Heck if we want to go that way, I wrote an Z-80 assembler/disassembler (remember when those kinds of programs cost thousands of dollars) in machine code once upon a time, and did it as as hobby thing at that. Actually I wrote the Disassembler first, then it was real easy to do the assembler. What is the all so fired big deal about being able to do assembly code.
I once knew someone who programed operating systems. No not worked on a team that wrote OS's, but did the whole thing from top to bottom himself. He put it on the market and it was considered one of the nicest DOS's available for the TRS-80 (back then Radio Shacks DOS was so bad that there were a half-dozen competitors on the market). His was Multi-Dos, and if anyone is interested it made anything Microsoft ever did look like the utter crap it is. I also knew the guy who wrote Lazy Writer (one of the very first word processing programs for the TRS-80 and hence one of the first on the market at all). I once asked him why it had such a strange interface. He replied that he had never even seen a word processing system when he wrote it so had to make it up himself. Back then, if you had a need, you had to do it yourself. Programming is such a simple thing. You break your process down into discrete steps (the hard part), then code those steps into some programming language or another. These days it mostly drag and drop. People who do not know a lot about programming think it is such a big deal. All of us know something, some of us know a lot of things, only the people who are so ignorant that they don't know they are ignorant think they know are smarter than everyone else because they know a little bit about something or another. As I said, "invincible ignorance". Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog: http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P. J. Alling wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: >> On 12/19/07, Polyhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:11:13 -0800 >>> "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>> I also refuse to use jpeg, png or nothing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Wow. That's bizarre. >>>>>> >>>>> Hardly, jpeg is lossy compression. It grabs a square of pixels and >>>>> averages them, you lose both dynamic range and resolution with >>>>> jpeg. PNG is lossless and opensource. The other problem with jpeg >>>>> is that because of the way it handles compression, it chokes on >>>>> film grain. There isn't a way to feed a jpeg encoder a image with >>>>> allot of film grain and have it spit out a reasonable result. >>>>> People use it because they just don't know any better. >>>>> >>>> You're talking about displaying photographs on the internet, which is meant >>>> to be a way of sharing information quickly and easily. Image compression >>>> quality takes a back seat most of the time around here, and no one else >>>> seems to be complaining about it. >>>> >>>> Your elitist attitude is grating. If you really don't care about what >>>> others think of your photos, why bother posting them in the first place? >>>> >>> I thought they may enjoy it, I was wrong, instead they looked for something >>> to complain about. Typical of the bulk of people really. >>> >> I've got more bandwidth than God when I'm at work. I work for the >> company formerly known as UUNET. I've got straight 100MB Full-Duplex >> connections directly to the alter.net backbone. Your site is still too >> slow. PNG is NOT a format for rendering photographic output. If fact >> you probably couldn't have picked a worse format (Well, GIF, but it's >> got all the bad points of PNG with the addition of patent >> encumbrance). JPEG is the only commonly supported graphics format >> suited to web display of photographic images. Yes, it does have some >> bad points, but a max quality JPEG with smaller, lower-quality >> thumbnails will produce similar quality output (visually >> indistinguishable for the full-size image) with far better page render >> speeds (because your thumbnail's won't be 20x the size they need to >> be). >> >> -Adam >> Who did know M68K assembly back in the day. But hasn't used it in a decade. >> >> > I only have real experience with 8086 to write TSRs. Learned IBM > 360/370 in grad school. Did some fooling around with 6802 to write games > for the Comadore 64 and had to bench check the DOD's 1441(?), hell it's > been like 15 years since I even looked at that so forgive me if I don't > remember the actual DOD designation, to trace an error in a USAF > Satellite, because there were no machines still working that could run > the emulator. But what the hell do I know, I'm just an IT guy who > doesn't know shit. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
