converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

On 12 Dec 2013 07:03:14 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Exactly - I was responding to Savageduck who had just described
what he considered to be a backup protocol, which was something
done manually.

Savageduck 11/25/2013
2013112421034119589-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom

"I use the term "protocol" in many different situations including
referring to my back-up plan, method, etc. as my "Back-up
protocol" especially when it comes to back-up on a road trip. Then
I have referred to it as my "Triple Redundant Back-up Protocol"
when using my Colorspace UDMA, MBP, & FW800 1TB portable HDD. I
have written that in these photo NGs many times"

Also - this is not a "definition" as you falsely call it. It is
clearly prefixed with "my interpretation" of "the term", i.e. not
"the word".

Wriggle wriggle wriggle.

No wriggle necessary, it's just reality. And even so - if you interpreted
that passage as me defining the word "protocol" to mean "something
manually" then you interpreted it incorrectly. So maybe this is part of why
you're so confused, then?

So, you don't mean what you write. Is that the problem?

Eric Stevens:
I then rubbed your nose in four undeniably real-world protocols.
Then you started singing a different tune, which as it happens
is now

Sandman:
Why no quote of this supposed "rubbed your nose"? Stop merely
claiming things.

You are a damned fool if you think readers need proof of this
statement. You don't need it either.

I do, very much. I am aware of no "nose rubbing" from you. Maybe it didn't
arrive at my news server?

Maybe it didn't arrive at your cerebral cortex? Or if it did it didn't
penetrate.

All I remember are your ignorant "black box" analogies and other misinformation
about the word.

It's good that you remember them. If you think about them for long
enough you may even end up understanding them.

Eric Stevens:
"The RFC's does not tell my how to code anything, it tells me
how my application has to behave, and I can code that in a
number of different ways."

Sandman:
100% correct.

Eric Stevens:
Now you are to definition (2) " ... it tells me how my
application has to behave, and I can code that in a number of
different ways."

Sandman:
The quote above has no definition of the word "protocol", Eric.
Stay focused! We we're talking about RFC's that deal with system
communication, some of which have the word "protocol" in the name.
This has always been totally unrelated to the topic of backup
protocols. I was just correcting your misinformation above.

You haven't corrected anything.

It's pretty much all I have done, Eric.

All you are doing is trying to confuse the issue.

Haha! No need - you're doing that all by yourself.

There is nothing about use of the word protocol which when applied to
backups gives it a different meaning than from when applied to different
types of data transmission.

Of course there is. You are very ignorant about the meaning of the word
protocol.

Protocol

How does that apply to FTP, IP etc?
You are stuck in a self-dug rut.

- the accepted or established code of procedure or behaviour in any group,
organization, or situation

- (Computing) a set of rules governing the exchange or transmission of
data between devices

*very* different use of the word protocol. And yes, those are dictionary
definitions, Eric. I have been talking about the first definition all the
time, and corrected Tony when he started to mention things that related
only to the second definition.

Eric Stevens:
Definitions (1) and (2) are mutually inconsistent and both can't
be right.

Sandman:
So the problem basically is that you can't read English to save
your life. You will claim I have stated a definition of the word
"protocol" when the quotes you supply for support of that claim
shows me doing nothing of the kind. THis is poor, even for you,
Eric. You COULD have found quotes of me defining the word, such as
this one:

You agreed with Savageduck that 'a' (not 'the', not 'his', but 'a')
""backup protocol" is something you execute manually."

Indeed. Not a "definition" of the word "protocol", but an interpretation of
a term.

That's not what you wrote. You are now lying.

Sandman:
Sandman 11/26/2013

"A protocol is a set of rules and/or steps in a given procedure."

See - that's me *defining* the word. Here's another:

And you were wrong, by your own later definition " ... it tells me
how my application has to behave ...."

The FTP protocol does, yes. BUt that's not the word I'm defining above,
Einstein.

