Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution

On 5/7/2017 6:05 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I had an Apple Mac once, cost $2100.00, I used it for about a year then
sold it to someone I disliked for $25.00.

you must have liked them an *awful* lot, because they got a deal of a
lifetime.


Naw, He used it for about 6 months and got so ****ed off with it he took
it out to his farm north of the city and ran over it with a D6 Cat

of course he did.

he could have flipped it for $1000 in no time at all and could have
even split the profits with you.

some people are truly stupid.


Naw, he was too ashamed of it to sell it.

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I had an Apple Mac once, cost $2100.00, I used it for about a year then
sold it to someone I disliked for $25.00.

you must have liked them an *awful* lot, because they got a deal of a
lifetime.


Naw, He used it for about 6 months and got so ****ed off with it he took
it out to his farm north of the city and ran over it with a D6 Cat

of course he did.

he could have flipped it for $1000 in no time at all and could have
even split the profits with you.

some people are truly stupid.

Naw, he was too ashamed of it to sell it.

even more stupid.

assuming any of it is true.

In article , Snit
wrote:

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

Needed or not, it is preferred by many.

only because people refuse to learn new and better ways to do things.

people hate change.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Because you know what folder it is in.

except when you don't.

you might be able to remember which folders for a small number of
photos, but it doesn't scale.

people are taking more photos than ever before and keeping track of
*all* of them is not possible.

how fast can you retrieve photos without any people, all photos of
sunsets regardless of location, or all photos with laura but not julie?

those photos will span many folders, perhaps hundreds of folders.

the computer is there to do work *for* you, not the other way around.

So why insist it do it one way and not let the user make the choice?

they can do it the hard way if they want to.

nothing prevents doing it that way, it's just *far* more work.

the problem is that people don't want to learn new ways of doing things
and insist that their old fashioned way is the only way. it isn't.

As I have said, I *do* see the benefits of the way iPhotos does it... but
that does not mean it is not without weaknesses.

what might those be?

On 5/7/17, 4:23 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I had an Apple Mac once, cost $2100.00, I used it for about a year then
sold it to someone I disliked for $25.00.

you must have liked them an *awful* lot, because they got a deal of a
lifetime.


Naw, He used it for about 6 months and got so ****ed off with it he took
it out to his farm north of the city and ran over it with a D6 Cat

of course he did.

he could have flipped it for $1000 in no time at all and could have
even split the profits with you.

some people are truly stupid.

Naw, he was too ashamed of it to sell it.

even more stupid.

assuming any of it is true.

It has become quite clear none of it is.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

On 5/7/17, 4:23 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Snit
wrote:

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

Needed or not, it is preferred by many.

only because people refuse to learn new and better ways to do things.

people hate change.

I use both. I like having both. Nothing wrong with it.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Because you know what folder it is in.

except when you don't.

Right: I have different methods for finding things. Choice. I like choice.

you might be able to remember which folders for a small number of
photos, but it doesn't scale.

people are taking more photos than ever before and keeping track of
*all* of them is not possible.

how fast can you retrieve photos without any people, all photos of
sunsets regardless of location, or all photos with laura but not julie?

those photos will span many folders, perhaps hundreds of folders.

Su depends on the specifics which tools are better. What is the value of
denying the use of either, though?

the computer is there to do work *for* you, not the other way around.

So why insist it do it one way and not let the user make the choice?

they can do it the hard way if they want to.

nothing prevents doing it that way, it's just *far* more work.

the problem is that people don't want to learn new ways of doing things
and insist that their old fashioned way is the only way. it isn't.

As I have said, I *do* see the benefits of the way iPhotos does it... but
that does not mean it is not without weaknesses.

what might those be?

If you use an organization system it does not support you cannot built it
yourself in the standard file browser. For that matter if you use other
image software you cannot easily get to the photo to edit it. In iPhoto they
at least had the option to edit with an external editor and it handled the
round-trip workflow... not so with Photos.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

On 5/7/2017 6:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I had an Apple Mac once, cost $2100.00, I used it for about a year then
sold it to someone I disliked for $25.00.

you must have liked them an *awful* lot, because they got a deal of a
lifetime.


Naw, He used it for about 6 months and got so ****ed off with it he took
it out to his farm north of the city and ran over it with a D6 Cat

of course he did.

he could have flipped it for $1000 in no time at all and could have
even split the profits with you.

some people are truly stupid.

Naw, he was too ashamed of it to sell it.

even more stupid.

assuming any of it is true.



Dang, I missed April Fools day again! :-) :-) :-)


Rene

On 5/7/17, 4:52 PM, in article , "Wolf K"
wrote:

On 2017-05-07 19:05, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

From my
POV iPhoto had other flaws, mainly that it was also a photo-file
manager, and I didn't find a way to force it to use my folder-tree.

that's not a flaw. that's one of its major *features*.

keeping photos in a folder-tree is incredibly limiting and does not
scale. it's a very bad way to manage photos and other assets.

The fact iPhoto / Photos ties into media browser and has LOTS of different
organization tools is a benefit,

a huge benefit, and it's not just iphoto/photos.

lightroom, google photos and much more all work that way, and for very
good reason.

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Suppose you don't know exactly what you want?

Or you have a collection of photos taken from someone else and do not want
to go back and forth between iPhotos libraries.

the computer is there to do work *for* you, not the other way around.

True, but you have to do a great deal of work before it can do that work
for you.

And nothing wrong with letting it do work for you in different ways.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

In article , Snit
wrote:

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

Needed or not, it is preferred by many.

only because people refuse to learn new and better ways to do things.

people hate change.

I use both. I like having both. Nothing wrong with it.

except one is a ****load more effort than the other.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Because you know what folder it is in.

except when you don't.

Right: I have different methods for finding things. Choice. I like choice.

choice is good.

criticizing a method because it's new and unfamiliar is not.

you might be able to remember which folders for a small number of
photos, but it doesn't scale.

people are taking more photos than ever before and keeping track of
*all* of them is not possible.

how fast can you retrieve photos without any people, all photos of
sunsets regardless of location, or all photos with laura but not julie?

those photos will span many folders, perhaps hundreds of folders.

Su depends on the specifics which tools are better. What is the value of
denying the use of either, though?

nobody is denying anyone anything.

the old method is still there.


As I have said, I *do* see the benefits of the way iPhotos does it... but
that does not mean it is not without weaknesses.

what might those be?

If you use an organization system it does not support you cannot built it
yourself in the standard file browser. For that matter if you use other
image software you cannot easily get to the photo to edit it. In iPhoto they
at least had the option to edit with an external editor and it handled the
round-trip workflow... not so with Photos.

that's a limitation of the photos app, not asset managers.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

If I were into pro- or semi-pro photography, I might find a use for
Photoshop, but if one takes care with lighting and exposure, and takes
multiple shots with different settings, one rarely has to use
manipulation tools. That was true in film days, and is still true with
digital.

nonsense.

ansel adams was a master of the darkroom.

his photos *before* being processed looked rather bland. some might
even say boring.

I know.

But other photographer's work needed almost no darkroom tweaking.
Choosing the best grade of paper was usually all it took.

definitely not.

****loads of work went on in the darkroom, and now the digital
equivalent of it.

While I admire Adams pictures, I have no desire to do similar stuff.

FWIW, I developed and printed most of pics for years.

so did i.

not only is it easier now, but there's so much more that's possible.

As I said in another post:

Photoshop isn't a program, it's a lifestyle."

it was wrong then just as it is now.

photoshop is just an app, one of numerous ones that can adjust photos.

Like owning a sailboat.

nothing like that at all. not even remotely close.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Suppose you don't know exactly what you want?

then you browse for what looks good.

files/folders would be *much* *worse* in that made up scenario.

the computer is there to do work *for* you, not the other way around.

True, but you have to do a great deal of work before it can do that work
for you.

nope.

On 5/7/17, 5:07 PM, in article , "Wolf K"
wrote:

On 2017-05-07 19:05, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

FTR, I tried around two dozen graphics programs whose descriptions
sounded like they were close to what I wanted. "Close" varied, but I did
use a couple of them while I had the G4. Not one of them was as simple
and powerful as PmView.
what exactly did you want to do?? you've yet to mention what this
mystery function is.

from what i can tell from pmview, it doesn't do anything special that
can't be done on a mac in a variety of ways. [...]

Well, finally you get a piece of the beast. Sure, there were mac
programs that did what PmView could do, but none of them did it as
simply.

quite a few could.

"Powerful" doesn't mean much, really, here it means that PmView
could do what I wanted quickly and with minimal fuss. The Mac programs I
used on the G4 felt somewhat clunky to me, dunno why, maybeI'm not an
aaahtist.

yet you still refuse to name any of them.

I can't name what I don't remember. If you think of that as a "refusal",
then you are obviously obsessed with winning some kind of point. I'm
increasingly unable to figure out exactly what point(s) you want to win.

He wants to convince you that there are Mac programs which would do what you
wanted, at least as you have described it. And it is almost certain he is
right.

But so what? You found a solution that works for you and you are happy with
it. It is almost as if it is offensive to him you are using a choice other
than one you would. Just weird to me.

Still less why winning matters so much to you.

What I do remember is the increasing _disappointment_ with the G4. Then
Apple switched to Intel chips, so I did too. Built another box, went
back to Windows and OS/2.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

On 5/7/17, 5:09 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Snit
wrote:

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

Needed or not, it is preferred by many.

only because people refuse to learn new and better ways to do things.

people hate change.

I use both. I like having both. Nothing wrong with it.

except one is a ****load more effort than the other.

What makes it where you want everyone to have your tastes and preferences? I
find that world view hard to understand.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Because you know what folder it is in.

except when you don't.

Right: I have different methods for finding things. Choice. I like choice.

choice is good.

criticizing a method because it's new and unfamiliar is not.

I am not doing so... but you ARE criticizing finding files with the Finder
because it is not your preference. I like having both. Nothing wrong with
that.

you might be able to remember which folders for a small number of
photos, but it doesn't scale.

people are taking more photos than ever before and keeping track of
*all* of them is not possible.

how fast can you retrieve photos without any people, all photos of
sunsets regardless of location, or all photos with laura but not julie?

those photos will span many folders, perhaps hundreds of folders.

Su depends on the specifics which tools are better. What is the value of
denying the use of either, though?

nobody is denying anyone anything.

the old method is still there.

Photos generally pulls the images into its own library.



As I have said, I *do* see the benefits of the way iPhotos does it... but
that does not mean it is not without weaknesses.

what might those be?

If you use an organization system it does not support you cannot built it
yourself in the standard file browser. For that matter if you use other
image software you cannot easily get to the photo to edit it. In iPhoto they
at least had the option to edit with an external editor and it handled the
round-trip workflow... not so with Photos.

that's a limitation of the photos app, not asset managers.

But given the weakness of Photos it would be great to have the alternate
method. It is an excellent example.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

On 5/7/17, 5:09 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Suppose you don't know exactly what you want?

then you browse for what looks good.

files/folders would be *much* *worse* in that made up scenario.

Bottom line: people doing things in a way you do not do offends you.

Oh well.

the computer is there to do work *for* you, not the other way around.

True, but you have to do a great deal of work before it can do that work
for you.

nope.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

On 5/7/17, 6:26 PM, in article , "Wolf K"
wrote:

On 2017-05-07 19:23, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

Does Google Photos even have a desktop app? As far as I know the closest
Google had was Picasa... and that DID have the direct folder tie he is
talking about.

the point is direct folder access is no longer needed.

Needed or not, it is preferred by many.

only because people refuse to learn new and better ways to do things.

people hate change.

No, people dislike change whose point they don't see. Why spend time and
energy learning how to do something differently if you'd rather learn
how to do something different?

There are neomaniacs, who believe that any change must be good merely
because it's change.

True. And there are people such as myself who explore the "new" way of doing
things, appreciate it, but still see the value of the "old" ways and can
understand where each can be used well.

why dig through files and folders to find a particular photo when you
can query for exactly what you want and let the computer do the work?

