Copyright proof for digital images

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan Browne, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alvie Guest

    Microsoft are an American company.
    Microsoft introduced their own standards in the face of every responsible
    RFC I can think of regarding Internet conventions and methods of operation.

    Microsoft are the ones responsible for top posting in news groups, not the
    users of their products. All MS has to do to have an immediate effect on
    top posting is to make their Outlook express news reader, default to the
    last line of text instead of the first when replying to a message.

    I know this might be as hard for a Canadian to grasp as I is for this free
    thinking Aussie but the reality is that Microsoft and the Americans dictate
    Internet conventions. The Americans did, after all give us the Internet and
    Microsoft did give us Outlook express.

    To further isolate who is to blame for top posting, one only has to look at
    the number of responses to this thread and identify their origin to discover
    it is primarily non-Americans who object to top posting. Let's then, presume
    that we can all agree to disagree but to get your rocks rattled on top
    posting or bottom posting as an issue of copyright is probably the most
    successful hi-jack of a thread I have seen in 12 years.

    What was the question? Oh yes, how to copyright a digital image.
    Simple, use the watermarking facility many image manipulation programs
    provide... Just like bank notes! I do and it works for me. Extensis (I
    think) offer something you might be interested in if you own a MAC.

    ABC
     
    Alvie, Jan 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Doug Payne Guest

    The length of time that articles remain on news servers is entirely
    dependent on the server config. It could be days or it could weeks or it
    could be only a couple of hours.
     
    Doug Payne, Jan 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Chris Brown Guest

    No, it's user error. Putting the cursor at the top is the correct behaviour
    - it facilitates working down the article, deleting irrelevant content and
    adding replies inline as you go.
     
    Chris Brown, Jan 9, 2004
  4. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    Top-posted content is different from bottom-posted content, the formal is
    indeed a context-free commentary (you are right by attributing it this way).
    Note: 'context-free' implicates that the context already embedded within the
    content itself, and therefore a context-free commentary is independent of
    the need for quoted context. There is editing effort involved in bringing
    the context within the content of a top-post, an effort which is missing in
    bottom posting, this effort result in a better and more readable
    presentation than a bottom-post, for the latter would be unreadable if the
    accompanied quoted context is mixing. It is not possible to extract one own
    words within a bottom-post and make it readable without quoting the context
    of others, this make future reference by extraction difficult. This is just
    one of the many down sides of bottom-post.

    P/S: I value life and cherish its very moment for productive use, I have
    many unaccomplished task and so find life to be too short, not enough to
    accomplish a fraction of what I had in mind. My long post actually
    demonstrate the urgency of communication in effort to conclude the topic as
    quickly as possible. Enjoy your freedom and openness in neutral status
    concerning this topic.


     
    cf, Jan 9, 2004
  5. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    Judgement of the meaningfulness or the lack of it, or the ill or goodness of
    a post in this case is purely subjective [thus biased]. For the validity of
    the case is yet to be verified [by convincing argument] by the person who
    comment on it. Like I normally write volumes of argument to make a point,
    this world would be a strange place indeed if any point only take two lines
    of comment to be validated as truth, and be able to gain the faith of all.
    Thus, another reason why I have to write long post, that is, to demonstrate
    the commitment to truth.

    Further, as I also mentioned previously, there is no limit to the mode of
    expression in top posting, the sky is the limit. The point here is that it
    is free from the being a direct reaction to any comments [which lead to
    unproductive chain-reaction], yet it provide the freedom to make its own
    comment, whether pointless or otherwise, according to subjective perception
    and motive concerned.

    This is because the context in top-posting is self-edified, not implicitly
    dependent on the words of others [, such as the ill-wording, or pointless
    remarks of others]. The result is that there is no effect of chain-reaction.
    The evidence [of the absence of chain-reaction] is visible right in this
    thread. The evidence of such chain-reaction is apparent in the latter
    development of the original title of this thread: Copyright proof for
    digital images, and it was facilitated by bottom-posts, except the poster
    named Techno Aussie did not follow nor create the cause of chain-reaction
    due to having top-post his self-edified context.
     
    cf, Jan 9, 2004
  6. Interesting, I have been receiving a few Trojan server attempts from
    Comcast.com since the preceding message.

    I'm wondering who the fool is....?

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 10, 2004
  7. Alan Browne

    J. A. Mc. Guest

    Excellent demonstration of a Ph.D. at work !








    (Piled higher & deeper!) <G>
     
    J. A. Mc., Jan 10, 2004
  8. Alan Browne

    Patrick L. Guest


    Just watch out for the bottom feeders.


    Patrick
     
    Patrick L., Jan 10, 2004
  9. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    <Pause for sigh> When your argument is failing to hold up, you resort
    to insults. Most people get over school yard behavior in grade 5 or so.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 10, 2004
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    cf wrote:



    If you think many people are reading much of those tedious and long
    posts, you're welcome to the illusion. There is little to no defence
    for top posting, so just let it go.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 10, 2004
  11. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I don't disagree, but in most cases, on most NG's on most servers it
    appears to me to be days. If the thread is that important, resort to
    Google.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 10, 2004
  12. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Well, at least you kept this post down to two reasonably short paras.
    But the exchange is not all that meaningful. It is just an argument
    about the widely accepted practice of avoiding top-posting.

    As to "communication" I heartily recommend that you become afflicted
    with brevity. Verbosity rarely makes for good communication. Nor does
    does top-posting. Verbosity + Top Posting is certainly a communication
    killer, and I'm beginning to think that was your goal.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 10, 2004
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I've separated out the above "sentence" as an example that your
    abilities at communication are not weighty evidence of your
    qualifications in the matter.


    It is not possible to extract one own
    This is a convoluted argument at best, and in the very occasional
    instances it is required to refer to ones own words, they can be easily
    dredged up from your "Sent" folder, the newsserver or Google as required.

    There are few down sides to bottom posting that cannot be remedied by
    _occasional_ top-posts or new subjects.
    I'm beginning to think that wasting time is your main goal in life. And
    apparently, you are succeeding.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 10, 2004
  14. Alan Browne

    Magnus W Guest

    But he isn't very much older, actually. Right, Daniel/"TenKMan"?
     
    Magnus W, Jan 10, 2004
  15. Because when a previous article is quoted in its entirety without
    editing, it's hardly ever worth wading through it to try to figure out
    what parts of it the new material refers to. Its value to the reader
    is proportional to the time you spent in editing it (which was zero).

    So you don't remember what you wrote, and don't keep copies of your
    outgoing messages either? And because of this, everyone else should
    include copies of your stuff for your future benefit?

    I think some people might debate that last assertion.

    By the way, aren't you glad I snipped out only the portions of what you
    wrote that I'm referring to, rather than including the whole 100+ lines?

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jan 11, 2004
  16. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Alan Browne

    Those who saw the subject title, and is interested in this topics, will most
    likely to follow the thread and read the longest post first so to get a
    better picture of the discussion. Since this group is for photographic
    interest, it is common sense to know the majority will not be interested, if
    those who are uninterested but engaged in the thread, that will be due to a
    motive other than the subject concerned, such as motive of cyber cops and or
    people who are out to spam, insult, for tongue sharpening, etc. When this
    group interested to read, they will naturally select the short posts, as
    there is no requirement for understand the meaning of the contents in order
    to lunch a spam, or insult. Further, they need to conserve time for the
    purpose of these negative activities otherwise wasted in reading the long
    meaningful contents that contradict their position.

    As to whether there is any valid defenses for top-posting, we shall see in
    other discussions.

    Him who preferred short line of response is here to chat, not discussion. He
    belonged to chatting group, not newsgroup, as a suggestion, he should go to
    a lived chatting site such as ICQ or Yahoo Messenger.

    P/S: There is a usenet phenomenon that result in bandwidth wastage, that is,
    the chatting habit of most poster, chatting should be restricted to chatting
    software, not newsreader, as formal top-posting prohibit the smooth process
    of chatting. Chatting only make sense between two people, not the third
    party, who did not follow their chat all the way through, dial-up users who
    search for interesting ng contents do not normally download all bodies to
    their harddrive, they selectively download bodies, but the post that
    contained chat message, is meaningless, they need to download the whole
    thread, this increase bandwidth traffic. Many posters here emphasized their
    supposedly effective communication as consisting of short line of sentence
    (of chatting fashion), and accused any form of message that appeared like
    formal literature composition as lengthy. These posters are the ones
    accustomed to chatting mode of expressing themselves, while I could tolerate
    their weakness to apprehend formal composition, I merely point out that they
    are hypocrites with respect to their concern for bandwidth, effective
    communication, etc. for they are the very ones responsible for bandwidth
    wastage and misinformation (rumours) through numerous senseless chatting
    spread across the usenet.
     
    cf, Jan 11, 2004
  17. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Alan Browne

    If there is meaningful purpose in top-posting, then this discussion will be
    meaningful. Even if there is no meaningful purpose in top-posting, then this
    discussion will be meaningful [as well].

    This is because if there is no meaningful purpose in top-posting, then there
    will be meaningful purpose in bottom-posting. If there is indeed a
    meaningful purpose in bottom-posting, then this discussion will be
    meaningful [as well], since the truth that 'there is a meaningful purpose in
    bottom-posting' will be the force behind that meaningful purpose.

    Unless you are assuming that even supporting the 'truth' that "there is a
    meaningful purpose in bottom-posting" is false, otherwise your statement
    that indicate "argument about the widely accepted practice of avoiding
    top-posting" is "not all that meaningful" will be false [as well].

    Note: "..." indicate your own words; '...' indicate example only.

    Charity is one important ingredient of effective communication that you have
    missed. If a topic demand indepth clarification, the length of the
    clarification is not the factor that determined verbosity or non-verbosity.
    Verbosity implicates "the use of more words than are needed" (ORS), but
    proof to me that you could delete at least 50% of my words and still keep my
    individual points intact. Otherwise, your assertion of verbosity on my part
    will be false.

    You have yet to demonstrate the inefficiency or top-posting, nor the
    efficiency of bottom-posting, yet the efficiencies of top-posting as well as
    inefficiencies of bottom-postings have being expounded in other posts,
    points that you have yet to successfully overthrown with valid argument.

    The following is the syllogism of your flawed argument.

    Premise of your logical flaw: my case is 1+2=3, 1=premise, 2=example,
    3=conclusion (where validity of 1+2= validity of 3. your case is 1=3, where
    1= "Verbosity + Top Posting, where 3="a communication killer", you have only
    1=premise, but no 2=example, thus 1=premise (in the lack of 2=example) does
    not equal 3="a communication killer".

    Example of your flaw: My premise is 'top posting is efficient', and my
    2=example is in my long posts, thus my conclusion 3={'top posting is
    efficient' is valid}; your premise is 'Verbosity + top posting is
    communication killer', where is your 2=example?, to make your 3='Verbosity +
    top posting is communication killer' is valid}?

    Conclusion of your flaw: your premise 1='brevity is recommended for
    effective communication, your example 2={"Verbosity + Top Posting is
    certainly a communication killer" is brief}, thus your conclusion
    3={Therefore Alan Browne's post which is brief is recommended for effective
    communication}. Here's the problem: your premise is 'Verbosity + top posting
    is communication killer', where is your 2=example?, to make your
    3={'Verbosity + top posting is communication killer' is valid}? Since your
    2=example is absence, your 3={'Verbosity + top posting is communication
    killer' is valid} is false, since it is false, therefore your conclusion
    3={Therefore Alan Browne's post which is brief is recommended for effective
    communication} is false.

    P/S: The most important requirement of communication is the openness to
    communicate in whatever mode the parties involved, like I never complaint
    about others' short post, bottom-post or those who snip post which I
    discouraged (not complaint or accused), you set yourself a limit by
    accepting only short post. That self-imposed limit is your communication
    barrier, so much about effective communication, by your so called formula
    (which in reality is flawed). That is, how are you supposed to communicate
    anything, if all that in your mind is the aggression toward long posts (even
    making up false formula to opposed it? I hope this is not your excuse to
    evade the difficult discussion.



     
    cf, Jan 11, 2004
  18. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Alan Browne

    Example of how snipping text is harmful, by your snipping the name of Chris
    Browne, I almost being misleaded to belief Alan Browne was the one I
    originally reply to in this post.

    You can judged my editing ability, but it is not superiority or inferiority
    of this ability that is the subject of this discussion, the point is that
    there is a need for more editing effort in a top-post, than a bottom-post.
    Apparently you missed this important point, and shifted your attention to my
    editing ability, and so arises a sentence which has no relevent to the
    discussion. Remember this is not a subject on editing competition. Further,
    it does not require a winner of an editing competition to state the fact
    that top-post required an extra editing effort. Nor does it implicate that a
    loser of an editing competition has no qualification to top-post due to the
    requirement for extra editing.

    Exhibit 1: If everyone know what this ("This is a convoluted argument at
    best") mean or refer to, then you have a point in saying again "This is a
    convoluted argument at best", otherwise accept the fact of my saying "It is
    not possible to extract one own words within a bottom-post and make it
    readable without quoting the context of others".

    In exhibit 1, you can see the ease of using reference of my previous message
    and your previous message to make a point. Had any of these reference text
    being snipped, this point would never have been made so clear for all to
    see. Should everyone like to know what the full previous exchange like, just
    scroll to the bottom, had it being snipped, will everyone search for it in
    another post? put yourself in others' shoe and ask yourself sincerely this
    question for once.

    For the poster himself, you mentioned going to the sent folder, you know
    what happened at this very moment if you are to go to the sent folder, it
    depends on what newsreader you use, most of them are not design to
    facilitate this purpose with ease, most probably you will find yourself
    losing a great deal of time in this following ways:

    1. If you were me during the time of my intensive posting, you will find in
    the send folder contain a subject that has continue for weeks, with
    accumulation of hundreds of posting bearing the same subject to numerous
    posters, you cannot sort with date, because if you do, you will lose
    threading by subject, further you might not know the exact date of the text,
    so the only way is to search one by one, by scrolling down the contents by
    contents with each over 500 lines.

    2. By the time you finished finding the text (probably 1 hour later if one
    is lucky), you want to go back to editing, you will waste a little time
    finding the composer, this is fine if you can find it quick. But how about
    going back to the same thread, since you have go to the send folder, the
    previously highlighted thread is gone, you need to search for the thread
    again, to read, as well as to reply to other posters on the same thread.
    This will take you another 5 minutes at least, if there is a lot of unread
    threads. When you reply the second post, you have to go back to the send
    folder again, and the cycle repreats. If you understand this nightmare, will
    you bother to search for reference in the middle of a composition anymore?
    Put yourself in such a poster shoes, and seriously ask this question for
    once.

    Exhibit 2: You say "I'm beginning to think that wasting time is your main
    goal in life", then there is no reason why you should not consider yourself
    wasting time when participating in a usenet communication. Since I did not
    consider it this way when participating in a usenet communication, so I have
    reason not considered you as wasting time. So the reason for your saying is
    clear: it is due to your thinking and nothing else.

    In exhibit 2, it is evidence that your previous remark is pointless and
    irrelevent to the subject, which is purely a function of wasting time. yet
    it is from someone who attempt to make a point in arguing that others are
    wasting their time (amazing), if others did not make pointless and
    irrelevent remarks, then they are making a point, and is within mode of
    effective communication, how could that be considered as wasting time?
     
    cf, Jan 11, 2004
  19. Alan Browne

    cf Guest

    To Dave Martindale

    When a contents contained a context, what it is regarding is well understood
    without external reference, unless for specific purpose. In this sense, the
    full content for easy reference is there at the bottom which is harmless,
    and in reality wasted not much bandwidth, since the most is a single
    previous post, not multiple, unless they are consisting of very short posts
    (where it does not seems necessary to be deleted for the sake of
    completeness).

    Greater time will be wasted for readers attempting to search for fuller
    contents, than the time saved due to having snipped a response beyond
    recognition, much less sensible in meaning. Remember, an extraction of a
    bottom post without a context is bad enough for reading and apprehension,
    how much more, is a cut portion of an extraction?

    It never waste time, when there is a need to do reference, and a full,
    untempered post is right below the composer itself (or the message viewer
    for general readers).

    It is the contents, the meaning expresses thereof, that attracts the readers
    attention to get a complete picture of the exchange [from which it reacted
    to] that they will ever bother to read the complete contents of previous
    posting, not the quoted portion after the snipped which is unreadable, must
    less understandable in most instances (for example, in exhibit 1 of my post
    to Alan Browne).

    When composing reply, it is to my experience that refering to previous
    exchange from within the same composer window is quicker, see the
    consequences of going to one saved achives folder stated below the
    aforementioned exhibit 1.

