Nobody shares knowledge better than this
-
Morons and Idiots - SSDS will fix that.
@spenk said:
I don't have to worry about my data being in sync as I only store it in the mp3 file, jpeg file etc. Only having it in one place means it can never be out of sync!
You mentioned a while back you have your backups on another computer. and sync. Just so you won't lose anything. Where SSDS goes through the text file in Rapid Sequential Check mode. All my MetaData is in a simple text file that is easily transferable.
@spenk said:
The implementation details are hidden from the users, they do not need to know how it works behind the scenes to use it!
Sounds like you treat your users like Mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them shit. Poor poor spenk system users. So sad.
@spenk said:
Because Random Random wasn't available without SSDS. A quick catalog of your mp3 and in 5 minutes your are playing Random Random sampling.No body but you wants random random sampling you idiot, sane people do not listen to random 13 second long snippets of music they listen to albums and tracks, possibly shuffled and may be skipping ones they do not like but never random snippets - you are the only person who has ever advocated this as if it was a mainstream feature users requested.
@spenk said:
5 years of email VS 14 years with SSDS (case closed) And It is no problem to search out the emails that the reply was done to. Put in the date or the title in SSDS and it searches these relatively small files in seconds. The Sarbanes Oxley requires businesses to keep emails even longer if you are into the Stock trading shams. I keep very few attachments (none to date) but it is no problem to catalogue and save them with a reference to the email subject details.In all honesty I generally only keep emails for any length of time if there is a reason to - personal ones are often amusing and then deleted or are acted on and deleted. Work ones will get saved till they are no longer of value or will have relevant information extracted and stored elsewhere. I still have access to work emails for the past 5 years or so as this is how long I have been with my current employer and have no need of emails from my previous employer. I can however search these easily, follow the thread of linked emails (replies and forwards) and see attachments in their original format - can SSDS do all that? (given SSDS will not store attachments I doubt it)
@spenk said:
you idiot
Moron
Name calling is a sign of a debate lost. I come here having written a Desktop Search and you argue with me. Knowing very little about the subject.
Who's the moron.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
I don't change the mp3 data right now. Not until I get a simple uploader. I never update both places. Sync. How do you know your are in sync. Do you run a differences once in a while. The text file with its context will be around a lot longer than any EXIF format. Id3v1 didn't last. SSDS has the same open open format. Way to go SSDS
So what is the open open format of SSDS? Something like this, right?
[custom description plus every possible metadata attribute, possibly separated by commas or something]
[filepath of image/song/video/random]Can you share a part of your metadata index file so we can see what it looks like?
-
@spectateswamp said:
Name calling is a sign of a debate lost. I come here having written a Desktop Search and you argue with me. Knowing very little about the subject.
Who's the moron.
name calling also results when a educated, intelligent (I assume) programmer, such as spenk, is forced to admit to themselves that some programmers; no; some people altogether, do not have the logic or constitution to realize that their intellectual capabilities equal that of lesser rodents, and that they would likely lose a chess game with a stuffed chinchilla.
People stop posting in your threads spectateswamp, not because they have "seen the light" and are now jamming noodles with SSDS, but rather because they realize that you are an obstinent, stupid troll who has been living in a shell since 1996 with a Copy of Visual Basic 5. In order to match that shell you have apparently also developed the brainpower and programming capacity of an Oyster, although it's hard to tell, chances are you were in fact challenged intellectually before you secluded yourself in the cave. Basically, posting in your threads is a waste of time, because one second your talking about metadata (well, not really, actually it turns out your talking about what you call metadata but which actually isn't) the next your talking about jammin noodles. People can't follow your conversations not because you are cleverly defeating them in an intelligent debate, but rather because they suddenly come to the realization that your sentences, aside from some basic grammar requirements, are really quite loose as far as word selection goes. One minute your describing SDSS as a desktop search tool, the next your saying all desktop search tools are awful, the next your talking about cooking ramen noodles with SDSS, and the list goes on. I believe you've made references to having a sexual liason with a bird on at least one occasion, and no doubt you filmed that and recammed it at least 400 times; only to discover the "truth" that the bird was an alien.
