foul-mouth twit.

Rudeness is a relative perception. When in argument with people, one
is bound to appear rude. Others here seem to have had no problem with
me at all and have even provided supporting views.

>>
>> You know full well why I am rude. I have numerous (now) of my images
>> adulterated by rude people. I also notice I am not the only person who
>> get's rude treatment here. Read the following:
>
>It was rude of you to post something so far out of convention for binary
>images that people have to hunt around for another app or a plug-in to view
>the image. 

Making lazy people blink is rude? I think not. Dear me, anyone would
have thought I had posted something that was encrypted.

>I don't necessarily think re-posting the image in a format that
>others can more readily view is rude. I think they were doing a service to
>the community as a whole.

I doubt it. They were merely wasting space with duplicated images.

>
>> > I've been lucky enough to get hold of a second flat-panel LCD monitor
>for my
>> > PC, but the colour profile is quite different from my main monitor. Does
>> > anyone have any recommendations for getting them to match?
>>
>> You have to calibrate both, isn't that obvious?  The simplest way is
>> to use
>
>In your words: "Well, DUH!"

No. It's not duh. Some people really do not understand this. Don't cop
that attitude. Just because you are familar with it, does not mean the
man in the street is. 

>Thorsten was being genuinely helpful, here.

By mentioning an expensive solution. Well he may be made of money, but
for the hobbyist that's a lot of bread.

>While I can agree that Thorsten is very direct, I'm hesitant to say he's
>downright rude, I don't think he uses profanity as a way to respond to
>others' posts.

That's stopped - but you seem keen on using it.

"Thorsten is very direct" is smokescreen for "Thorsten is rude" -
plain and simple.

>> No, only the lazy ones and the unfortunate that have wandered into an
>> unsupported format ghetto.
>
>Geez.. I throw you a bone (or does the metaphor fly over your head, too?)
>and this is the response? "Everyone's too lazy, wah wah wah!" You've been
>spouting this repeately over and over, get some new material.

New material? You are too bizarre. The arguments do not change. Why on
Earth would you expect them too? I shall stick to the point, thank you
very much.

>> Because it was and is an extremely rude thing to do. No permission was
>> given to have this done. People are wasting even more HD by posting
>> inflated badly-artifacted replicas of my work. They are ruining them
>> in effect.
>
>And, the act of kindness was misguided because it threw you on a tyrade. If
>you're that concerned about quality, use PNG, it has the same bpcc as
>JPEG2000, and is lossless, and -- GET THIS!! -- people in most browsers can
>decode a PNG with no problem.

You must be joking. PNG is way to bulky. Keep up with the previous
posts on this.

>
>> Well, duh. I've already come to the conclusion that the 16-bit aspect
>> of this is probably a non-starter.
>
>I think banging your head against the compatibility wall is a bigger flaw
>with your reasoning.

There's no compatibility problem. There are solutions to the viewing
problems. People are just too lazy to get off they behinds and use
them.

>
>> The proper thing to do is let me post what I like within the
>> guidelines. If necessary I will explain viewing solutions to those who
>> reply that they cannot see the image. But more realistically, the FAQ
>> perhaps needs updating to mention JPEG2000.
>
>I think the proper thing to do would to post like you're part of the
>community, which is what this newsserver is all about. In a community you
>work together, find a common ground, and don't go against every sane person
>in the group.

Don't kid yourself that this is a community. A community happens in
"meatspace", face to face, in real buildings with real progress. This
is merely a exchange of data.

>
>> The improper thing to do is repost my butchered work.
>
>Nobody changed the image, just the format it was encoded in. Let me repeat:
>NO ONE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ALTERED YOUR IMAGE FROM IT'S ORIGINAL FORM.
>IT IS STILL YOUR ORIGINAL ARTWORK.

Stop your shouting, it's pointless. The image was changed - it had
artifacts added to it that were not there before.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:42:12 -0600, "Michael Raiford"
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Ahh, what it's like to be a "sub"-genius..

Yes, this is indeed one of the ways of defining "subgenius" - below
genius.


--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:45:34 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

>In article <slpp40982tstpohrhd2g29df0qe4voselv@4ax.com>,
> IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>
>> Just because this is a single node, does not make it any less a part
>> of usenet. If your mind cannot conceive of such a topology, think of
>> this place as a zit that stands alone from the head of the network. 
>
>Listen: this server is not a "node" of USENET. It is entirely separate 
>from that network.

Listen? Are you shouting this as you type?

It may be separate, but it uses the same protocol and could be very
easily hooked up with feeds in and out I'll wager. 

It's merely just an isolated part of the whole. 

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:49:40 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:00:46 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> Like the UK is still part of Europe, Alaska is a part of the USA, this
>> server is part of usenet.
>
>Wrong example.
>
>Usenet is not every newsserver ever existed. Usenet is network of servers
>where every server eexchange its data. Usenet groups can be accessed by
>anyone, and contain informal messages on a variety of topics. POVRay groups
>can be accessed by selected members (in other words you can be banned here)

One can be banned on other servers too public and private.

>and does not contain groups available on any other server. Usenet is

I seem to recall efforts to make sure this stays the case. It seems
that occasionally, dopelgangers of the groups appear on the main
network. So saying that they do not appear elsewhere is not strictly
correct.

>completely decentralized and does not represent any particular server.

Not as decentralised as you might want to believe. I believe the net
in general is "grouping up" in its topology. This is a security
concern as pathways become more and more like major arteries and could
be compromised, bringing major disruption. We have already seen this
happen with e-mail and the web.

>news.povray.org is localized and unique. The only thing shared between Usenet
>and news.povray.org is shared protocol and viewer for operating. Usenet
>predates Internet and not every Usenet machine is in the internet.

No. The internet started the very day that 2 (or more) computers were
linked together with a transport protocol. Usenet quickly followed.

>news.povray.org can be closed and data can be lost. 

As can be any other server.

>Usenet if reality can't be
>simply closed because it is equally distributed over the world.

Again, I bet there are a number of nodes that if pulled would indeed
cause major loss of traffic flow.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message