Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 237, 238, 239 Next

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 14, 2024 - 11:19pm
kurtster wrote: ntldr is missing windows xp Check BIOS settings to see if your primary boot device is setup correctly and/or that you have a diskette/cd-rom inserted from which it is trying to boot instead.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 14, 2024 - 10:43pm
ntldr is missing windows xp

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 5, 2023 - 7:56am

westslope wrote:

Help please.

I am looking for an 'App' that would allow text communication between an iPad and an Android smartphone or Windows 10 PC Workstation.

The owner of the iPad does not have an iPhone. I mention this because apparently if you have an iPhone, you can sync to an iPad and get WhatsApp to work.

The owner of the iPad lives in a provincial hospice, lost both legs to a CN freight train a couple of years ago and has limited use of his hands. I occasionally visit this man and bring him edibles.

I am the one with the android and windows devices and would rather not have to buy an iPhone.

Suggestions?

If the iPad owner has a cellphone they can text from the iPad if they're logged into their Apple ID *and* have enabled SMS messaging in the "Messages" app.

rgio

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 5, 2023 - 5:17am

westslope wrote:

I used Pulse for several years, and it worked great.

https://home.pulsesms.app/over...

Instructions on setting up an IOS alternative are here: https://home.pulsesms.app/over...

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: out of space
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 5, 2023 - 2:08am

westslope wrote:

What about good old Email?
Other than that, you could install Whatsapp on your Android (provided it is installed on the iPad and phone).
Same goes for Signal Messenger, as well as other messenger apps.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe

Posted: Jan 4, 2023 - 4:05pm

Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: La Villa Toscana
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 3, 2022 - 3:18pm

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Well even more basic than that. The "missing" color book from Adobe that is the biggie is Pantone Solid Coated. That is a recipe book âliterallyâ for printers to mix a wide range of spot color inks. Using a palette of uniform base colors, you would weigh out 3 parts Rubine, 1 part black, 1 part cobalt blue and get, I dunno, Pantone 498. The customer in Schenectady and the designer in LA and the printer in Taos are all looking at the same swatch in their (expensive) Pantone guides, so there are no surprisesâas long as the guy mixing the ink knows how to use a scale and do a drawdown.

Pantone came out with a Process formula book that was all CMYK values, but it was different from Solid Coated and everyone referred to Solid Color numbers even though those were supposed to be spot colors only. Anyway, computers allowed people to export CMYK renditions of Solid Coated spot colors and everyone was happy even though those conversions aren't valid: your CMS settings can play havoc with how they're converted. So now rather than use the Process book, design firms specify a PMS color (Solid Coated) and then give what they want as a CMYK equivalent. So yes, access to Pantone for most designers is not needed; we only need that CMYK formula. Which should change depending on the paper used, but absolutely zero agencies address this, so I guess no one is as anal retentive about consistency as they used to be in the 80s when designers got flown around the world to do press checks. Before my time, unfortunately, but I have a friend who works for âAdobeâ and she still gets to go on press checks in Vietnam.

I almost got to go somewhere East when I was doing the watery bum cleaning toilet attachment work but after almost 2 years of paying me 70/hour they put someone on the payroll full time. I wasn't offered the job. I couldn't have commuted that far anyway. Story of my life. Lucky they tolerated me such as they did.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 3:35pm

rgio wrote:

Pantone was founded in the 1960's to standardize color naming and application so businesses could share an understanding of the exact same thing without having to be in the same room. They don't own the colors, but if you want to use their language you need to pay for it...especially in business. There are plenty of other ways to share color now (RGB, Hex, etc,), but if you want to use their naming scheme, you have to pay for it

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: out of space
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 12:41pm
rgio wrote: ... There are plenty of other ways to share color now (RGB, Hex, etc,), but if you want to use their naming scheme, you have to pay for it. They aren't selling water in the desert, they're selling sand with names on it. If you don't want theirs, grab some of the free stuff. Ayupp.

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: out of space
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 12:36pm

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

So you clearly don't understand the problem that Pantone solves. Or how the dying dead-trees printing industry means fewer people have that problem. Pantone will likely die in our lifetimes and maybe Adobe is putting a boot to their neck deliberately, but it's not surprising that Pantone would try to come up with a way to keep their income up. Do I wish Adobe would have kept up? Sure. And like I said, I don't know why they haven't. Probably a sweetheart deal from decades ago that Pantone wasn't making any money off of. The short version is: I don't need Pantone. It's nice, but not $20/month nice, and I'm sure 95% of Adobe users haven't ever thought about it. But that 5% who do need it? $20/month is a no-brainer. Pantone's probably done their math and said something like "If we were getting 50Â¢/month per user on the old contract, then $20/month for 5% of all users will double our income." It's not greed, it's just numbers.

Saying it's a thing that can't be owned is like saying "how can they charge for cookbooks when I already have all the ingredients?" and then complaining when your chocolate chip cookies taste terrible because you put chicken in them.

I do understand what calibrating of device colors (sreen, printer) means. I have no preferences there, as you seem to. I don't publish anything, anymore nowadays. But I do know, Adobe, as well as Pantone aren't needed if one is serious about professional output in desktop publishing. It only may seem more comfortable, and that comfort comes with a price.
Regardless of - that's the way we've been used to doing it on Windows for decades...

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 12:10pm

thisbody wrote:

Just calling out man's greediness! Making money of things that can't really be owned by one, or a group of people via patents.

