Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Feb 2010 13:19 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >So `advanced' JPEG2000 files are to my mind better described as > >`extended' JPEG2000 files - extended to carry more than just an image > >per file,. > > Yes, but the extensions include lots of other things than that, such > as variants on the encoding suitable for particular kinds of data. (I > can't access the standard from here, but I could get a list tomorrow.) > So it's not clear to me that any arbitrary JPEG 2000 file you get > might not require support for one of these extensions. Righto. I think. Oh boy... <shrug> Sod it - just a boring image file, ta. Just a single image, one per file, nothing fancy, just do it, ta. That's all I want. I expect there's a use for all this `advanced' `enhanced' stuff, but... But it just looks like trouble waiting to happen from where I'm sat. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Feb 2010 13:23 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: [snip] > > It's an Epson Perfection 1200U. > > > > You tell me - is it `good enough'? > > No. It's obsolete junk from the stone age. But it's a modern era USB scanner with MacOS X 10.6 support from the manufacturer. So your claim is clearly mistaken. If it were a pre USB scanner with pre MacOS X software, you'd be right. But it's not, so you're wrong. > > I've just checked - the Epson driver for this scanner (which I have > > installed) claims to provide a TWAIN driver. > > > > <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?BV_SessionID=@ > > @@@0264712756.1266854411@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccddadejjlemhfhcgemcfjgdfljdfon > > .0&cookies=no&infoType=Downloads&oid=14568&prodoid=9921&category=Product > > s> > > > > Doesn't work with Graphic Converter. > > Can't verify. [snip] Proven here. > > > > That's all I've ever got from GKON when trying to scan - a crash. > > > > > > Tell Thorsten Lemke. He is quite helpful. > > > (and added a scanner-related feature once, when I asked) > > > > [snip] > > > > Hmm - might well do that. > > He shouldn't bother about your antique, It's USB with MacOS X 10.6 support from Epson. Your outlook is badly broken from all directions. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Richard Tobin on 23 Feb 2010 13:25 In article <1jedona.1bjkpnw1vy9abcN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> >XML is meant to be machine-read and that's all it's meant for, surely? >"XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear." To me, the latter statement seems to completely contradict the former t >So: `_possible_ for humans to cope', is suggested. "Human-legible and reasonably clear" is meant to imply a lot more than that. >I rather think my point's proven by the link you supplied. > >> Would you say the same about HTML? > ><puzzled> HTML is meant to be machine-read just as much as XML, I >thought. Both are meant to be human-readable. >One of the first Web tools Tim B-L wrote was a graphical HTML editor so >he didn't have to hand-code it all. Different people have different preferences. HTML and XML are meant to accommodate both. I'm surprised you find HTML so difficult. [...] >But as used in reality, mostly they're not /practically/ readable by >anyone but a stone cold expert. Some XML files - perhaps the majority by volume, because of the vast number passed around between Microsoft applications - are pretty opaque. But the iPhoto XML files I've looked at seem fairly readable. On the other hand, they make very poor use of XML, since they are basically just name/value pairs. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Woody on 23 Feb 2010 13:39 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>: > > > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > >> Geoff Berrow <blthecat(a)ckdog.co.uk>: > > > [snip] > > >> The beauty of XML is that you [1] can quite easily write a program > > >> that will translate it into something else; XSLT (itself XML) is one > > >> good way of doing this. > > >> > > >> It wouldn't be much work to translate iPhoto's library's XML into, say, > > >> an HTML-based gallery using XSLT. > > >> > > >> b. > > >> > > >> [1] `you' in the sense of, well, someone like me or Woody, at least. > > > > > > Quite - someone who's a highly skilled programmer with decades of > > > experience behind them on many different platforms, and who finds it > > > easy to learn-by-inference from the source code. > > > > > > None of that applies to almost everyone on the planet. > > > > I think we've got side-tracked here. You were talking before about > > `lock-in' from iPhoto. Woody said there's no lock-in because Apple > > provide both the original images and some XML for the metadata. > > And I said there is a lock-in and also that Woody's point's not relevant > given *my* basic point. > > Woody's been playing his usual annoying and despicable game of ignoring > my point so he can just witter on about how it is I'm wrong and he's > right. No, I was refusing to say 'Rowland is right becasue he says so', which is what you want. There is no vendor lock in, no matter how you reinvent the term to fit whatever your point is (and yes, I admitted, I really don't understand what your point actually is). > He does that because he takes pleasure in rattling the case of ucsm's > loony (me), since it makes me howl in pain and he likes that. Really i don't care at all. I would like you to be happy, but seeing as that seems like an imposibility for you, I am not going to worry about it. But I am certainly not prepared to put up with your abuse and just because there is something wrong with you and you don't seem to understand very much at all. I am happy to discuss any technical matter, until the point where you start throwing your toys out of the pram because people don't agree with your incorrect assumptions. > And the fact that by spending more money it's not impossible to re-gain > access to the missing index if the person you contract with ends up > delivering to spec isn't a sign of `no vendor lock-in', merely that it's > not impossible to overcome the vendor lock-in. You don't have to spend any money ffs. What is so propriatary about a date based filing system? Nothing. Come up with whatever abuse you want, but a date based filing system doesn't require any effort from normal people to work out. Just that you need a training course to work it out, doesn't actually make it so. > Shame you're not interested in trying to understand, just interested in > trying to put me down. I am very interested in trying to understand your point, but you seem only interested in ranting. So what is your actual point? Tell me why this date based structure locks you out of your pictures? -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Jim on 23 Feb 2010 13:43
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > The fact that you, my mother, and the majority of people on the planet > > don't understand XML is not really relevant to the issue of vendor > > lock-in. > > Actually, it's the very heart and soul of my point. Are you saying that because you personally don't understand XML, using it constitutes vendor lock-in? That's a serious question. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for Government funding at: (open to UK residents and ex.pats) http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/ Thank you. |