    You ask if I would be glad that you snipped out only the portions of what I
    wrote that you are referring to, I would say that in your bottom posting, it
    does make your post easier to read, but had you top-post, the snipped out
    portion would be at your extra editing burden (when this became a habit, it
    is easy), and the output contents would be many times more readable and
    presentable than what it is now, and should you be generous enough to keep a
    full copy below, that's sign of respect for my post, and make me easier to
    reply should I missed something previously.

    While at this point, the wise poster may exercise common sense, if a post
    containing many points, it should be included in full, if a post containing
    merely the same thing, that is, included in the snipped portion, poster
    should exercise common sense to quote only that portion below (then
    everyone, including people who encourage full reference, would be grateful
    for your extra effort). But with the major exceptions, which unfortunately
    are overwhelming to even considering snipping of post feasible, see below.

    1. Not all posters are wise, most are foolish in their choice of what is to
    be snipped, the result is quotes that suit their particular agendas, that
    produce mass of ill-responses and postings. By widely promoting this
    practice, while at the same time, openly accuse others of being foolish,
    shows that promoters of such netiquette knew little of what they are doing
    (how could they promote this practice to fools?)

    2. If the effort required you to snipped bottom and top, in between, sides,
    etc. then it is a little extreme concerning the little bandwidth that could
    be save in this way. Like when I work, I like to leave the cleaners to do
    their job of cleaning my floor, washing the toilets, etc. while I
    concentrate on my own duty (which in this case in composition), am I
    grateful for my cleaners (in this case those who snipped my post) who make
    my work place clean? The answer is affirmative for those who clean the
    necessary thing, but if by the process of cleaning, they mess up my things
    (in this case, deleted the portion I required), then the answer is negative.
    Worse yet, if the manager is commanding me to do the job of a cleanner, for
    that is not what I'm good at (in this case, snipping post by the injunction
    of the book of netiquette, for me, every single word and sentence is an
    opportunity for creative composition, even if they are of no use now, they
    are of use later).

    3. Even if the posters are wise, as every action has a negative side effect,
    in this case, the act of snip post, in conjunction of right circumstances
    and right juncture, it appeared to be a positive act, but in conjunction of
    wrong circumstances and wrong juncture, it creates all kind of negative
    consequence, for instant, snipping off important issues, become an act of
    excuse for coward to evade issues, abuse by wrong doers of the usenet to
    pass their idle time for the sake of insulting others, for egocentric
    gratification and so on. Given the many problems and uncertainties, to
    refrain from it would be a definitive, all-positive solution.

    4. The point is not to make snipping as a rule of netiquette as it does not
    apply to critical exchange. Like criminal investigaters, who need every
    pieces of the evidence, how much more is critical writer of philosophical,
    religious, technical and other field of debate (who rely on words alone)?

    5. In a few years, dial-up may be replaced with faster internet access (this
    technology is already present), it would not be long before this notion of
    saving bandwidth promoted mainly by usenet owners become obsolete, then they
    will promote other rules of 'nettiquette' that would benefit them
    exclusively (not the readers or posters). Only then, will the deluded
    posters [who now support bottom-post and snipping] open up their mind, and
    perceive the all-positive possibilties of top-posting and full-quoting of
    multiple posts (unlimited levels). When that happened, I do not see how
    bottom-post format could manage to keep up these unlimited levels of quotes,
    only top-post format could facilitate the massive level of quotes below
    without affecting reading efficiently. While the unprohibited level of
    quotes provide the quick, problem-free reference. At that time, who else
    would bother with snipping anything anymore?

    6. Until then, with the newsreader automatically set to limit the levels of
    quotes, there is little danger that it would suddenly result in increase of
    total bandwidth, since top posting eliminate many unwanted chain-reactions
    [that could continue for months], it will make the ng a cleaner place for
    visitors. Forgetfulness is another cause of bandwidth wastage, as the poster
    forget that he has said the same thing many times, the reference in full
    content reduce this wastage.
     
    cf, Jan 11, 2004
  20. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I've snipped and not read anything below this point. You are tedious,
    boring, verbose and wrong. A thousand words without reason does not
    overcome a few words of reason. Top posting is appropriate for e-mails
    between a couple or very few people. On an NG it leads to dead threads.
    If I've accidently snipped one of Chris' threads, I apologize (to him),
    and I know Chris would neither take it as a slight, nor get particualrly
    lathered about it. He would point it out if he felt it worth doing so.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.