So you clearly don't understand the problem that Pantone solves. Or how the dying dead-trees printing industry means fewer people have that problem. Pantone will likely die in our lifetimes and maybe Adobe is putting a boot to their neck deliberately, but it's not surprising that Pantone would try to come up with a way to keep their income up. Do I wish Adobe would have kept up? Sure. And like I said, I don't know why they haven't. Probably a sweetheart deal from decades ago that Pantone wasn't making any money off of. The short version is: I don't need Pantone. It's nice, but not $20/month nice, and I'm sure 95% of Adobe users haven't ever thought about it. But that 5% who do need it? $20/month is a no-brainer. Pantone's probably done their math and said something like "If we were getting 50Â¢/month per user on the old contract, then $20/month for 5% of all users will double our income." It's not greed, it's just numbers.

Saying it's a thing that can't be owned is like saying "how can they charge for cookbooks when I already have all the ingredients?" and then complaining when your chocolate chip cookies taste terrible because you put chicken in them.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 11:59am

thisbody wrote:

So the question remains, what is the difference between "patenting" and just "buying the rights"?
Morally?

EDIT: I was yet editing my post... down there...

I was not debating the moral implications or analogies; I was referring to the literal meaning of the word. Words matter, semantics matter - well, they do to me. There's already more than enough reckless exaggeration and arbitrary redefinition out there.

rgio

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 11:46am

thisbody wrote:

Not intending to thread-jack. Only answering to Scott's question?

A bit late to the dance, but patents have created the environment that you benefit from countless times every day.

Only when your efforts can be rewarded (and not stolen), is it worth toiling to create something new. Capitalism thrives on innovation, which would stop if people had to share their efforts with whoever decided to use them without having to pay. Computer innovation over the past 40 years has been absolutly amazing, and mostly due to the pursuit of financial reward by inventors.

Pantone was founded in the 1960's to standardize color naming and application so businesses could share an understanding of the exact same thing without having to be in the same room. They don't own the colors, but if you want to use their language you need to pay for it...especially in business. There are plenty of other ways to share color now (RGB, Hex, etc,), but if you want to use their naming scheme, you have to pay for it.

They aren't selling water in the desert, they're selling sand with names on it. If you don't want theirs, grab some of the free stuff.

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: out of space
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 11:32am
Proclivities wrote: Privatizing water supply and delivery systems (as greedy as it could be considered) is not the same as "patenting drinking water". So the question remains, what is the difference between "patenting" and just "buying the rights"? Morally? EDIT: I was yet editing my post... down there...

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 11:26am

thisbody wrote:

Privatizing water supply and delivery systems (as greedy as it could be considered) is not the same as "patenting drinking water".

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: out of space
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 11:17am

Proclivities wrote:

Obvious furthering of a thread-jack but what is this story about Nestle attempting to patent drinking water? I know Nestle drains water for bottling from various places around the world - even some places which have very limited supplies of drinking water, but that's not the same as patenting it. Purification systems, chemical treatments, or extraction methods can be patented, but 'patenting drinking water' sounds like hyperbole.

Not intending to thread-jack. Only answering to Scott's question?
The documentary "We Feed The World, 2005" explains what I was mentioning.. while it is still worth watching as a whole imo, here's the beef of it in this discussion. Meanwhile, the internet has been cleaned up, and NÃ©stle have done their best to correct that image shown in the film very successfully as your comment shows, for all traces of the upheaval this documentary created then on the net are gone from the internet today (there were tons of pages, back then)... thinking... what is the difference between patenting drinking water and buying all the distribution rights?!

There's more: Bottled Life... Can you imagine someone turning ordinary water into a billion dollar business? The secret key to the blue gold lies in the hand of Swiss transnational nutrition company NestlÃ©.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 10:26am

thisbody wrote:

Just calling out man's greediness!

Making money of things that can't really be owned by one, or a group of people via patents.

So many other examples coming to mind. HIV, COVID meds for the poor, etc. etc.

We cannot really be ok with someone patenting drinking water in the Sahara region (NÃ©stle). Can we?

Watch out for the future, when sunlight will be patented just there by the energy undistry...

Obvious furthering of a thread-jack but what is this story about Nestle attempting to patent drinking water? I know Nestle drains water for bottling from various places around the world - even some places which have very limited supplies of drinking water, but that's not the same as patenting it. Purification systems, chemical treatments, or extraction methods can be patented, but 'patenting drinking water' sounds like hyperbole.

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: out of space
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 2, 2022 - 9:50am

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

GIMP sucks balls. Interface is as inelegant as possible, probably as a middle finger to people who want things to be nice. Cheap bastards are better off buying Affinity Photo. It's less capable but less user-hostile than GIMP.

Pantone has had a proprietary system for communicating colors for 60 years, it's not a new thing. I don't know what the beef is between Adobe and Pantone but your take on the situation is just weird.

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 1, 2022 - 4:13am
ScottFromWyoming wrote: I've tried to do, but nothing is intuitive, and requires having a web browser open so I can search up how to do basic thingsâbut I would do it just to prove it could be done. But now I'm old and am a lot less stubborn about things. just give me an AI based assistant to get that stuff done maybe an elevated/genius smart screen i'm sure deep mind is on it...

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2022 - 7:10pm

rgio wrote:

I added GIMP, tried it, and deleted it. Then I needed SVGs for a site. After adding it back and using it a bit more...it's OK. It could definitely be easier to use...but once I figured a few things out I've changed my mind.

I've had it available on my machines for 20 years and yeah it works for most things I've tried to do, but nothing is intuitive, and requires having a web browser open so I can search up how to do basic thingsâbut I would do it just to prove it could be done. But now I'm old and am a lot less stubborn about things.

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 237, 238, 239 Next