IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2004 17:50:32 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
> wrote:
>
>>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:29:30 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>IMBJR wrote:
>>>>> I live in an area where the telco has seen fit not to cover properly. 
>>>>
>>>>What? Surely if enough consumers demand it, the telco will provide it! I 
>>>>mean, clearly the demand is there. You're just too lazy.
>>>
>>> Hey, parrot boy. Come up with something a little more original than
>>> that. That's just first-grade heckling.
>>>
>>> PS. This is indeed how it works - demand targets are set by the telco,
>>> but actually the technology will just not cover my home area.
>>
>>Looks like you drew the short straw when they were handing out broadband
>>coverage then.
>
> Damn straight I did. I'm ever so slightly out of range. It's a pain in
> the bum for sure - otherwise I'd be able to publish much large
> projects involving animation.

You should move.

-Eamon

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in
news:404b8200$1@news.povray.org: 

> In article <98rm40hhssc2d14g1u8c6fnbfrt1a801u2@4ax.com> , IMBJR 
> <no### [at] spamhere>  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:07:43 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
>> <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>>>
>>>But JPEG 2000 is not a fix, it is a problem: It fails the fundamental
>>>design goal of any exchange format: Simplicity.
>>
>> Hahahaha! Like JPEG is simple. Ever tried reading the standard. Lord
>> its a mind-poker!
> 
> I implemented an encoder a few years ago without any problems. 
> Reading it is no big deal once one gets used to the fact that the
> format decoding is specified, but not the encoding process itself.  Of
> course, to someone thinking JPEG is complex, JPEG 2000 must appear no
> different.... 
> 
>>>Both JPEG and PNG offer a simple
>>>interchange format, JPEG 2000 is far from simple on the other hand. 
>>>That it offeres better lossy compression, well, that is to be
>>>expected from a format created many years later, isn't it? ;-)
>>
>> Yes, so perhaps its time to stop nannying people and allow them to
>> use it to improve the appearance of images they post
> 
> Nobody did.
> 
>>>Either way, and even if you don't agree with me, there are two facts
>>>that won't change soon:
>>>The web news view vill only support the three standard web image
>>>formats (GIF, PNG and JPEG).
>>
>> So you are going stall on this because of more inertia - the lack of
>> enthusiasm to get it working right, to figure a solution out. You are
>> going to let a minor thing like that get in the way?
> 
> So you question my "enthusiasm to get [the web news view] working
> right"? You are entitled to your opinion, but I really think you just
> want a flame war.  Probably that is why you posted the image in the
> first place. 
> 
> Next time, take such thing to povray.off-topic, not povray.general or
> p.b.i! 
> 
> Guess I will have to enable your killfile entry again.  Just noticed I
> had you in there before, but as you hadn't caused conflict in any
> groups I read for a long time, your entry was inactive...
> 
>     Thorsten
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich
> e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
> 
> I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

<sigh>

IMBJR = *plonk* since shortly after his posts on this started to degrade 
to profanity.

If the profanity and intentional "egging-on" don't stop, will he get the 
Bill Treatment?

I don't really care what format he posts his images in, but isn't using 
profane language (at least) against the povray forums rules and 
regulations?

-->Jeff

-- 
No signature here, move along...
--- jgentry at ev1 dot net ---

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:

> Don't be so _silly_. Why must you make such _silly_ remarks? Are you that
> childish that you can't resist making such _silly_ little pokes at
> people? 

Wow, you were capable of using the word "silly" 3 times _in three 
consecutive sentences!!! Congratulations! I _underlined_ them for your 
reference... Could you also do a four in a row? You can also use another 
adjective instead.

