O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:43:29 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-07 07:39:19 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 22:16:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-06 21:08:28 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:29:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-06 19:41:54 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 19:06:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-06 18:13:21 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:49:57 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:50:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

file systems are old school. they're eventually going away for nearly
all users. system administrators or developers might need to get at
individual files, but typical users do not.

Crap.

You couldn't find your way round my wife's iPad collection of of
photographs unless there was a file system you could follow.
Otherwise, god knows how many thousands of photographs all in one big
heap.

Mine are in albums on my iPad. Is that not a file system?

Exactly! However, some of us here are curious as to when it was you got
yourself an iPad?

Month or so ago. I wanted a way to take photos with me to show some
people. So far, I've never added a - whaddayacallit - an app? or used
for anything else. Rather than let technology lead me by the nose, I
add what I want when I want it.

I did try to take a photograph with it earlier this evening. The
grandsons had wrestling practice, so I tried to take a photo. I found
it doesn't work too well with my finger over the lens. Finally got
one image and went to the car and got my Fuji compact for the rest.

Pop Warner football starts this week, so I'll be back to the Nikon.
They got their practice kit.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohhve1k3je...3-08-05-01.JPG

You might want to add Dropbox to your iPad. Another useful app for your
desktop and iPad is "Photo Transfer App".
http://www.phototransferapp.com/

Also, as a photographer I suggest you take a look at "Eyewitness" from
the Guardian.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-...363993651?mt=8

The Wikipedia App is worth having installed;
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wiki...324715238?mt=8

...and if you want to see just how good streaming video can be on an
iPad, check the Smithsonian Channel app
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/smit...377458454?mt=8

I use a couple of birder's field guides (on iPhone & iPad) which saves
lugging a paper edition around.

Just a few things look at, if they don't interest you, then so be it.

Just not interested, Duck.

I suspected as much. So when you are ready...

So far, the only thing I'm interested in
doing is having a portable way of displaying my images.

I use the Photo Transfer App & Dropbox to move prepared images from my
desktop to my iPad albums for display.

I have a folder on C: that contains files that end up as Albums on my
iPad. I send copies of images I want on my iPad to this folder and
the appropriate file (Album), plug in my iPad, and "Synch" when I'm
ready to update the Albums. This works smoothly for me. No need to
bother with DropBox.

It's certainly not the only way to accomplish the task, but it's a
simple and quick way for me to do it.

Whatever works for you.

I was in a
situation just after I got it when I wanted to shoot some images of
something and the subject was a bit leery of letting me. I brought
out the iPad and showed him some albums of similar shots I'd done. He
let me take the shots and asked me to email him the results.

A great use for the iPad, but not the only one.


Home Depot carries hundreds of different tools. I only buy the tools
from Home Depot that I have some known use for. If some new task
comes up where a new and different tool is required, I'll buy it.

I approach the iPad the same way. nospam, and others, seem to want me
to create new tasks so I have to get new tools to use with the new
tasks in order to be progressive.

Yup! It's just a tool for you to use as you needed. Somewhat like a
Swiss army knife which you only use for the corkscrew.


All my wine comes with screw tops.



So far, I've not even tried to use it in a wi-fi hot spot. Haven't
had a reason I wanted to.

I mostly use mine at home with my home Wi-Fi network. However, there
are those hotspots if I need them, and if I am traveling I can either
buy a block of 3G/4G bandwidth for the trip, or wirelessly tether to my
iPhone to share some of that bandwidth I am paying for with my Verizon
phone data plan.

I don't understand that. If you have a desktop at home, why would you
use your iPad instead? You are using a product with a smaller screen
and keyboard instead of your desktop. What's the advantage to that?

I am not always at my desktop, and there are some apps and features
which are more convenient to work on and access via the iPad. Also some
of the apps I find useful are not duplicated on my desktop, or function
better on the iPad. At least that is what works for me.
What I find I am not using much these days is my Mac Power Book Pro.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:28:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

My ipad makes a better alarm clock than my alarm clock ever did.

That's wonderful. Amazing, innit, that people have been getting up on
time for years without benefit of the "better" alarm clock. We've
seen such progress in that area. There was a time, you know, when
people employed someone to "knock them up" by tapping on their window
with a long stick. That phrase has acquired a new meaning.

there was a time when there were no word processors. we all used
typewriters and had a pile of crumpled paper behind the desk. there was
a time before there were typewriters too.