Basically: you'll notice that spenk did try to reason with you; he tried to understand why you are mentally incapable of basic logic; but all he met with was discussions about noodles. Any sane person would realize that the person who speaks of anything programming related by saying that their users "jam noodles" with their programs has severe mental issues.
-
-
Sorry Spenk you are My idiot.
@BC_Programmer said:
@spectateswamp said:
Name calling is a sign of a debate lost. I come here having written a Desktop Search and you argue with me. Knowing very little about the subject.
Who's the moron.
name calling also results when a educated, intelligent (I assume) programmer, such as spenk, is forced to admit to themselves that some programmers; no; some people altogether, do not have the logic or constitution to realize that their intellectual capabilities equal that of lesser rodents, and that they would likely lose a chess game with a stuffed chinchilla.
Sorry Spenk. For getting defensive about SSDS. You have been a big help you know. I will look up the EXIF stuff and build a simple reload of my 5000+ family album pictures. I'll use My catalog file as input. Strip off the "photo" on line#1 and use the path to the picture on line#2 minus the "xxx."
Good going to you BC_Programmer for defending him so eloquently.
-
Just keep trucking SpectateSwamp... that Stuffed Chinchilla is bound to make a false move at some point...
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
I will look up the EXIF stuff and build a simple reload of my 5000+ family album pictures. I'll use My catalog file as input. Strip off the "photo" on line#1 and use the path to the picture on line#2 minus the "xxx."
Yikes, I should hope that your family album doesn't contain any xxx!
-
See my Dead Dog - with SSDS
@Xyro said:
So what is the open open format of SSDS? Something like this, right?
[custom description plus every possible metadata attribute, possibly separated by commas or something]
[filepath of image/song/video/random]Can you share a part of your metadata index file so we can see what it looks like?
Here is a sample of the coding required:
photo oldie phyllis thelma hoey linquist bev doug prince dog animal
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03863.jpg
photo oldie bev irene opal granny connors lawrence jean mcgillvary
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03864.jpg
photo oldie doug irene bev
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03865.jpg
photo oldie david mcgillvary doug
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03866.jpg
photo oldie home place
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03867.jpg
photo oldie grandpa connors unk
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03868.jpgHere is the picture from line 1 and 2
God I loved that dog. He wasn't much good for anything but he was mine.
When SSDS randomly displays pictures. SSDS searches for "photo" (because it is on every catalog line). It generates a random number and searches for a match for 3 lines only. Then generate another random number and searches another 3 lines for a match. That way I can randomly look for "prince" when ever I want to show my old dead dog off to people.
-
Re: Morons and Idiots - SSDS will make you that.
@SpectateSwamp said:
You mentioned a while back you have your backups on another computer. and sync. Just so you won't lose anything. Where SSDS goes through the text file in Rapid Sequential Check mode. All my MetaData is in a simple text file that is easily transferable.
I use a utility that keeps the files on my laptop copied to the ones on my home server and vice versa, if I edit them in one place the changes are copied to the other automatically - the meta data is inside the mp3s so I only need to edit one place for it to all work. Using your method I would need to edit the mp3 files and then edit the text file and keep these in sync as well - That is just too much extra effort.@SpectateSwamp said:
The implementation details are hidden from the users, they do not need to know how it works behind the scenes to use it!
The point of good software is that it is easy to use without the users needing to understand every detail of what happens behind the scenes - people car run a media player, use an iPod, play mp3s on their phone etc. without understanding the low level binary implementation details of Id3v2 tags (or even the horrendously complicated structure that is an mp3 file itself), if users where required to know how every single detail was implemented they would get nothing done. Do you know how mpeg, jpeg, mp3 files are stored internally? No then does that make you a mushroom as well?@SpectateSwamp said:
Because Random Random wasn't available without SSDS. A quick catalog of your mp3 and in 5 minutes your are playing Random Random sampling.
