If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:18:35 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2013-04-24 17:56:49 -0700, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-04-24 16:14:17 -0700, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: Just to tidy up loose ends: --- snip --- The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti. Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti Aerolithe. See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/...php?f=1&t=2120 The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between 1935 and 1939. http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935...Aerolithe.html The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935. That's true - and its never been seen since. I wasn't suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts. http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a gear box + and engine. "A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world debut - I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all the right mags and shows in time." The photograph/sketch https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis (while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis which may well be that of the Aerolithe. The information accompanying http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photo...C0623.jpg.html throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the 'Torpedo Competition' with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body' which was also exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of that car. It is more than a "faithful replica", it is a faithful full restoration. There is a difference. Note: the chassis number for the restoration Type 57S in my shot is #57222, the original Paris Show chassis. I didn't know about the chassis number but that confirms my guess. Is the engine number also 235S? As best as I can make out from what I have the engine number is 240S. So it's not the original engine. In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958. So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine, certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been built in the wrong material! It's certainly a stretch to call it a 'restoration'. Never mind. My understanding is the body material is duplicated "Elektron" Magnesium/aluminum alloy as use in the original. One of the comments in the URL I have given above is: "I did a bit of further research on the Bugatti riveted aluminum cars. Three of them still exist, and they are definitely aluminum bodies. At the time Bugatti called them "Elektron".' ... so may be Phil Reilly and the gang up in Canada (with the duplicate Aerolithe) may have been mislead into using the wrong material. Anyway, regardless our bantering, restoration, or partial replication of any of these great cars can only be commended, and I for one feel privileged to be able to see them today. I envy you. One way or another it is a unique motor vehicle. --- snip --- -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That doesn't include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that's included in the basic plan for free. the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you'd probably use it at least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better. It doesn't interest me. I'm an avid photographer, but with my Nikons. If I'm going to go out for photos, I do it with the Nikons. I've got a P&S camera in the car for quickies and unexpected shots. suit yourself, but there is quite a bit that can be done with a smartphone camera that is harder than with other cameras, such as panoramas. pick the best tool for the job. then again, you like making more work for yourself. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?
In article , Danny D.
wrote: why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can't you contact microsoft and get it activated? Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system. Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system? same place you got the original. or just restore from a backup. you do have backups, right? you gave up on windows because you can't figure out how to reactivate windows when swapping a hard drive? Um, maybe you know something I don't know. How do you reactivate something that's not there? I must be missing something critical here - so please let me know how. how did you get windows in the first place? Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can't. I just explained that I have my own iPod & my kid has an iPhone, and they work perfectly fine without iTunes. We don't need to argue because this is extremely well known information. with limited functionality, they do. who wants limited functionality? maybe that's acceptable for you and your kid, but it's not for the rest of the world. people want more features, not less. meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people have itunes installed without problems. there's no reason to avoid it. If you still really think you can't populate an iPod/iPhone without iTunes, you'll need more advice than I am prepared to dish out anyway. you can, however, functionality is more limited than with itunes, as i said. some of what can't be done without itunes includes full backups, smart playlists, editing tags and much more. also, many things are much easier to do in itunes than on an iphone or ipad. you may be ok with limited functionality, but others certainly are not. to say that someone doesn't need itunes is flat out false. in other words, you can't live perfectly well without itunes. Wow. Your repeated inability to comprehend shows that you simply want to argue - but I know the old adage ... so I refuse to drop down to that level - where your experience will win out anyway. i'm not arguing. i'm refuting your ludicrous claims. plus, you're contradicting yourself. Since I refuse to drop to the level of a grade schooler, this conversation is over. Good luck. translated: you know you're wrong and can't back anything up so you back out. why am i not surprised. bye bye. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotationefficiently?
Danny D. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:33 +0100 bugbear wrote: Try googling screenshot annotation if that's what you want, rather than "proving" that image editors aren't screenshot annotators. Interesting point, especially when it comes to freeware. Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done. I'm not "aware" of that, in fact I disagree. I would far rather have a larger number of dedicated programs, than a single jack of all trades. And this applies to "software", wether paid for or not. BugBear |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotationefficiently?
