life after Windows....

Ray Fischer writes:

It is not the proper function of computers to decide for people
whether what they want to do is acceptable.

Perhaps, but in that case, there's no way for an OS API to prevent misuse.
QED.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:

It is not the proper function of computers to decide for people
whether what they want to do is acceptable.

Perhaps, but in that case, there's no way for an OS API to prevent misuse.

As YOU define "misuse".

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer writes:

As YOU define "misuse".

The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
misuse.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:

As YOU define "misuse".

The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
misuse.

Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
wasting your time talking to him.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/737ae6eefc6efa89
---
Kibo informs me that "Mike Kohary" stated that:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .
Mike Kohary writes:

I'd love to, if you'd left the quote intact enough to know what we
were
talking about.

If you were able to call it misinformation, you knew what we were
talking about. If you had enough information to say it was wrong, you
also had enough information to explain why. But you haven't. Hmm.

Once you cut the quote out, I'm not going back to see what it was.
This is
Usenet and I'm active on it - hundreds or thousands of messages to
read. I
can't possibly remember what it was that I called "misinformation" on your
part, unless you leave the quote intact.

Maniac does it quite deliberately, to make it as difficult as possible
for people to tell when he's misquoted them, lied, or answered a
question in a totally different context to the one in which it was
asked. As a bonus for him, it helps him just generally confuse the
argument.

Here's a demonstration of his technique, loosely modelled on part of
this thread, & simplified drastically for clarity[0]:
==================
(Post #1, by Joe Bloggs)
"My Brand X DSLR is great at ISO 800. The photos I get are way better
than film!"
==================
(Post #2, by Maniac)

The photos I get are way better than film!

Maniac: "No. You've been taken in by the digital marketeers. No digicam
will ever equal the quality of the photos I take with Brand Y film."
==================
(Post3, by Joe Bloggs)

It takes photos that are way better than film!
Maniac: "No. You've been taken in by the digital marketeers. No
digital will ever equal the quality of the photos I take with Brand Y film."

But that film is only ISO 100. It doesn't make any sense to compare it
to a Brand X DLSR at ISO 800.

And besides, there isn't any film that can beat the Brand X DSLR in
noise/grain at ISO 800.
==================
(Post4, by Maniac)

But that film is only ISO 100.

It's good enough for real photographers like myself. Digicams are far
too low-resolution to compete with film.
[About 30 lines of irrelevant pseudoscience about film grain vs digital
noise, etc, along with a nonsensical claim that digital image sensors
can apparently only be made for one 'speed'. Interspersed with a bunch
of inflammatory over-generalisations about every photographer in the
world who doesn't do things his way, designed to raise everyone else's
hackles.]

And besides, there isn't any film than can beat my DSLR in noise/grain
at ISO 800.

Yes there is, I use it myself. Here's a photo I shot at ISO 800 that's
far better than anyone can do with a digicam:
http://www.manicac.c0m/myphoto1.jpg
==================

Notice how the context has been completely changed several times, such
that poor Joe's perfectly reasonable comment, (in its original context)
has been altered to make it look like he's the most clueless kind of
digital-bigot. Also note that while Maniac has out-and-out lied several
times[1], there's is no single statement anyone can point to prove it to
anyone who hasn't been following the whole thread with a microscope,
because Maniac's carefully snipped out the context that would prove it.

He also makes a point of using strongly emotive language, in the hopes
of provoking an emotional response from the person he's misrepresenting
& insulting. If it works, he'll immediately accuse you of being
irrational, & claim that proves that he's been correct all along.

[0] Note also that he typically puts several misdirections in each post,
rather than just one. This way, he can jump on your case if you haven't
over-qualified *every single comment* sufficiently to prevent him from
editing the post to make it look like you're talking about something
that you're not.
His recent bull**** about compression algorithms is a classic example of
his technique, in which he switched definitions for words with both
several technical & colloquial meanings in nearly every post.

In summary, our pet Maniac is a fairly clever troll. The only thing that
lets him down is his reliance on people being too busy to Google for
context, & complete lack of a sense of humour, (a weakness I've used to
make a fool out of him quite a few times, BTW).

[1] The lies. For those who want see if they spotted them all:
(Post #2): Deliberately misquoted Joe as claiming that his DSLR takes
better pictures than film under all circumstances. Joe made no such
claim.
(Post #2): An obvious lie, claiming that film is always superior to
digital, no matter what the situation. When caught in something that
obvious, he usually snips or alters quoted text to cover it up.
(Post #3): The URL is not for a photo taken with Maniac's favourite
brand of colour film that he's been extolling for the last two posts,
but for a photo taken with high speed, professional B&W film, which is
totally irrelevant to any comparison between a colour DSLR & colour
film.
---

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:

As YOU define "misuse".

The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
misuse.

As YOU define "misuse".

Let's look at what you originally wrote:

If a program creates a file, how does the API check to see that
the file's name is correct?

Looks like your memory is as good as everything else you write.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer writes:

As YOU define "misuse".

Misuse wasn't qualified.