Because you know what folder it is in.

except when you don't.

Ah, so you admit you have a limited memory. I thought so.

Well, when you have hundreds or thousands of images there can be challenges.
But I do not want all my images in Photos... I have, for example, some silly
memes I have gathered from FB and the like and I have no desire to have them
be in FB... and I work with them fine in the Finder.

Think of it this way: in the user folder there is not an "Photos" folder,
there is an "images" folder. That folder is NOT just for Photos!

And, of course, one is not forced to even have all pictures in the Pictures
folder.

you might be able to remember which folders for a small number of
photos, but it doesn't scale.

Never heard of a folder tree?

people are taking more photos than ever before and keeping track of
*all* of them is not possible.

how fast can you retrieve photos without any people, all photos of
sunsets regardless of location, or all photos with laura but not julie?

One way of doing that is to have suitably organised and named folder
trees for different topics.

those photos will span many folders, perhaps hundreds of folders.

Just how many photos do you take? What for? Are you a photo-hoarder?

My wife has tens of GB of images she has taken. I have no issue with that.

....
the problem is that people don't want to learn new ways of doing things
and insist that their old fashioned way is the only way. it isn't.

I don't insist that new ways are the only way, I just insist that they
aren't for me.

As I have said, I *do* see the benefits of the way iPhotos does it... but
that does not mean it is not without weaknesses.

what might those be?

Folder access, in the version is used 10+ years ago. I was so annoyed
with how it did this part of the task, that I didn't even bother trying
to figure out what else it could or couldn't do, and went looking for
replacements, a couple of which worked well enough, but not as well as I
expected, it being an Apple machine and all. I had high hopes and
expectations.

Bottom line: Apple (and you too, it seems), thought/thinks it knew/knows
best. That's why the G4, despite its excellences, eventually
disappointed me. For most things people want to do with computers, there
is no best. There are just different styles of working, of comfort
levels, of needs, and so on. Programs or OS's that don't accommodate
these variations are IMO badly designed.

Keep in mind that contrary to what he is pushing, macOS handles keeping
images in folders just fine (though Photos does not).

Better said: Arrogantly designed. And that verdict applies to most of what's
available, not just Apple, unfortunately. I think it's a side-effect of the
engineer's approach, which is to find the "best" solution. That mindset makes
it difficult to accept that there may be no one best solution, but just a
bunch of good ones.

Do you have examples of this for macOS? There are some... but I think often
people see what it can do on TOP of the "old" or "Windows" ways (or "Linux"
ways for that matter) and think that means Macs do not support the other
ways. They *generally* do (though not always).

BTW, one of the things that IMO made/makes the C language family so
useful (and so much fun) was/is the enormous variation in coding styles
that it accommodates. I never became anything like proficient in it, but
I had a lot of fun trying things out, until other priorities prevented
further exploration. I've forgotten just about everything I learned, I
can still make sense of snippets of code here and there, but that's it.

I have done some scripting and bits of coding but never got into C. Perhaps
I should have.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Better said: Arrogantly designed. And that verdict applies to most of
what's
available, not just Apple, unfortunately. I think it's a side-effect of the
engineer's approach, which is to find the "best" solution. That mindset
makes
it difficult to accept that there may be no one best solution, but just a
bunch of good ones.

Do you have examples of this for macOS? There are some... but I think often
people see what it can do on TOP of the "old" or "Windows" ways (or "Linux"
ways for that matter) and think that means Macs do not support the other
ways. They *generally* do (though not always).

One thing I never understood was attaching the menubar to the desktop
instead of the application window.

fitt's law.

microsoft ignored the extensive research on human-computer interaction
and put the menu bar into each window so that windows wasn't a complete
copy of macos (along with other changes), despite it being demonstrably
worse. it was a choice based on legal issues, not user interface
issues.

I asked on a Mac group whether there
was any way of changing this. Two answers I recall:
a) No, it's buried deep in the OS code;
b) It's the best way of doing it, because it reduces mouse movement.

b is correct.

a is technically true. it could be changed, but that would be
counterproductive.