Sandman:
Sandman 11/29/2013

"Again, a protocol is a list of actions you are to take in order
to fulfill a given task."

Again you were wrong " ... it tells me how my application has to
behave, and I can code that in a number of different ways." A list
of actions isn't necessarily a protocol.

But a protocol is a list of actions. And I wasn't wrong, I was 100%
correct.

Sandman:
See - that's what a definition looks like. These are the kind of
quotes you should have found from me where I have been incorrect.
Alas, you have been unable to do so.

Eric Stevens:
Clearly your use of the word 'protocol' has been incorrect on
one occasion or the other. In fact your use of the term has been
incorrect until 10th December.

Sandman:
You just can't find these supposed incorrect usages of the term,
now can you?

Why bother, when you keep producing them?

So far, none have been produced.

Eric Stevens:
don't try to argue that the RFCs are not protocols. The word
'Protocol' is in their respective titles.

Sandman:
You're so ignorant, Eric. "RFC" is short for "Request for Comment"
and can be about anything, mostly related to computers. Here is
RFC 3986, a RFC that discusses URL's, not a single protocol in
sight

Of course not. It's now called a 'scheme'.

Captain Obvious strikes again.

Sandman:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

WHen you say "RFC", you are in reference to a RFC *about* a
protocol, like RFC 959, which is about FTP:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc959.txt

This is an RFC that talks about the File Transfer *Protocol*, but
I'll repeat this once more - the concept of system communication
protocol's wasn't the topic under discussion. Tony once used it as
an example, but this was what I said about that at the time:

Sandman 11/26/2013

"Well, there's your problem. You think a protocol determines what
a program does... Maybe that's why you were talking about the
totally unrelated FTP before?"

See? The File Transfer Protocol most certainly determines what a
program does when it wants to use FTP, but that has nothing to do
with the usage of the term "backup protocol" - which is NOT
something that determines what a program does.

That's a flabby argument which is hardly worth kicking out the door.
Are you really trying to say that the File Transfer Protocol was
introduced into a discussion about the proper use of the word
'protocol' for any reason other than to illustrate the use of the
word 'protocol'?

No, but then again, Tony was ignorant to do so. Take it up with him - he's
the one who ignorantly brought it up.

Eric Stevens:
Please, also, do not try to argue that a backup protocol is
different from all other protocols in that it refers to manual
operations. There is no reason why it can't apply to a network
of servers which carry each other's backup data, rather the way
news servers work. Such a network can operate entirely
automatically and require no manual operations whatsoever.

Sandman:
What? I've never said that backup protocols are only manual, it
was my *opinion* that the term "backup protocol" mostly refers to
a manual task, like the one Savageduck described.

You are a barefaced liar. You specifically wrote: " A"backup
protocol" is something you execute manually."".

Hey lie boy, here's the entire quote:

"That's my interpretation of the term as well, that a "backup protocol"
is something you execute manually."

*CLEARLY* labeling it as a mere interpretation of *THE TERM* "backup
protocol", not a *DEFINITION* of the *WORD* "protocol".

Interpretations aren't rigid and cut into stone, Einstein. It's just me
interpreting a statement, and this is me saying that if someone says
"backup protocol", I interprete this to be a manual procedure. This is
*NOT* me saying that since I interprete it as such - it *CAN ONLY* be a
manual procedure.

LEARN TO READ AND UNDERSTAND ENGLISH.

Sandman:
I have told Tony many times that I never ever claimed that it was
*WRONG* of him to use the word "protocol":

So what? That doesn't mean your use of it was correct.

Nor does it make it incorrect, and you have helped show that all my usages
of the term has been 100% correct.

Sandman:
Paintshop and Corel 11/26/2013

"Look - I'm perfectly fine with you calling someone's backup
method as a "protocol", you got into this mess because you choose
to be all condescending towards someone whose only crime was to
say that he had never heard that particular term being used. You
are free to use it for whatever you want! You can do your
usenet-posting protocol, or your objective-mounting protocol or
whatever!"

