Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

On 5/17/11 11:29 AM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

PeterN writes:

I wonder why most businesses use MS products, except in the graphics
arts industry.


If you plan to use a computer for nothing but music composition, video or
photo editing, electronic publishing, or the like, a Mac is probably a good
choice. If you need a computer that can do lots of things generally, a PC is
probably a better choice. If you need to run business applications, a PC is an
excellent choice. And if you want to run lots of video games, a Mac may simply
not be an option at all.

For a long time, that was the case. It isn't today: A Intel-based Mac is
perfectly capable of doing anything that a Pee-Cee box can do, usually
faster. This is due to virtualization software like Parallels or VM Fusion.
So that argument is passé.

On 5/17/2011 1:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/17/2011 9:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/16/2011 10:46 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

No. Microsoft has never had control in the way Apple does. You could always
build your own PC and install anything you wanted on it,

How would you build your own laptop?

Buy the parts and do the assembly.

Uh, where do you buy the parts to build a laptop?

Google is your friend


http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-diy-15-gaming-notebook-intel-ati-edition-eol.html

Yep, butt-ignorant and stupid as ever.

Now tell us where to buy one of those "EOL" machines. You do understand
the concept of "EOL" do you not? "End Of Life"? AKA "out of
production"?

And I don't see any parts there, what I see is complete machines that
have some accessories in separate boxes.

Desktop machines can be assembled from commodity parts--there are
standard connectors and standard form factors so you can buy a case from
one source and a motherboard from another and a power supply from a
third and it will all work together. That is not true of laptops.

and Microsoft would
happily sell you a copy of their own OS if you wanted that.

at a much higher price than the surcharge they place on
vendors.


Yup! And when you need support, you go to the vendor, not MS.

Thousands of
companies build PCs that will run Microsoft operating systems.



Microsoft was always more interested in giving the mass market
what it wanted.

What Microsoft wanted, true.



I wonder why most businesses use MS products, except in the graphics
arts industry.

One reason is that if you use Microsoft you're single-source from the
largest server down to your cell phone, so no finger-pointing. If
you're using *nix servers to support Windows desktops then you're going
to be dealing with two groups of specialist both of which see the other
OS as the root of all evi.


Many sophisticated small offices use MS products on their desktops with
an Apache server.

If the only thing their server does is run Apache they aren't
"sophisticated small offices", they're "small offices with a web
server".

We are at an interesting point in the computing cycle. Originally we had
dumb terminals. We migrated to all in one desktops. Then we networked
them. Now the cloud, square one.

For once you've said something I almost agree with.


If you look you will find.
Meanwhile, I have had enough of you trying to paste your ignorance and
lack of resourcefulness on others.
Bye Asshole.
Peter

Mxsmanic wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson writes:

Not just viruses, but *any* type of malware. The reason
for that is exactly as I stated above: there is no way
to generate a self replicating virus for Linux.

Not true, unfortunately.

Oh, fanboi says so, eh?

There is no way to let
it loose and have it attack a even a dozen hosts, much
less a million or more.

Finding a dozen Linux hosts in close proximity can be difficult on the
desktop.

Even it that ridiculous statement were true, it has no bearing on
the discussion, fanboi.

A simple example is that typically an "unprotected" Windows
machine using out of the box software only will be infected
within minutes of being connected to the Internet.

That's not true, either.

Funny how true it actually is.

On the other hand, a Linux machine can be connected to the
Internet for *years* with no concern whatever about a virus.

I've seen Windows machines connected for years without a virus, too (including
all my Windows machines).

Yeah, sure. Just out of the box and plugged in. No anti-virus software at
all... right fanboi?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:29:07 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 5/17/2011 11:12 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:

Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters.
It would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
anti-virus software vendors. They target MS because it is used
extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others
put together.

They target Windows because it has so many security holes.

If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that
have targeted Linux and OSx.

I don't know about OSx, but there has never been a successful virus
that targets Linux. The ones that claim to be are not successful,
simply because they cannot replicate and spread on their own. The only
way to get "infected" is to purposely install it.

That's the same as claiming the command "sudo rm -rf /" is a virus.
It's not, it's just a possible stupidity.


I don't usually like to use the WICKI, but read for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware

Firstly Wicki can be written by anyone and so is not reliable. Secondly I
have been using various linux distros for something like 8 years or so
(starting with Mandrake) and have never seen a virus on any of the distros
I have used. I do use a firewall and do NOT allow any other computer
access to mine. I do have windows on my laptop alongside Fedora 14 for
when I visit my daughter.

The only virus that I have personally heard of for linux was just an
experimental one that was not successful in the wild.



--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:18:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:


"There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware threat of the type
that Microsoft Windows software faces"

Not just viruses, but *any* type of malware. The reason for that is
exactly as I stated above: there is no way to generate a self
replicating virus for Linux. It cannot spread automatically, and has
to be purposely installed. That is to say that a "rootkit" can be used
to attack one individual host, but that's all that it attacks is just
that one host. There is no way to let it loose and have it attack a
even a dozen hosts, much less a million or more.

A simple example is that typically an "unprotected" Windows machine
using out of the box software only will be infected within minutes of
being connected to the Internet. Over a period of a month or so...