You actually seem to be a funny fellow. With all the time you are 
putting to this the-most-useful-thread-of-the-month you could've already 
programmed a JPEG2000 plug-in for my Thunderbird email/news client for 
me to see your marvellous images. Now I can only imagine the smoothness 
of color gradations they have (even when dithered) and the lack of all 
those evil and nasty JPEG artifacts, not to mention the 65ms reduction 
in download time ;-)

Severi

Post a reply to this message

In article <mm6n40hod15fbet4e53qjp6emsj6c6i8ok@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
says...
> Your argument is of course completely dumb - such a scenario does not
> exist. It's hard to take seriously someone who would use such a
> comparison. Esp', in your case - you cannot empirically say for sure
> that JPEG2000 is supported by your platform, unless that platform is
> unique to you and if it is then more fool you.
> 

How about an alternative then.. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Obviously 
they are far more efficient, lighter and less polluting, why don't you go 
out and buy one? Oh wait, because there are few if any places you can 
refuel them... On the other hand, you can buy an electric that is not a 
light, not as efficient, not as 'perfect' a solution and some you can 
plugin directly into a normal 110v power outlet. Better is relative to 
*if* a reasonable number of people can reasonably use it, not on how good 
it seems to be on paper or for the people that can use it.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

F-ups set to p.o-t:

Tom Galvin wrote:

> Must be another gorgeous day on the west coast ;)

Nearly cloudless skies and a balmy 82f.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:

> But that does not stop me from replying. Tis the nature of usenet.
> Deal with it.

This is not usenet. This is a privately owned news server that neither
takes a feed from, nor provides a feed to, usenet. That it remains wholly
unmoderated is a testament to the general good behavior of its guests.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:20:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>In article <5msm409n7fsv43fi2uj8ge1miv2oalorbe@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
>says...
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:50:36 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@)
>> nolights.de> wrote:
>> >"Ease of use" - that's
>> >what standards are for, you know? That's why some comply to them, and others
>> >try to define new ones to introduce advancements. 
>> 
>> Ease of use in standards? - oh, boy, are you ever way off the mark. I
>> work in the software industry and the numerous standards I come into
>> contact with certainly do not feature ease of use as their main drive.
>> 
>
>The real problem here is that companies like Microsoft equate "Ease of 
>Use" with dumming things down to a point where a chimpanzee can use the 
>basics of a program, but preventing anyone that knows what the hell they 
>are doing from accomplishing real work that requires real and *stable* 
>features. The result is it actually gets harder to do anything creative 
>or useful with the software, not easier. Case in point - I had a test 
>project in VB I wanted to design. VB handles all the maintenance and 
>complicated BS like making sure memory is freed when classes go out of 
>scope and other matters that require 2-3 times as much time to code and 
>debug, but MS also left out most basic API support, requiring that you 
>link it externally and have the C++ headers to find values for things 
>like flags. Nothing they make that provides API library documentation 
>bothers to tell you what the hell any of those values are.
>
>The entire program once I tracked down all the stuff I needed was maybe 
>200 lines. Had I tried to code it in C++ I would have had to fight with 
>GCC or the free Borland, which would have made the task 20 times harder 
>than using VC++. I could use VC++, but the version I have was made back 
>when Windows 95 first came out and I can't afford a new version, so I am 
>screwed out of most simple ATL solutions I could have employed to make my 
>life easier. But the time I finished I would have had 2000 lines of code 
>and half of it I wouldn't have the slightly clue how it worked or if I 
>missed some memory leak or other problem.
>
>I am also still trying to find some way to get around the fact that VB 
>intentionally hides the Invoke and QueryInterface functions that allow 
>you to do simple things like switching a window and its controls between 
>design and run mode. All in all, I love VB for the ease of design, but 
>the implementation and artificial limitations they put into it because of 
>the "VB programmer won't need or want this" mentality makes anything 
>beyond die cast, one size fits all program designs difficult to the point 
>of near impossibility. There is no valid excuse for this, save for the 
>belief that MS has that it should cater its efforts to the lowest common 
>denominator, all of whom are apparently too stupid to code real software 
>or use the Windows API properly.
>
>Sadly, much of the computer industry you talk about being a part of take 
>their own cues from the 'stupid is better' philosophy that MS uses, so it 
>isn't surprising that "Ease of Use" means "practically useless" and 
>"versatile" tends to be an alias for "complicated and hard to use". 
>Claiming that this is normal, expected or somehow unavoidable imho 
>implies your association with the wrong crowd of people, not a law of 
>nature.