Danny D. wrote:
One point to make though, even though all programs can grow the canvas, is that it's generally done in one of two ways. 1. You accurately specify the size & shape to grow (down to the pixel); 2. Or, you simply stretch & contract the canvass as needed. Most freeware uses the first method, e.g., The GIMP, as shown below Gimp supports (1) (2), and (indeed) hybrid modes (2) constrained in various ways by (1). BugBear |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?
bugbear posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:56:00 +0100 Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done. I'm not "aware" of that, in fact I disagree. I would far rather have a larger number of dedicated programs, than a single jack of all trades. I suppose the goal is not to have a single program, tha is able to do everything..... -- Poutnik |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?
| Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system.
| Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system? | | same place you got the original. | Circa 1998 a Windows PC came with a Windows CD that could be used to install Windows on any other PC, or to reinstall. It was an actual copy of Windows. Since then Microsoft has gone to great lengths to lock the OS to the hardware and render a PC as a disposable appliance. With XP, MS instituted Product Activation, tying Windows to the hardware. The public has been trained to see Windows as part of the PC, and trained to see the PC itself as a single unit, when it's actually just an assemblage of parts put together by the OEM company in a branded box. Microsoft now make a lot more profit from people like Danny D. Most people buy another Windows license with every PC purchase. And many people buy another PC the first time their current PC "doesn't work". Meanwhile, pressure from Microsoft and plunging PC prices have all but eliminated "white box" PC shops, so it's very difficult to buy any PC without also buying a Windows license. It's possible, through various means, to make sure that one has a backup of the OS in the case of hard disk failure, power surge, nasty malware, etc., but most people don't know anything about that and don't realize they're at risk. Danny D. might also be able to successfully reinstall using an OEM disk with his existing product key. But where will he get a basic OEM disk? He can't use his product key with any other license type. And only people who build their own computers are likely to have a generic OEM Windows disk. (Microsoft have been careful to cover all the angles.) From what I've seen, even the average tech. support person doesn't create an install disk or make a disk image for customers. So any failure that can't be fixed by re-installing from a "restore partition" usually means buying either a new PC or a new copy of Windows unnecessarily. Actually, even MacOS could be installed to a "white box" at one point. Then Steve Jobs returned to Apple and locked it to their hardware. Probably the Microsofties got the idea from him. They might not have dared to try pulling it off otherwise. But Steve Jobs was more clever. He provided the appearance that Apple was actually building the hardware, so rendering the software virtually embedded didn't seem so odd, even though Apple is really just the sole OEM company for MacOS. They don't make the hardware any more than Dell does. They just design the package. But Windows comes in several packages, which dilutes their brand. HP, Dell and Acer all manage to create the illusion that they built the hardware, but since there are several Windows OEM companies there's no "Microsoft computer" in the same way that there's an "Apple computer". (Apple lovers often refer to "Wintel" because they've been trained to view Macs as appliances with embedded software, but there was never such a monolithic Windows hardware brand.) |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotationefficiently?
