Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Jim on 25 Feb 2010 06:33 On 2010-02-25, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> > I don't know, the oric atmos keyboard got a bit tiring after a while. >> >> The Oric *Atmos* keyboard was a rather nice full travel one. Tad small, but >> a good feel. >> >> The Oric *1* keyboard was those thin, calculator-style keys that started >> hurting after about 10 minutes. > > Oh yes, it was the 1. The light coloured one, the atmos was later wasn't > it. That's the badger. The 1 was silver and blue, the Atmos was black and red. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
From: Peter Ceresole on 25 Feb 2010 06:40 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Oh yes, it was the 1. The light coloured one, the atmos was later wasn't > it. Looked really nice. I was attracted to getting one, after the ZX81, but luckily I was sensible and held off until the Amstrad CPC, which was a really superb machine. I worked on it for several years. -- Peter
From: Woody on 25 Feb 2010 07:07 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Oh yes, it was the 1. The light coloured one, the atmos was later wasn't > > it. > > Looked really nice. I was attracted to getting one, after the ZX81, but > luckily I was sensible and held off until the Amstrad CPC, which was a > really superb machine. I worked on it for several years. I was quite keen when I saw it, but I already had a bbc at that point I think. It is somewhere in the chain mk14 -> zx81 -> Electron(for two weeks) -> bbc-b -> Spectrum -> Atari ST -> Mac. With a few other machines in there for playing around with. Most noticably, a lot of spectrums, a MK80Z and PC around the time of the ST, a sun 310 and PC around the time of the mac. -- Woody
From: Peter Ceresole on 25 Feb 2010 07:27 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > It is somewhere in the chain mk14 -> zx81 -> Electron(for two weeks) -> > bbc-b -> Spectrum -> Atari ST -> Mac. Mine is a lot simpler- ZX81, CPC6128, MSDOS PC, Mac. Plus a smattering of portables- one an IBM which was nice but delicate, and got because the mac portable of the time was so slow I couldn't stand it, even though I already used a Mac on the desktop. Best laptop of all being the NC200... Used for years. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Feb 2010 07:42
Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article <hm15ss$247r$4(a)pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, I wrote: > > >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.) > > Here is part of the table of contents. I have no idea what most of > it means. > > Annex A - Compressed data syntax, extension > A.1 Extended capabilities > A.2 Extensions to ITU-T Rec. T.800 | ISO/IEC 15444-1 marker segment parameters > A.2.1 Image and tile size (SIZ), extended > A.2.2 Start of tile-part (SOT) extended > A.2.3 Coding style (COD, COC), extended > A.2.4 Quantization (QCD, QCC), extended > A.2.5 Region of interest (RGN), extended > A.3 Extended marker segments > A.3.1 Variable DC offset (DCO) > A.3.2 Visual masking (VMS) > A.3.3 Downsampling factor styles (DFS) > A.3.4 Arbitrary decomposition styles (ADS) > A.3.5 Arbitrary transformation kernels (ATK) > A.3.6 Component bit depth definition (CBD) > A.3.7 Multiple component transformation definition (MCT) > A.3.8 Multiple component transform collection (MCC) > A.3.9 Multiple component transform ordering (MCO) > A.3.10 Non-linearity point transformation (NLT) > A.3.11 Quantization default, precinct (QPD) > A.3.12 Quantization precinct component (QPC) Hmmm - for once, I get the idea that I might just about be able to understand that stuff, at least in broad terms, if I were willing to study hard and try to remember a lot of things about some Froggie bloke that I've forgotten[1]. It certainly *looks* like it's comprehensible in that I've got a clue what most of the jargon's on about, which is not a feeling I often get looking at that sort of thing. DC offset when dealing with Fourier transforms, okay; but over spatial dimensions? Conceptually valid four shour - but, ooh, that makes my head hurt, that one does. Rowland. [1] Chap by the name of Fourier. -- 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 |