This was never about Tony not "understanding" the word protocol.

You have got that right.

You have a hard time understanding it though. Here is one definition of the
word protocol from you:

Eric Stevens
Paintshop and Corel
11/28/2013

"The user's backup protocol for the single button backup
might say 'I shall use the single button backup every day at
lunch time' or 'once a week' or 'whenever I have done
something important' or 'I'm never going to use it'."

Here you're equating the word "protocol" with "schedule", and you're also
actually saying that a user's backup protocol can be defined as "I'm never
going to use it" which is just ludicrous.

And guess what - regardless of your ignorance about the word itself, that's
a *MANUAL* procedure you're describing above. Strange that, huh.

Squink.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Since yuo ignore most of what I write and have nothing but personal attacks
and insults to offer, I take this latest post from you as admission to your
lies and errors. You needn't concern yourself with ever having any
credibility with regards to just about anything. Keep making claims you
can't and won't support, I would expect nothing less from you. And keep
running away from reality.

I always knew you were a liar, but the scope of your ignorance was unknown
to me up to this point.



--
Sandman[.net]

On 12 Dec 2013 10:11:03 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Since yuo ignore most of what I write and have nothing but personal attacks
and insults to offer, I take this latest post from you as admission to your
lies and errors. You needn't concern yourself with ever having any
credibility with regards to just about anything. Keep making claims you
can't and won't support, I would expect nothing less from you. And keep
running away from reality.

I always knew you were a liar, but the scope of your ignorance was unknown
to me up to this point.

You are still ignorant on that subject.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/5/2013 12:50 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

I am fully aware that you will not admit to understanding it but
that does not make me a liar.

No, lying makes you a liar.

And I freely admit to understanding it.

Support your claims, Eric, or be branded a liar. Those are your
choices.

I am utterly fed up with you calling me (and other people) liars.

Then stop lying!

I don't normally tell lies and I certainly have never told one on
this news group.

I have proven this to be false many times over.

You on the other hand have told some enormous lies about yourself which
are easily shown to be what they are with just a little time on Google.
See below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the dream world in which he dwelled.

--- snip ---

Sandman:
I am a self-employed web developer. I have developed, from
scratch, my own Content Managemenet System call Atlas. I sell this
to companies that want an easy way to handle their website. I run
all my own websites in it as well, of course.

This woke me up. A decent Content Management System (CMS) is not a
trivial thing to develop and I thought that it would be a notable
achievment if Jonas had actually done this.

So I went looking for 'Jonas Eklundh', 'Atlas' and 'Content
Management System' and I found that a powerful CMS system
called'Atlas' and associated with the name Eklundh is by no means
imaginary.

Indeed.

See http://www.eklundh.com/ You will probably get a web page in
Swedish but down the bottom-right is a button which enables you to
select 'English'. There are in fact 72 languages available and the
ability to handle this number is impressive. I found it impossible
to believe that Jonas created all this on his own.

It's called Google translate. It's automatic. And it's not impossibkle to
create a CMS system on your own, if you know what you're doing.

A bit more scratching around and I found
http://www.eklundh.com/pages/kontakt Oops! There are three people,
including a Hans Eklundh who looks as though he may be the father of
Jonas. Note that the firm has been in business for 20 years occupies
the whole buiding (or at least their address does) and on that basis
it is doing very well for "a self employed web developer" who is
probably in his 30s.

I am 38, I work with my father as well - who runs his own company, neither
of us is an employee of the other.

But then I found
http://www.atlasproject.eu/atlas/project/en/index.html which
describes the Atlas CMS development program. On the tab for
'Consortium' I found the following organisations were behind Atlas.

This has nothing to do with my product. It seems to be a language framework
for the web. I've never heard about it before.

* Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi (UAIC) - Romania * Atlantis
Consulting SA (Atlantis) - Greece * German Research Center for
Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) * Institute for Bulgarian Language at
the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (IBL DCL) * Institute of Computer
Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences (ICS PAS) * Institute of
Technology and Development (ITD) * University of Hamburg - Research
Group 'Computerphilology' (UHH) * University of Zadar (UniZD) *
Tetracom Interactive Solutions LTD

Not a mention of Eklundh to be seen. On the same tab there is a list
of 22 people, dripping with Professors and PhDs, who were engaged in
the project. Not an Eklundh to be seen here either.

Since that's not my Atlas CMS, that's to be expectyed. "Atlas" was the
greek titan condemned by Zeus to bear the sky upon his shoulders (in some
versions, the world). It's a pretty common name to use.

edited for brevity

Yes, it is. For instance, "Marvel" comics was previously named "Atlas"
(and before that, "Timely").

John

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:04:24 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 04:24:14 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
: : As far as I am concerned a photograph is a picture made using a camera,
: : in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive
: : material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment,
: : or stored digitally. Some are good, some are bad. Some are produced
: : with care and some are informal "snapshots". Some have qualities
: : which rise to the level of art, some are called art by the shooter
: : when they are still just ordinary photographs, and some are just
: : snapshots without artistic pretension by the shooter. All are
: : photographs shot by photographers.
:
: That makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me is my participation in this ridiculous,
rambling, time-wasting thread.

Bob

On 2013-12-17 04:04:52 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:04:24 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 04:24:14 -0800, Savageduck

: wrote:
: : As far as I am concerned a photograph is a picture made using a camera,
: : in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive
: : material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment,
: : or stored digitally. Some are good, some are bad. Some are produced
: : with care and some are informal "snapshots". Some have qualities
: : which rise to the level of art, some are called art by the shooter
: : when they are still just ordinary photographs, and some are just
: : snapshots without artistic pretension by the shooter. All are
: : photographs shot by photographers.
:
: That makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me is my participation in this ridiculous,
rambling, time-wasting thread.

Bob

Then why did you bother to resuscitate it by responding to your own 9
day old post?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:20:49 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2013-12-17 04:04:52 +0000, Robert Coe said:
:
: On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:04:24 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 04:24:14 -0800, Savageduck
:
: : wrote:
: : : As far as I am concerned a photograph is a picture made using a camera,
: : : in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive
: : : material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment,
: : : or stored digitally. Some are good, some are bad. Some are produced
: : : with care and some are informal "snapshots". Some have qualities
: : : which rise to the level of art, some are called art by the shooter
: : : when they are still just ordinary photographs, and some are just
: : : snapshots without artistic pretension by the shooter. All are
: : : photographs shot by photographers.
: :
: : That makes sense to me.
:
: What doesn't make sense to me is my participation in this ridiculous,
: rambling, time-wasting thread.
:
: Bob
:
: Then why did you bother to resuscitate it by responding to your own 9
: day old post?

I didn't "resuscitate" it. It had been posted to as recently as the day
before.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:20:49 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2013-12-17 04:04:52 +0000, Robert Coe said:
:
: On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:04:24 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 04:24:14 -0800, Savageduck
:
: : wrote:
....
: What doesn't make sense to me is my participation in this ridiculous,
: rambling, time-wasting thread.
:
: Then why did you bother to resuscitate it by responding to your own 9
: day old post?

I didn't "resuscitate" it. It had been posted to as recently as the day
before.

the headers say otherwise.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:17:29 +1300, I wrote:

--- snip ---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 07:31:46 +0200, Sandman wrote of
the dream world in which he dwelled.

--- snip ---

I am a self-employed web developer. I have developed, from scratch, my
own Content Managemenet System call Atlas. I sell this to companies that
want an easy way to handle their website. I run all my own websites in
it as well, of course.

