Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Peter Ceresole on 3 Mar 2010 10:20 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > A lot of it was junked because it is > > really costly and expensive to store it. > > Old explosive film is a special case - admittedly, there's a lot of it. > Modern safety film stock (came in during the 1930s, didn't it?) does a > lot better. No; nitrate stock is a special, dreadful case, very expensive to store because of the requirement for special vaults and the fact that if not stored very carefully it deteriorates on its own- and incidentally smells horrid when it does. But I'm thinking of modern safety stock. I've seen skips full of cans of stories being junked- and this was by the BBC, who are more motivated towards archive storage than most organisations. I know that there was stuff in those skips- I worked on the programmes involved- that would have been priceless to social historians in a few years, but there simply wasn't the storage space for it, nor the money to build any. -- Peter
From: Woody on 3 Mar 2010 10:33 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Once again; if Rowland gets abusive, it means nothing in the real world. > > > > Simply ignore him. > > > > > > A lot of what I say is valid - but unfortunately, due to the words of > > > people like Peter and others who take the trouble to put me down, it > > > seems that no-one will actually pay me the respect of trying to > > > understand me. > > > > > > No, it seems that the usual clique here simply dismiss all my complaints > > > as the ravings of a madman. > > > > Because you rave like a madman. > > Woody, do you really think that it's *NOT* abusive to hurl comments like > that at someone? [snip] > But Woody, the truth cannot be an insult: QED -- Woody
From: Woody on 3 Mar 2010 10:33 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > A lot of it was junked because it is > > > really costly and expensive to store it. > > > > Old explosive film is a special case - admittedly, there's a lot of it. > > Modern safety film stock (came in during the 1930s, didn't it?) does a > > lot better. > > No; nitrate stock is a special, dreadful case, very expensive to store > because of the requirement for special vaults and the fact that if not > stored very carefully it deteriorates on its own- and incidentally > smells horrid when it does. > > But I'm thinking of modern safety stock. I've seen skips full of cans of > stories being junked- and this was by the BBC, who are more motivated > towards archive storage than most organisations. I know that there was > stuff in those skips- I worked on the programmes involved- that would > have been priceless to social historians in a few years, but there > simply wasn't the storage space for it, nor the money to build any. Did you see that thing about the original JPL scans of the moon to prepare for the moon landings? All the data was held on tapes for a really expensive machine, and nasa through it all out after apollo was scrapped. One woman hung onto the data and one of the machines in her garage, then 20 years later when they realised they needed the data she had it all, and the only machine to read it -- Woody
From: Jim on 3 Mar 2010 10:37 On 2010-03-03, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > Did you see that thing about the original JPL scans of the moon to > prepare for the moon landings? All the data was held on tapes for a > really expensive machine, and nasa through it all out after apollo was > scrapped. One woman hung onto the data and one of the machines in her > garage, then 20 years later when they realised they needed the data she > had it all, and the only machine to read it Imagine their dismay when they found out she'd recorded 12 episodes of 'Dallas' over it... 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: Rowland McDonnell on 3 Mar 2010 10:54
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Because you won't look - you abuse me lots, Peter abuses me lots. > > > > I don't see any sign that I abuse anyone here to speak of - trolls > > aside. > > Rowland, this does require a response. > > The reality is that you do abuse people, copiously. You may not > recognise it, in fact I'm sure you don't, but you do. The reality is that I get *accused* of such behaviour - which is simple abuse, since I'm not guilty of the charge. Your repeated false allegations about me are evidence that you abuse me as a matter of routine. I do get sick of the abuse that you and your fellow-travellers hurl at me, and your denial of the reality of your abuse of me, and your utterly baseless and evidence-free assertions about *ME* being abusive. You never seem to have any evidence for those claims, and I can always point to your abuse of me. And yet you sit there abusing me, mind closed to reality, just churning out vileness to insult me. Why do it, Peter? What sick pleasure do you derive from your abusive behaviour? Your allegations about me in this post I'm replying to are all of them extremely abusive - and yet you seem to think that it's okay for you to abuse me like this? Why? > They, on the other hand, don't abuse you until they are so exasperated > by what you post that they snap. You *always* start the abuse. So you claim, but any psychiatrist will tell you that anyone making such a claim is wrong and is almost certainly the cause of the troubel in the first place. YOu see, it's false claims like that which are made by your sort which are the start of the abuse: it's usually started by you or Woody or somesuch person making an abusive remark about me. But of course you refuse to admit that insulting me counts as abuse, and you refuse to discuss any details or examine any evidence or engage in discussion. No, you just hurl insults at me. > It seems quite clear that you are incapable of interpreting people's > attitudes. [snip] My case rests... You see, Peter, you don't seem to see the problem with your *OWN* behaviour. You seem to be incapable of self-analysis or self-criticism - indeed, you seem to think that you are god in some fashion, laying down your pronouncements from upon high as if you were some kind of authority. But you just sit there and type your grotesque insults and post 'em and are seemingly oblivious to your own own faults, obliviious to your grotesque hypocrisy. I shan't write any more on this subject, since it's been clear for many years that you're incapable of admitting fault, incapable of self-reflection, incapable of understanding the point of view of anyone who takes a position that does not agree with yours. 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 |