But I do not want to listen to my music in random samples! Will you please try to understand this fact - the feature is useless, I listen to songs in their entirety or may skip a sing I am not in the mood for but I have never wanted to listen to a random length sample from a random point in a random song. No sane person ever has for god's sake.@SpectateSwamp said:
5 years of email VS 14 years with SSDS (case closed) And It is no problem to search out the emails that the reply was done to. Put in the date or the title in SSDS and it searches these relatively small files in seconds. The Sarbanes Oxley requires businesses to keep emails even longer if you are into the Stock trading shams. I keep very few attachments (none to date) but it is no problem to catalogue and save them with a reference to the email subject details.
I only have 5 years because I choose to keep only 5 years worth not because I cannot keep more. If I was required to do so then I would do so - stop claiming a person's choice is proving your method is the best.Why would I want to move attachments out of the email and then edit the email to reflect where the attachement is? If I then wanted to search inside the attachment how would SSDS do that? Right now I can open outlook and search for any word or phrase and it will search all emails including their attachment contents and show me related emails when I open any of the found matches. SSDS will not allow me to open an individual email just a large file of all emails. SSDS will not then allow me to find related items automatically as it stores it as one huge lump of text with no context such as message Id, thread etc. SSDS will not allow me to search inside attachments as it cannot store them either. SSDS is not a comparable system end of story.
@SpectateSwamp said:
You have a desktop search that cannot fucking search for a file that is not a desktop search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search the opening sentence is the exact opposite of what SSDS does. I have written a utility that will display a random slideshow of jpeg images using information stored in Exif tags as part of the search criteria - does that mean I can claim it is a desktop search tool? It will randomise them as well - fuck me it does nearly as much as SSDS without requiring manual indexes or god awful syntax either. I am calling you an idiot and a moron because you display all of the pig headed ignorance I would expect from an idiot and a moron.Name calling is a sign of a debate lost. I come here having written a Desktop Search and you argue with me. Knowing very little about the subject.
Who's the moron.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
But why require people to do this when the information can be stored in the file itself? What benefit is there in storing this information outside of the file other than SSDS requires you to do this? No other search tool would require you to maintain an index of meta data by hand - they index the data automatically.Here is a sample of the coding required:
photo oldie phyllis thelma hoey linquist bev doug prince dog animal
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03863.jpg
photo oldie bev irene opal granny connors lawrence jean mcgillvary
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03864.jpg
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
photo oldie phyllis thelma hoey linquist bev doug prince dog animal
Those are fine search keywords, but where is the metadata? How about timestamps or compression details or resolution details?
xxx.c:\search\family1\scn03863.jpgInformation like focal length or exposure time wouldn't be applicable to a scanned photo, but such metadata comes with all photos taken by digital cameras. Please look at this example of metadata available with the Exif metadata format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif#Example. Are you suggesting that whole table should be flattened out into one line for SSDS?
What if you wanted to find all photos older than 1990 or some other arbitrary date? Such a filter criteria is common and trivial with most search utilities. Is the "oldie" tag the best SSDS can look for?
And again, what happens when you want to share your hoard with someone who cannot run SSDS? The description of the picture, names of individuals, etc, is now completely disassociated with the jpg. The MetaData isn't Free, it's locked up in the SSDS OpenOpen format. But also see in that example the screen shot of Konqueror displaying all the metadata? (FYI, you can think of Konqueror is more or less as KDE's equivalent to Windows Explorer, at least in this use case.) That Exif metadata CAN be shared across platforms and software. AND it's directly associated with the jpg file.
-
A more random search I never knew.
Damn you are a good typist Spenk. I bet you type faster when mad.
@spenk said:
I use a utility that keeps the files on my laptop copied to the ones on my home server and vice versa, if I edit them in one place the changes are copied to the other automatically - the meta data is inside the mp3s so I only need to edit one place for it to all work. Using your method I would need to edit the mp3 files and then edit the text file and keep these in sync as well - That is just too much extra effort.
I can tell; that you don't do much video. That would lock up both your computers. It might be OK for mp3 and smaller files. But not video like Ole Swampie does
@spenk said:
The point of good software is that it is easy to use without the users needing to understand every detail of what happens behind the scenes - people car run a media player, use an iPod, play mp3s on their phone etc. without understanding the low level binary implementation details of Id3v2 tags (or even the horrendously complicated structure that is an mp3 file itself), if users where required to know how every single detail was implemented they would get nothing done. Do you know how mpeg, jpeg, mp3 files are stored internally? No then does that make you a mushroom as well?