On 4/24/2013 4:11 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Whisky-dave wrote: it matters if your time is worth something. Everyones tinme is worth something, which is one of the reasons for fast food, it's more expensive too, you pays yuor money and takes yuor choice. fast food is not always more expensive. compare the price of mcdonalds to that of a fancy burger place. i've heard of $20 burgers at some places. Fast food is neither. If you want a cardboard taste, just grind up paper, and cover it with ketchup, cheaper than a big Mac. Less calories too. -- PeterN |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system. | Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system? | | same place you got the original. Circa 1998 a Windows PC came with a Windows CD that could be used to install Windows on any other PC, or to reinstall. It was an actual copy of Windows. Since then Microsoft has gone to great lengths to lock the OS to the hardware and render a PC as a disposable appliance. With XP, MS instituted Product Activation, tying Windows to the hardware. The public has been trained to see Windows as part of the PC, and trained to see the PC itself as a single unit, when it's actually just an assemblage of parts put together by the OEM company in a branded box. everything is an assemblage of parts. users don't care about the individual parts. they care about the finished product, a working computer which helps them get work done. Microsoft now make a lot more profit from people like Danny D. Most people buy another Windows license with every PC purchase. that's because it's bundled with every pc purchase. And many people buy another PC the first time their current PC "doesn't work". that's because buying a new computer is usually a much better choice than putting money into an older computer, broken or not. Meanwhile, pressure from Microsoft and plunging PC prices have all but eliminated "white box" PC shops, so it's very difficult to buy any PC without also buying a Windows license. so what? windows is licensed per machine so you need a windows license. might as well get it bundled. It's possible, through various means, to make sure that one has a backup of the OS in the case of hard disk failure, power surge, nasty malware, etc., but most people don't know anything about that and don't realize they're at risk. if you don't make backups, then you will be screwed when a hard drive crashes. this applies to anything, not just windows. Danny D. might also be able to successfully reinstall using an OEM disk with his existing product key. But where will he get a basic OEM disk? He can't use his product key with any other license type. And only people who build their own computers are likely to have a generic OEM Windows disk. (Microsoft have been careful to cover all the angles.) recovery disk. From what I've seen, even the average tech. support person doesn't create an install disk or make a disk image for customers. So any failure that can't be fixed by re-installing from a "restore partition" usually means buying either a new PC or a new copy of Windows unnecessarily. whose fault is that? Actually, even MacOS could be installed to a "white box" at one point. Then Steve Jobs returned to Apple and locked it to their hardware. nope. before steve jobs returned to apple in 1997, mac os could *not* be installed to a generic 'white box'. apple did have clones in the 90s, but those were really licensed mac motherboards with minor modifications by the clonemakers. mac clones was also a really stupid move and caused apple to lose money, which is why it was ended. Probably the Microsofties got the idea from him. windows activation is because windows was widely pirated, not just people getting it off pirate sites, but those who bought one copy and installed it on multiple machines. They might not have dared to try pulling it off otherwise. But Steve Jobs was more clever. He provided the appearance that Apple was actually building the hardware, so rendering the software virtually embedded didn't seem so odd, even though Apple is really just the sole OEM company for MacOS. They don't make the hardware any more than Dell does. They just design the package. anyone who thinks a mac is just a repackaged dell or lenovo but with an apple logo is very mistaken. But Windows comes in several packages, which dilutes their brand. it doesn't dilute the brand, but it does confuse people on which version to buy. HP, Dell and Acer all manage to create the illusion that they built the hardware, but since there are several Windows OEM companies there's no "Microsoft computer" in the same way that there's an "Apple computer". there are microsoft computers, which is ****ing off their hardware partners. (Apple lovers often refer to "Wintel" because they've been trained to view Macs as appliances with embedded software, but there was never such a monolithic Windows hardware brand.) nonsense. the term wintel did not originate from apple fans and macs do not have embedded software either, nor are they appliances. where do you come up with this ****? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?
In article , Poutnik
wrote: Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done. I'm not "aware" of that, in fact I disagree. I would far rather have a larger number of dedicated programs, than a single jack of all trades. I suppose the goal is not to have a single program, tha is able to do everything..... the goal is to get whatever is necessary to do what the user needs to do, not meet some goal of having the most or the fewest apps. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's a good Linux (freeware) program to view/add/delete EXIF data | Danny D.[_2_] | Digital Photography | 15 | October 31st 12 02:40 PM |
Best freeware windows program to harvest all Exif metadata | David Remley Photography | Digital Photography | 3 | July 3rd 08 06:02 PM |
My Geek Picture (linux, windows & cie) | jejetster | Digital Photography | 0 | November 3rd 06 08:02 AM |
Windows "magnify" program substitute | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | January 23rd 05 07:08 PM |
Computer System for Digital Photography: MS-Windows, Apple, or Linux | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 158 | January 3rd 05 12:29 PM |