And yet we had succesful and prolific authors. I wonder how they
managed it?

there was a time when there were no cars or planes. if you wanted to go
overseas, it took weeks and you might even hit icebergs along the way
because there was no radar.

Does the iPad have a flying carpet app? Does it have radar?

No?

Then what has this got to do with the argument?


there was a time when there were no treatments for many diseases.

Dr iPad app?

yea, let's go back to those days. you are *so* stuck in the past that
it's scary.

You seem to think that the fact that something can be done on the iPad
is necessarily useful or better. The fact that it is new does not mean
that at all. I get along quite well mostly without it. So too does
Tony Cooper. That doesn't mean that I have no use for it at all.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

It only applies to those images for which I have a need to do it.

Uh, yeah? Do you think any task applies to images that doesn't need to
have that task applied to it?

The above doesn't make sense as a statement. "Applies", in this
context, means "pertains to". It's probably in your dictionary.

Why is English so hard for you?

Smart folder created for favorites of that particular shoot (or for
several shoots), export command for web versions on the fly for whatever
thumbs I currently have selected.

Sounds like a good system.

It's just the normal way that pretty much every photographer in the
world works with photos on computers.

Why bring it up to convince me of something?

I find it hard to believe anyone would set out to convince you of
anything. The discussion isn't about you though, it's about file system
versus database.

I does seem like you have made it about me.

I won't even ask what made it "seem" that way to you, because I know you
can't answer that.

To be a generic scenario, it has to be relating to a whole group or
class.

As it does.

Hmmm. You've found a group or class that replicates images for
different folders in order to find them by some keyword-type aspect?

I seem to have found a guy in Florida that can't follow English text to
save his life.

Sigh. Maybe English just is a third or fourth language to you? The
scenario was this:

"suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of
the eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right
there. photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos."

nospam then used YOUR system and applied that to the generic scenario:

"your way would be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in
each"

But, as usual, nospam was wrong.

We don't know that. Either way, whether he was wrong or not is
irrelevant to what the scenario was that you have yet to comprehend.

I haven't "just exposed" anything. I've been using Lightroom for
several years and made many mentions of it here.

I've had you killfiled, remember?

I have no memory of when you entered the group, but the killfiling was
recent. Perhaps you just don't pay attention.

Not reading your posts is not the same as not paying attention.

What benefit you and you alone is totally irrelevant to anyone but you,
so I have no idea why you keep telling us about it?

That's kind of a mixed pronouncement, isn't it?

Nope.

You say my system is totally irrelevant to anyone but me

Very good.

but you and nospam natter on about it.

Nope.

One generally ignores what is irrelevant.

I do ignore your uses, which is why I continue to talk about the generic
scenario, remember?

What's with "*rolleye*"? I dunno about Sweden, but in the US that's
something small children do when presented with a parental command to
do something they don't want to do...like "Put away the Legos and go
take your nap". We grow out of that here.

http://english.stackexchange.com/que...l-your-eyes-me
an

Kid's stuff.

Keep telling yourself that, I'm sure it's the only way you can make
yourself feel superior to me.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

i don't assume anything. however, making things easier is something all
users want. except maybe you.

Do you know his needs? You can't suggest how to make things easier,
unless you understand the user's needs. One size does not fit all.

Well, using a database is most certainly a superset of using the
filesystem. Everything you do in your file system can be done with the
database approach and more. So generally speaking you most certainly
cold make the claim that a solid database application would make it
easier for everyone, even if they currently can't see any use outside of
their current system.

Think of it as Adobe Bridge vs Adobe Lightroom. In Bridge, what you see
and handle are files in the filesystem, while in Adobe Lightroom, you
manage the database that in turn point to files kept inside the
Lightroom Catalog structure that you don't have to deal with at any
point.

Yup. But, my point is that one cannot design a useful database, without
understanding the user's needs.

No one designs a database for one users needs. It is designed for the
general need of the generic customer. You know, like the file system was
designed. Like *everything* sold to more than one person is designed.

And one CAN design a database that is useful to everyone without knowing
everyone's needs, that's the beauty of databases, they're very flexible
by nature.

Now, the UI can put limitations on that flexibility, but the user gets
to choose what UI suits them best (Aperture, Lightroom, iPhoto,
whatever).