Spenk Spenk Spenk The user doesn't have to know very much because SSDS is so simple in what it does. Good Software should be kept as simple as possible. That is the first thing we learned in computers KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
@spenk said:
But I do not want to listen to my music in random samples! Will you please try to understand this fact - the feature is useless, I listen to songs in their entirety or may skip a sing I am not in the mood for but I have never wanted to listen to a random length sample from a random point in a random song. No sane person ever has for god's sake.
You could be right on this one. I don't listen to much music. But since it was there for video. I thought I'd add the capability to .MP3 as well
@spenk said:
Having to get rid of emails that are 5 years or older requires more effort than keeping it all. I think most people will agree. Keeping all your non spam emails is better than an arbitrary 5 year cut off.I only have 5 years because I choose to keep only 5 years worth not because I cannot keep more. If I was required to do so then I would do so - stop claiming a person's choice is proving your method is the best.
@spenk said:
Why would I want to move attachments out of the email and then edit the email to reflect where the attachement is? If I then wanted to search inside the attachment how would SSDS do that? Right now I can open outlook and search for any word or phrase and it will search all emails including their attachment contents and show me related emails when I open any of the found matches. SSDS will not allow me to open an individual email just a large file of all emails. SSDS will not then allow me to find related items automatically as it stores it as one huge lump of text with no context such as message Id, thread etc. SSDS will not allow me to search inside attachments as it cannot store them either. SSDS is not a comparable system end of story.
You could be right on this point too. Because I don't give a damn about attachments. If I did. I'd copy and append them to my inmail.txt file right after the original email that it was attached to. If it had nice font and pictures. I'd do a screen capture and catalog that. Yes SSDS keeps all emails in 1 huge or 2 huge files. I never send these emails again so why have the directory overhead. SSDS searches and displays in full context. Most other searches give you bastardized version of the text. Then you click to see the full details. With SSDS it's just enter (look) enter ( look at the next one) etc etc. SSDS will win any search showdown. Handsdown. Woo Hooo SSDS
@spenk said:
You have a desktop search that cannot fucking search for a file that is not a desktop search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search the opening sentence is the exact opposite of what SSDS does. I have written a utility that will display a random slideshow of jpeg images using information stored in Exif tags as part of the search criteria - does that mean I can claim it is a desktop search tool? It will randomise them as well - fuck me it does nearly as much as SSDS without requiring manual indexes or god awful syntax either. I am calling you an idiot and a moron because you display all of the pig headed ignorance I would expect from an idiot and a moron.
Oh SSDS could have searched a file at a time. But the directory overhead would be killer. Making the search very slow. This is a much faster and better way. It's pure silly to keep emails and text files (that will never be sent out again) seperate. Way way to messy of a directory to look at. With SSDS the directories are quite tidy. Those bumbs at wikipedia don't know dick. I have done edits explaining REAL desktop search only to have them removed. (Was that You Spenk?) I'm glad to hear you did a random slide show. Do you stop the random search after 2 or 3 lines if no match is found. Then do another random search? If not the results won't be random at all. Say the 1st picture of my dog "prince" was 1/2 through the file. That pic would show and show. Not very random at all. It is very very random the way SSDS does it.
Your points are pointless. This is much better way of explaining SSDS. Otherwise it sounds like I'm bragging. I'd never do that.
-
Re: A more random search? I never knew random meant the same as search.
