Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotationefficiently?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep
sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can
get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required
is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in
between.

i thought you had a pay as you go phone.

anyway, if you're considering an iphone, splurge for at least a 4s. the
difference is well worth it. also shop around for plans. there are
unlimited iphone plans around $30.

That's a cute little phone, but - try as I might - I can't see what
I'd do with it. Searching my memory, I can't think of a single
instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart
phone.

a lot of people say that, but once they have a smartphone they find all
sorts of things it can do that they didn't think of.

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.

My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps
with me the other night, and I didn't see one that interested me.

maybe his choice of apps doesn't overlap with yours.

you probably don't have the same selection of apps on your computers
either.

In article , Danny D.
wrote:

sometimes it's unbelievable the crap people use just because it's free.

Offhand, I used the following freeware (from memory) when I was on
Windows ...

Which of these do you feel is crap?

gimp, without any question, but others include, openoffice, sharepod,
lynx and skype.

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.


What are the multiple installs adobe offers say compared with Apples
Aperature ?

aperture used to have paid upgrades, just like most adobe products,
until aperture moved to the mac app store. now it's free upgrades.

adobe acrobat reader is free, unlimited installs and unlimited upgrades.

they know that if they don't restrict it, people will buy one copy and

use it on hundreds of machines (or just pirate it outright).

Yes isn't that why adobe have license numbers and activation codes.

photoshop is one of the most widely pirated apps, so it's no surprise
it has activation.

they're
not really worried about one person who has a laptop and a desktop, and
in fact, that situation is usually allowed.

it is now years ago it wasn;t and if I just happen to have say Pshop on a Mac
laptop can I also install it on my windows desktop without having to pay for
it again ?
Never used to be able to, not sure now, not interested now.

you can install and activate photoshop on two machines, typically a
desktop and laptop.


depends on what you need to do. photoshop elements is around $50 and is
significantly more capable than anything free.

It should be better than free options otherwise people wouldn't buy it would
they ?

exactly. photoshop is more capable than the free alternatives, which is
why it sells so well and in high demand by pirates. even pirates don't
want the legitimate free crap, they want the real thing.

if elements saves you a

couple of hours (even just one hour), you come out ahead by buying it.

Maybe, but at approx 3X my hourly pay rate I'd have to use it at least 3 hours to break
even and be convinced there was no other practical way of doing it in 3 hours any other way.
On other groups people are discussing how much time they'll save if the brought a SSD drive.

it will definitely save you 3 hours and probably much more, unless you
don't do very much with a graphic app.

ssd is also a nice performance boost too and can save people valuable
time.

In article , Danny D.
wrote:

The main reason I'm on Linux is simply that I had replaced my hard disk
and the PC manufacturer wouldn't give me a replacement installation disk
for Windows (even though the license stickers were on the bottom of the PC).

why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can't you contact
microsoft and get it activated?

So I put Linux on instead - and I've never looked back.

you gave up on windows because you can't figure out how to reactivate
windows when swapping a hard drive?

For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes
quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device
services),

those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.

Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes!

not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can't.

The _only_ thing that I ever needed to do that only iTunes did well
was to initialize a brand-new iPod or iPhone. While there are Linux
alternatives to iTunes for initializing, iTunes is far easier, in the
end for initializing devices.

in other words, you can't live perfectly well without itunes.

However, my rule is to IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) remove iTunes once
the brand-new device is initialized;

very stupid.

then SharePod or copyTransManager
or any of a host of much nicer iTunes replacements are used instead.

sharepod doesn't do everything itunes does, and you even said as much.
one major drawback is it can't access the itunes store.

in other words, no buying music, videos or apps. while music and videos
can be obtained in other ways, such as extracting from one's own cd
collection, apps can't.

Unfortunately, due to iTunes bloatware, you _also_ have to uninstall
a host of unwanted badly behaved programs that came with iTunes, such
as Bonjour, QuickTime, Apple Application Support, Apple Mobile Device
Support, Apple Software Update, etc. (Note: QuickTime Alternative is
a good alternative to Quicktime if you must have it.)

there is absolutely no need to uninstall any of that, nor are they
badly behaved. furthermore, quicktime alternative is a pitiful
replacement for quicktime, which works just fine.

and doesn't even respect the place you tell it to put it.
that is a flat out lie.

Trust me. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

based on what you've said, you do not.

I've installed hundreds of programs, for example, on Windows, and
absolutely NONE of them go into "C:\Program Files".

why not? who cares where they go.

I know that because I have what I consider to be one of the most organized
software hierarchies in the history of PCs.

that's wonderful.