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Even so, it is not any kind of generic or common scenario. To be a
generic scenario, it has to be relating to a whole group or class.
That's what "generic" is. You think there's some whole group or class
out there that creates three files as described above?

actually it is an extremely common scenario. just about everyone
listens to music at some point or another. many people listen to music
daily.

The "generic" use was about creating three image files, not about
music. Read what he wrote: "It's a generic scenario that is meant to
illustrate a common need for people that have a desire to organize
their photos. Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife
by name or the last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied
to your horrendous workflow above."

The generic scenario can use a music library as an example just as
easily. Anyone fluent in English would easily comprehend and apply the
scenario to their scope of interest.

In fact, the scenario should be as generic as possible and perhaps
mention an application that handles bread recipes, and then the reader
(one that is fluent in English) would read the example and substitute
"bread recipe" with whatever he or she is currently discussing.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/7/2013 4:28 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Sandman
wrote:

It's a generic scenario that is meant to illustrate a common need for
people that have a desire to organize their photos.
Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife by name or the
last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied to your
horrendous workflow above.

But is isn't my scenario.

I just said that, Sherlock. Read the words above.

Why bring it up to convince me of something?

I find it hard to believe anyone would set out to convince you of
anything. The discussion isn't about you though, it's about file system
versus database.

yep, but since he doesn't understand it and likes to argue, he turns it
into how *he* works and how everyone needs to work *his* way.


Just the opposite. tony Cooper says how he works. You say how "most
people' work, without any documentation, or room for variables.

I assume you didn't see the amazingly craptacular workflow Tony is
employing and thus can't begin to understand just how out of whack he is
from the "most people" realm. It was hilarious and disturbing to see the
hoops he would jump through that normal people just don't have to think
about at all.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:28:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Sandman
wrote:

i don't assume anything. however, making things easier is something all
users want. except maybe you.

Do you know his needs? You can't suggest how to make things easier,
unless you understand the user's needs. One size does not fit all.

Well, using a database is most certainly a superset of using the
filesystem. Everything you do in your file system can be done with the
database approach and more. So generally speaking you most certainly
cold make the claim that a solid database application would make it
easier for everyone, even if they currently can't see any use outside of
their current system.

exactly.

if they want to be limited to what a file system can do, they can still
do that, but if they want to avail themselves of additional
functionality, which *does* make things easier, they can do that too.

You don't seem to realise that what everyone refers to as a 'file
system' is a database. All a 'file system' does is provide you with
pointers to a table which contains pointers to where the various
chunks of raw data actually are. You are quite right: you can provide
additional functionality by installing yet another layer of
organisation with pointers to data of the file system.

Think of it as Adobe Bridge vs Adobe Lightroom. In Bridge, what you see
and handle are files in the filesystem, while in Adobe Lightroom, you
manage the database that in turn point to files kept inside the
Lightroom Catalog structure that you don't have to deal with at any
point.

yep.

But you still need the underlying file system.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

if they want to be limited to what a file system can do, they can still
do that, but if they want to avail themselves of additional
functionality, which *does* make things easier, they can do that too.

You don't seem to realise that what everyone refers to as a 'file
system' is a database.

No it isn't.

All a 'file system' does is provide you with
pointers to a table which contains pointers to where the various
chunks of raw data actually are.

Which doesn't make it a database.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

you said you make multiple copies of photos. i'm going by what you said
you do.

I said I make multiple copies of *some* photos.

That constitutes you saying that you make multiple copies of photos,
even if you only do it to *some*. The scenario also only concerned
*some* photos.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:28:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Sandman
wrote:

It's a generic scenario that is meant to illustrate a common need for
people that have a desire to organize their photos.
Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife by name or the
last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied to your
horrendous workflow above.

But is isn't my scenario.

I just said that, Sherlock. Read the words above.

Why bring it up to convince me of something?

I find it hard to believe anyone would set out to convince you of
anything. The discussion isn't about you though, it's about file system
versus database.

yep, but since he doesn't understand it and likes to argue, he turns it
into how *he* works and how everyone needs to work *his* way.

WOW! You have turned the argument inside out.

But since you don't understand it and like to argue, you have turned
it into how *he* should work and how everyone needs to work *your*
way.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens