Photo file rename by to date and time taken

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

| But, Windows Explorer is highly capable of working with files and
| folders; that's I why I continue to use it.

This debate can never end. He's not adept at
handing a file system so he thinks no one else
could be -- thus he figures everyone needs to
have an "asset babysitter" to do it for them.

nothing but ad hominems.

the point which you keep missing is that technology has advanced to
where it is no longer necessary to muck around in the file system. it's
primitive and grossly inefficient.

And what do you think an asset manager is doing except mucking around
in the file system?

what goes on internally does not matter to the user.

users don't need to worry about the cpu instructions or magnetic flux
on the hard drive (for non-ssd systems).

what matters is the interface that is presented to the user and how
productive they are in whatever tasks they need to do.

I guess that's what used to be a secretary in
the old days -- the person in the office who
actually knew where things were.

and it made everyone more productive.

And the secretary didn't need an asset manager. The secretary _was_
the asset manager.

which is why the boss had a secretary.

otherwise he'd have done it himself.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:42:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

| But, Windows Explorer is highly capable of working with files and
| folders; that's I why I continue to use it.

This debate can never end. He's not adept at
handing a file system so he thinks no one else
could be -- thus he figures everyone needs to
have an "asset babysitter" to do it for them.

nothing but ad hominems.

the point which you keep missing is that technology has advanced to
where it is no longer necessary to muck around in the file system. it's
primitive and grossly inefficient.

And what do you think an asset manager is doing except mucking around
in the file system?

what goes on internally does not matter to the user.

I knew that Bishop Berkely was not far under the surface.

users don't need to worry about the cpu instructions or magnetic flux
on the hard drive (for non-ssd systems).

what matters is the interface that is presented to the user and how
productive they are in whatever tasks they need to do.

I guess that's what used to be a secretary in
the old days -- the person in the office who
actually knew where things were.

and it made everyone more productive.

And the secretary didn't need an asset manager. The secretary _was_
the asset manager.

which is why the boss had a secretary.

otherwise he'd have done it himself.


John Turco doesn't need a machine to manage it all for him.

He does it all himself, within his own head. He doesn't have to load
into a mass of firmware what he already knows. I'm surprised that you
should think it desirable to use an external machine for what he can
already do in his head.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-08-28, nospam wrote:
You have never been a participant in a productive discussion.

more of your bull****.

Well, actually... I think he nailed it.
That is the perfect summary of you "contributions".

I have never, ever seen anything usefull from you. Ever. Amazing...

You never consider that someone else may wish to do things differently from
you, always asssume everyone should be using the same tools (those from your
well known religion) as you do in exactly the same way you do.
You never try to help someone. You never consider another person's point of
view. You never stick to the point of the OP's question, always drifting to
subjects that obsess you even if the have little or no relevance to the
question.


PS: which brand of glue are you sniffing ?



--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson

In article , Rikishi42
wrote:

You have never been a participant in a productive discussion.

more of your bull****.

Well, actually... I think he nailed it.
That is the perfect summary of you "contributions".

I have never, ever seen anything usefull from you. Ever. Amazing...

then you need to pay more attention.

You never consider that someone else may wish to do things differently from
you, always asssume everyone should be using the same tools (those from your
well known religion) as you do in exactly the same way you do.

bull****. people are free to do things any way they want. i don't give
a **** what anyone does and there is nothing religious about what i
talk about either.

i often point out more efficient ways of doing things. that's how
people learn.

whether someone wants to learn or stagnate is up to them. apparently
you are in the latter category.

You never try to help someone. You never consider another person's point of
view. You never stick to the point of the OP's question, always drifting to
subjects that obsess you even if the have little or no relevance to the
question.

wrong.

PS: which brand of glue are you sniffing ?

elmer's

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 01:02:51 +0200, Rikishi42
wrote:

On 2015-08-28, nospam wrote:
You have never been a participant in a productive discussion.

more of your bull****.

Well, actually... I think he nailed it.
That is the perfect summary of you "contributions".

I have never, ever seen anything usefull from you. Ever. Amazing...

Well, I'm pretty new here, but I disagree completely. I have gotten
lots of useful info from several posters here, and nospam is certainly
one of them. Yes, he can be a bit insistent that his way is better,
but he is usually right - it is better. But we all understand that the
better way is not necessary for everyone, especially if there is any
learning curve whatsoever. If something works, most of us tend to keep
doing things that way. I think that most of us do change whenever we
have the time to sit down and learn a new system, but finding that
time can be very difficult for a lot of people, even when a lot more
time would be saved with newer methods. That's just life. And this is
just Usenet. Arguing is an obligation for all posters.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

You have never been a participant in a productive discussion.

more of your bull****.

Well, actually... I think he nailed it.
That is the perfect summary of you "contributions".

I have never, ever seen anything usefull from you. Ever. Amazing...

Well, I'm pretty new here, but I disagree completely. I have gotten
lots of useful info from several posters here, and nospam is certainly
one of them. Yes, he can be a bit insistent that his way is better,
but he is usually right - it is better.

thanks.

But we all understand that the
better way is not necessary for everyone, especially if there is any
learning curve whatsoever.

i never said anything is necessary for anyone. people can choose to do
whatever the hell they want.

what's apparent is that a lot of people are apparently unaware of some
of the alternatives and others want to keep it that way. that's bad.

If something works, most of us tend to keep
doing things that way. I think that most of us do change whenever we
have the time to sit down and learn a new system, but finding that
time can be very difficult for a lot of people, even when a lot more
time would be saved with newer methods. That's just life.

true.

also, sometimes people change when they are forced to, such as when
they get a new system and what they were using no longer works at all.

And this is just Usenet. Arguing is an obligation for all posters.

also true.