This woke me up. A decent Content Management System (CMS) is not a
trivial thing to develop and I thought that it would be a notable
achievment if Jonas had actually done this.

So I went looking for 'Jonas Eklundh', 'Atlas' and 'Content Management
System' and I found that a powerful CMS system called'Atlas' and
associated with the name Eklundh is by no means imaginary.

--- snip ---

But then I found
http://www.atlasproject.eu/atlas/project/en/index.html which describes
the Atlas CMS development program. On the tab for 'Consortium' I found
the following organisations were behind Atlas.

* Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi (UAIC) - Romania
* Atlantis Consulting SA (Atlantis) - Greece
* German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)
* Institute for Bulgarian Language at the Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences (IBL DCL)
* Institute of Computer Science of the Polish Academy of
Sciences (ICS PAS)
* Institute of Technology and Development (ITD)
* University of Hamburg - Research Group 'Computerphilology'
(UHH)
* University of Zadar (UniZD)
* Tetracom Interactive Solutions LTD

Not a mention of Eklundh to be seen. On the same tab there is a list
of 22 people, dripping with Professors and PhDs, who were engaged in
the project. Not an Eklundh to be seen here either.

On the Tetracom site on their page
http://www.tetracom.com/ilib/tetracom/products/atlas you will see:

"ATLAS is an open-source software platform for multilingual web
content management ....

ATLAS is a project funded by the European Commission under the
CIP ICT PSP."

I think by now it is clear that Jonas's claim "I have developed, from
scratch, my own Content Managemenet System call Atlas" is not true,
unless he is opening himself up to a massive trademark law suit. My
suspicion is that Eklundh.Com uses the Atlas system and makes use of
appropriate packages for it's clients.

Jonas is probably engaged in helping set up some of these and may
even tinker with the code. But as for developing it from scratch - the
idea is ridiculous.

--- snip ----

I wasn't so much concerned with his qualifications as much as I was
with his veracity. I am left with the clear impresson that there is a
vast gap between what he is and what he says he is. Jonas's claims
about having "developed, from scratch, my own Content Managemenet
System call Atlas" is an outright lie so blatant that I can't
understand why he even thought he would be able to get away with it.

I am now pleased to be able to say that I was wrong and there almost
certainly is no connection between the Eklund 'Atlas' CMS system and
the "ATLAS project funded by the European Commission". Also, I have
previously seen somewhere on the http://www.eklundh.com/ site a
statement to the effect that Jonas wrote and maintains the Atlas CMS
software for them, but I couldn't find it again before writing this
article.

So, Jonas, I apologise for saying that you were passing off the EC's
Atlas as your own. It does appear that the Eklundh Atlas is your own
work and as I have already said a fully functioning CMS system is not
a trivial thing to develop and is a notable achievment for Jonas to
have done this.

I am unhappy about only one thing. I am unable to support my claim
that Eklundh.com supports Jonas's claim that he wrote the Atlas
system. That leaves me in the situation to which Jonas has so often
objected: I cannot support my claim and therefore, according to his
definition, I must be a liar. Therefore Jonas cannot accept the truth
of my statement that Eklund.com supports his claim that he wrote
Atlas, because if he were to do so he would be accepting a statement
which he knows to be a lie. I don't know where that leaves him. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:40:45 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:20:49 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
: : On 2013-12-17 04:04:52 +0000, Robert Coe said:
: :
: : On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:04:24 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: : : On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 04:24:14 -0800, Savageduck
: :
: : : wrote:
: ...
: : What doesn't make sense to me is my participation in this ridiculous,
: : rambling, time-wasting thread.
: :
: : Then why did you bother to resuscitate it by responding to your own 9
: : day old post?
:
: I didn't "resuscitate" it. It had been posted to as recently as the day
: before.
:
: the headers say otherwise.

The headers say no such thing. There is at least one article in the thread
that was posted the day before I posted my article. If you can't see it,
perhaps you should have a talk with your Usenet service provider.

Bob