I concur 100%.

My particular bugbear is MS Access. Fine if you like keeping your
record collection indexed in a digital fashion. Absolute pants if you
want to record information in a meaningful manner with ease-of-entry
of new data.

>
>BTW, most of the *standards* MS comes up with are by their own admittance 
>designed to be intentionally difficult, overly complicated and badly 
>implemented. They believe designing such things will give them an edge 
>over Linux and other open source projects, by making it impractical or 
>too complicated to provide compatibility. I.e., screw the customer and 
>developers by making it harder for them to use things, so that they have 
>no choice but to consult with you or buy your solution. If you use simple 
>standards that make sense, anyone can design with them, and there is no 
>reason for your customer to buy the latest version of *your* database, 
>spreadsheet, <place type of product here> solution. Don't believe me?:
>
>http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
>
>MS' description of how to deal with people using 'simple' protocols like 
>HTTP or anything else people can actually figure out makes for a very 
>interesting read.

This really is not limited to MS. I have to deal with standards from
varying sources and they suck and blow at the same time. It's always a
pain in the rump to have to consider them. But I have to do this on a
daily basis. Gnash!


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

Post a reply to this message

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 
any quality with in the first place... No thanks. It is bad enough now 
where your only option is taking 1-2 uncompressed images or 50 crappy 
ones, adding an 'improved' crappy version instead of at least making some 
attempt at a lossless compression method won't imho do anything to 
correct this flaw in cameras. Now maybe with something like PNG, I would 
still only be able to take 25 pictures, but they would still be *good* 
and complete images, not something you can apply several PhotoShop 
plugins to that do nothing but turn a sharp, crisp, but screwed up image 
into a blurry, eye watering slightly less screwed up appearing final 
result. :(

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:28:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>In article <mm6n40hod15fbet4e53qjp6emsj6c6i8ok@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
>says...
>> Your argument is of course completely dumb - such a scenario does not
>> exist. It's hard to take seriously someone who would use such a
>> comparison. Esp', in your case - you cannot empirically say for sure
>> that JPEG2000 is supported by your platform, unless that platform is
>> unique to you and if it is then more fool you.
>> 
>
>How about an alternative then.. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Obviously 
>they are far more efficient, lighter and less polluting, why don't you go 
>out and buy one? Oh wait, because there are few if any places you can 
>refuel them... On the other hand, you can buy an electric that is not a 
>light, not as efficient, not as 'perfect' a solution and some you can 
>plugin directly into a normal 110v power outlet. Better is relative to 
>*if* a reasonable number of people can reasonably use it, not on how good 
>it seems to be on paper or for the people that can use it.

Point taken. However, there's still a world of difference in trying to
refuel a H2 car and trying out a new image format.

On the one hand, you will probably have to live within shooting
distance of some unique filling station and all the massive impacts
that's going to have on your life for chosing H2. On the format side
of things, all you have to do is download and install a new viewer.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Mar 2004 18:27:55 -0500, jgentry <jge### [at] ev1filternet> wrote:

>
><sigh>
>
>IMBJR = *plonk* since shortly after his posts on this started to degrade 
>to profanity.

Good. The less I have to hear from the likes of you the better.

>
>If the profanity and intentional "egging-on" don't stop, will he get the 
>Bill Treatment?

Ooo. Is that what happened to DeWitt? I wondered why the record of his
postings seemed to show a stop at about July of last year.

>
>I don't really care what format he posts his images in, but isn't using 
>profane language (at least) against the povray forums rules and 
>regulations?

Yes, apparently it is and I've said I shall keep my tongue tied on
that subject. Keep up.

>
>-->Jeff

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

Post a reply to this message