On the other hand, a Linux machine can be connected to the Internet for
*years* with no concern whatever about a virus.


And that excuses the sick virus writers?


You are the one saying that, not us.


--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

In article ,
says...

On 5/17/2011 1:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/17/2011 9:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/16/2011 10:46 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

No. Microsoft has never had control in the way Apple does. You could always
build your own PC and install anything you wanted on it,

How would you build your own laptop?

Buy the parts and do the assembly.

Uh, where do you buy the parts to build a laptop?

Google is your friend


http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-diy-15-gaming-notebook-intel-ati-edition-eol.html

Yep, butt-ignorant and stupid as ever.

Now tell us where to buy one of those "EOL" machines. You do understand
the concept of "EOL" do you not? "End Of Life"? AKA "out of
production"?

And I don't see any parts there, what I see is complete machines that
have some accessories in separate boxes.

Desktop machines can be assembled from commodity parts--there are
standard connectors and standard form factors so you can buy a case from
one source and a motherboard from another and a power supply from a
third and it will all work together. That is not true of laptops.

and Microsoft would
happily sell you a copy of their own OS if you wanted that.

at a much higher price than the surcharge they place on
vendors.


Yup! And when you need support, you go to the vendor, not MS.

Thousands of
companies build PCs that will run Microsoft operating systems.



Microsoft was always more interested in giving the mass market
what it wanted.

What Microsoft wanted, true.



I wonder why most businesses use MS products, except in the graphics
arts industry.

One reason is that if you use Microsoft you're single-source from the
largest server down to your cell phone, so no finger-pointing. If
you're using *nix servers to support Windows desktops then you're going
to be dealing with two groups of specialist both of which see the other
OS as the root of all evi.


Many sophisticated small offices use MS products on their desktops with
an Apache server.

If the only thing their server does is run Apache they aren't
"sophisticated small offices", they're "small offices with a web
server".

We are at an interesting point in the computing cycle. Originally we had
dumb terminals. We migrated to all in one desktops. Then we networked
them. Now the cloud, square one.

For once you've said something I almost agree with.


If you look you will find.

Uh huh. So you couldn't find anything.

Meanwhile, I have had enough of you trying to paste your ignorance and
lack of resourcefulness on others.
Bye Asshole.

You've said that before.
Peter

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Uh, where do you buy the parts to build a laptop?

Desktop machines can be assembled from commodity parts--there are
standard connectors and standard form factors so you can buy a case from
one source and a motherboard from another and a power supply from a
third and it will all work together. That is not true of laptops.

One can turn this around and ask "why build a laptop instead of a desktop?"

Laptops have zero advantages over desktops except for portability.

portability is a *huge* advantage, and nothing prevents anyone from
having both a laptop and a desktop, as most people do.

some people plug in a larger display to their laptop, and depending on
the laptop, use both displays at the same time.

You really
need to put a very, very high priority on portability in order to accept all
the other drawbacks of having a laptop

what drawbacks are those? modern laptops outperform desktops of just a
year or two ago, which for most people is already overkill. very few
people have 8-12 core behemoths on their desk.

(and one of these is that it's very
difficult to build one's own laptop).

very few people build their own computers so that's not a drawback
whatsoever.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

They target Windows because it has so many security holes.

Windows doesn't have many security holes.

oh yes it does, especially xp and earlier.

They target Windows because just
about everyone is running it. You don't spend time and money developing
attacks for systems that represent 0.9% of the market.

they target systems that are easy to crack because it's a big return on
investment. malware is all about money now. it's not the bored hacker
who wants to play a prank.

In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Apple, on the other hand, controls everything. It's Apple's way or the
highway. Nobody else builds compatible hardware,

Well they do I've often brought products not made by Apple that work
with my
Macs. iomega drives, western digital drives, Espon printer and scanner
etc.....

If a company follows Apples 'rules' for hardware and software then
that product
will work with Apple computers. Actually intel produce chips
specifically for Apple last
I heard.

there is no 'apple rule' for hardware makers. apple (like a lot of
companies) support industry standards: sata, pci, usb, firewire, dvi,
displayport, 802.11a/b/g/n, bluetooth, etc.

if a product is compliant with a given standard, it will work with a
mac.

On 5/17/2011 3:23 PM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:18:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:


"There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware threat of the type
that Microsoft Windows software faces"

Not just viruses, but *any* type of malware. The reason for that is
exactly as I stated above: there is no way to generate a self
replicating virus for Linux. It cannot spread automatically, and has
to be purposely installed. That is to say that a "rootkit" can be used
to attack one individual host, but that's all that it attacks is just
that one host. There is no way to let it loose and have it attack a
even a dozen hosts, much less a million or more.

A simple example is that typically an "unprotected" Windows machine
using out of the box software only will be infected within minutes of
being connected to the Internet. Over a period of a month or so...

On the other hand, a Linux machine can be connected to the Internet for
*years* with no concern whatever about a virus.


And that excuses the sick virus writers?


You are the one saying that, not us.

Please follow the thread. I made the first comment about sick virus
writers who target MS. The response was that OSx and Linux are immune.
Clearly a diversionary statement clearly designed to change the topic.


--
Peter