Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

In article , PeterN
wrote:


I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two
were related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

Nope.

i thought you plonked me.

you can't even get that right.


He had a bad day, and wanted somthing to laugh at. He decided to look at
your assinine postings.

except that he was replying to someone else when he made his initial
mistake, not me.

you can't get anything right either.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:12:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I had already understood that from what you had written. nospam had
slightly confused the situation by writing:

"it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

there's nothing like it on any other platform."

I wasn't quite sure what he meant by a 'default conversion'.

you don't get to adjust it.
what would you expect from one line of code?

if you want to present the user with a way to adjust the raw
conversion, then it will take more than one line of code.

Were we talking about adjusting anything?

You call it "one line of code". That maybe for you, but I suspect that
under the skin it is a little more than that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I had already understood that from what you had written. nospam had
slightly confused the situation by writing:

"it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

there's nothing like it on any other platform."

I wasn't quite sure what he meant by a 'default conversion'.

you don't get to adjust it.
what would you expect from one line of code?

if you want to present the user with a way to adjust the raw
conversion, then it will take more than one line of code.

Were we talking about adjusting anything?

usually people want to adjust raws.

otherwise, they might as well be shooting jpeg and save space.

You call it "one line of code". That maybe for you, but I suspect that
under the skin it is a little more than that.

of course it is, but what's under the skin has already been written and
well tested.

developers benefit from only needing to write one line to handle nearly
any format.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:32:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I had already understood that from what you had written. nospam had
slightly confused the situation by writing:

"it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

there's nothing like it on any other platform."

I wasn't quite sure what he meant by a 'default conversion'.

you don't get to adjust it.
what would you expect from one line of code?

if you want to present the user with a way to adjust the raw
conversion, then it will take more than one line of code.

Were we talking about adjusting anything?

usually people want to adjust raws.

otherwise, they might as well be shooting jpeg and save space.

True, but we were talking about _opening_ raws. We weren't saying
anything about what might be done afterwards.

You call it "one line of code". That maybe for you, but I suspect that
under the skin it is a little more than that.

of course it is, but what's under the skin has already been written and
well tested.

developers benefit from only needing to write one line to handle nearly
any format.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 8/22/2014 6:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two
were related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

Nope.

i thought you plonked me.

you can't even get that right.


He had a bad day, and wanted somthing to laugh at. He decided to look at
your assinine postings.

except that he was replying to someone else when he made his initial
mistake, not me.

you can't get anything right either.


I see. You now claim he didn't plonk you.
Oh! Boy!

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two
were related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

Nope.

i thought you plonked me.

you can't even get that right.


He had a bad day, and wanted somthing to laugh at. He decided to look at
your assinine postings.

except that he was replying to someone else when he made his initial
mistake, not me.

you can't get anything right either.

I see. You now claim he didn't plonk you.
Oh! Boy!

he clearly did not.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I had already understood that from what you had written. nospam had
slightly confused the situation by writing:

"it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

there's nothing like it on any other platform."

I wasn't quite sure what he meant by a 'default conversion'.

you don't get to adjust it.
what would you expect from one line of code?

if you want to present the user with a way to adjust the raw
conversion, then it will take more than one line of code.

Were we talking about adjusting anything?

usually people want to adjust raws.

otherwise, they might as well be shooting jpeg and save space.

True, but we were talking about _opening_ raws. We weren't saying
anything about what might be done afterwards.

simply opening the file is easy but that doesn't do much beyond giving
you a blob of data.

the magic of nsimage is that it can handle just about whatever format
you feed it and without needing to special case each individual format.
*it* figures out what to do, not the developer.

On 8/23/2014 12:41 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies
on this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two
were related.

I started this when I asked:

"Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?"

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

"There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode."

yep. he confused the two.

Nope.

deny it all you want but that's exactly what you did.

Nope.

i thought you plonked me.

you can't even get that right.


He had a bad day, and wanted somthing to laugh at. He decided to look at
your assinine postings.

except that he was replying to someone else when he made his initial
mistake, not me.

you can't get anything right either.

I see. You now claim he didn't plonk you.
Oh! Boy!

he clearly did not.


One if the few times I will bother:

Here is the full text of the message:

"

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is
a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting
for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different
things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a
silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are
the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for
some
of us.

obviously you don't understand much of anything.

when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for
uuencode, you are confusing the two.

it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has
gaussian blur.

outlook does not have unicode. it's broken.

whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever,
and uuencoding isn't even used anymore.

Plonk!"



You really need help!


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I see. You now claim he didn't plonk you.
Oh! Boy!

he clearly did not.

One if the few times I will bother:

Here is the full text of the message:

you ought to learn what plonk actually means before you show yourself
to be even more stupid than you already have.

he may have said he plonked me but he clearly did not. he was lying.

On 8/23/2014 2:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I see. You now claim he didn't plonk you.
Oh! Boy!

he clearly did not.

One if the few times I will bother:

Here is the full text of the message:

you ought to learn what plonk actually means before you show yourself
to be even more stupid than you already have.

he may have said he plonked me but he clearly did not. he was lying.


You are true to form. Bordering on being an Internet sociopath. When
caught in an outright lie, you insult whoever catches you.
Clearly PAS was not lying. He may have changed his mind, or possibly did
not get around to setting a filter. As I said earlier, he may have been
in ndded of a good laugh, and wanted to see how far you would go.

You are serious need ot help.

--
PeterN