Absolutely nothing is organized
by brand name, for instance. And, my menus exactly mirror my installation
hierarchy, 1:1, like God meant them to.

god uses windows? and why would god care if something is organized by
brand name or not?

I could go on and on about how
to properly set up a PC

i'm sure you could, and much of it would be quickly discounted as
stupid. just look at the idiocy above.

- but - suffice to say, for the longest time,
I never even had an idiotic "Program Files" or "My Documents" or "Common
Files" directory (the defaults being set otherwise in the registry hives).

Suffice to say, you can tell iTunes where to go, and it will go there

so it does respect your choice.

- but,
ALL THE OTHER bloatware that comes with iTunes (see list above, including
Bonjour) will NOT respect your decision!

so what? those are background processes. there are many background
processes on a modern computer.

out of the millions and millions of windows users, how many people do
you think avoid putting apps in program files? hint: the number is so
far off the chart that it can be assumed to be zero.

nobody in their right mind is going to worry about edge cases like
that. if you try to fight the way the computer is designed to work, you
*are* going to have problems.

Please don't say that's a lie until you've actually tried it (like I have,
very many times over the years). And, trust me, I'm a detail kind of guy
so you can rest assured I took it up with my friends at Apple. It is what
it is and I'm not going to change it - but you calling me a liar doesn't
make it a lie.

it's a lie, which you admitted.

you said itunes doesn't respect where you tell it to go then you said
it goes where you tell it. one of those is a lie.

In fact, when I had no "Program Files" directory, guess what Bonjour did?
It CREATED its own "C:\Program Files" directory! Can you believe that?

who cares. how often do people look at what's in the program files
directory? how many care?

That tells you how badly written Apple software can be?

that doesn't make it badly written. not even close.

itunes isn't perfect (nothing is), but this is without question,
extremely minor and affects almost nobody.

Note: I'm in the Silicon Valley and my very good friends at Apple tell me
their developers fume about the same stuff that I do ... so I can't blame
the coders.

what might that stuff be?

i can guarantee you that developers don't give a **** about putting
apps somewhere *other* than program files. it's not something that gets
a lot of testing because almost nobody does it. there are far bigger
issues to resolve.

It's a marketing decision.

nonsense. it has nothing to do with marketing. the computer is designed
for apps to go in a certain place, so that's how apps are designed to
work. move them and you may have problems.

Most Apple customers won't even
understand what I'm talking about because they're a different class of
aficionado. They know stuff I'll never know - but - I know stuff they
can't even fathom because it's just not important to them. They're a
wholly different class of thinkers who don't mind having both a resource
fork and a data fork.

is that supposed to be some sort of apple-bashing?

anyway, resource forks were way ahead of their time, but they've long
been deprecated.

and don't forget, windows supports multi-fork files, not just two.

Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install
big apps take longer to install than small ones.

I'd correct that generalization to be the generalization that apps from
big companies generally take far (far) longer to install than apps from
small companies do.

bull****.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| For example, I told my kids today that processed meats such
| as liverwurst and bolongna have tons more bacteria than do
| meats closer to the bovine ... so my rule ... for them ... was
| buy the food as unprocessed as possible.
|
| Obviously you were too busy to read this:
|

http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/a...beef-are-riski
est-meats-4456184.php
|
|

I think there's a rule that one should never try to
introduce rational thinking, ambiguity or complexity
when dealing with a rule lover. Certainty is a generous
but jealous god.

that's hilarious coming from you, the person who has all sorts of rules
about what to do to prevent big brother from tracking people.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:11:11 -0400 nospam 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since I refuse to drop to the level of a grade schooler, this
conversation is over. Good luck.

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.

One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
such as this Type 54GP:
http://db.tt/kXSlavPM

You can see the Type 57S in the background/


...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ
or this 1938 GP streamliner
http://db.tt/DZTELetj
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.

One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
such as this Type 54GP:
http://db.tt/kXSlavPM

You can see the Type 57S in the background/


...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ
or this 1938 GP streamliner
http://db.tt/DZTELetj
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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?

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.

The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.

One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
such as this Type 54GP:
http://db.tt/kXSlavPM

You can see the Type 57S in the background/


...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ
or this 1938 GP streamliner
http://db.tt/DZTELetj
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

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.

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.


The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.

One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
such as this Type 54GP:
http://db.tt/kXSlavPM

You can see the Type 57S in the background/


...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ
or this 1938 GP streamliner
http://db.tt/DZTELetj
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens


--
Regards,

Savageduck