@SpectateSwamp said:
I can tell; that you don't do much video. That would lock up both your computers. It might be OK for mp3 and smaller files. But not video like Ole Swampie does
I have used it to keep folders in sync that contain large files (CD iso images, DVD isos, over 40G of mp3s, 10G of photos with no problems at all as it just syncs in the background without any noticible impact on performance.@SpectateSwamp said:
Spenk Spenk Spenk The user doesn't have to know very much because SSDS is so simple in what it does. Good Software should be kept as simple as possible. That is the first thing we learned in computers KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
SSDS requires the user to understand your cryptic syntax. SSDS requires users to maintain index files by hand. SSDS requires users to edit control.txt with no documentation. SSDS has no help of value, has no simple interfaces to guide the user. If a user is wanting to search files under windows they can simply type the search terms into explorer and it will search file names and any meta data. SSDS requires them to do gf on every folder, combine all this into a single file. They would then need to understand your format for entering meta data with only notepad as a tool. How is this easier than the windows way of doing things? There is nothing simple in using SSDS - a normal user e.g. my father would have no desire to remember that before finding a photo he needed to have create a manual index and then enter terms like .tt 8 at prompt #2 but prompt #1 could be ignored. His current method of 'just typing a keyword or two' is far, far simpler and more understandable.@SpectateSwamp said:
You could be right on this point too. Because I don't give a damn about attachments. If I did. I'd copy and append them to my inmail.txt file right after the original email that it was attached to. If it had nice font and pictures. I'd do a screen capture and catalog that. Yes SSDS keeps all emails in 1 huge or 2 huge files. I never send these emails again so why have the directory overhead. SSDS searches and displays in full context. Most other searches give you bastardized version of the text. Then you click to see the full details. With SSDS it's just enter (look) enter ( look at the next one) etc etc. SSDS will win any search showdown. Handsdown. Woo Hooo SSDS
As I have said time and time again - SSDS suits you and your way of doing things, it is not however suitable for the vast majority of the planet and yet you insist it is the only way to work and everyone should adopt your way of doing things! If it suits you fine, just stop proclaiming it to be the greatest thing ever because it isn't really all that good.Many people do care about attachments and will want to keep the original including formatting etc as this is part of the context and information - your method removes all this useful stuff. How can you claim other tools give a bastardised view of the text when your way strips all formatting and colour - if that isn't bastardising then I have no idea what is. You claim this nonsense about context but all it seems to do is display a wall of text (or bugger all as you would have seen in my previous screenshots which you chose to ignore); an email that shows related emails is far more sensible and contains more context, a list of all images (including previews) that match the keyword etc. is far more useful than each image being flashed in a random order etc.@SpectateSwamp said:
Oh SSDS could have searched a file at a time. But the directory overhead would be killer. Making the search very slow. This is a much faster and better way.
Back this up with figures and timing otherwise I am calling bullshit, a modern file system is an advanced structure with performance an overriding consideration - directory overheads are minimal and far less than searching through several megabytes of text. You are speculating and claiming speculation as fact - that is not proof.@SpectateSwamp said:
It's pure silly to keep emails and text files (that will never be sent out again) seperate.
Nope - the emails retain their context this way as I can easily find related emails and see the thread of responses, replies and forwards; merging them into one big block of text removes this important contextual information.@SpectateSwamp said:
Way way to messy of a directory to look at. With SSDS the directories are quite tidy.
A directory structure that is organised is not messy and is a great aide to locating and organising information. Removing information such as file names simple obscures the information and requires SSDS to find what could have been done by opening a folder and reading descriptive folder names. Again you are trying to force people to adopt your way of working despite it being far more cumbersome than their existing methods.@SpectateSwamp said:
I'm glad to hear you did a random slide show. Do you stop the random search after 2 or 3 lines if no match is found. Then do another random search? If not the results won't be random at all. Say the 1st picture of my dog "prince" was 1/2 through the file. That pic would show and show. Not very random at all. It is very very random the way SSDS does it.
I actually used the meta data to locate all matching files and stored the paths in a collection, I then selected an image at random and removed it from the list to prevent it being picked twice until all had been displayed. Optionally it would add the items to a second list and then this could be played in sequence or reshuffled. The idea of picking 3 lines only makes sense in your implementation of a shuffle like behaviour.
-
@Xyro said:
Those are fine search keywords, but where is the metadata? How about timestamps or compression details or resolution details?
It's easy to go back in and add any keywords you want. "animal" is added to every pic that has a cat or dog. This picture is over 50 years old and the scan was done almost 10 years ago. At rather low resolution. It was taking forever to do the scans. The pictures were numbered and not put back into the albums but kept in groups of 100 or so. The plan was to scan the oldies in again at a higher resolution. The pictures were taken by my sister and she died. We don't have the originals anymore. But we got them all. That is what counts. Timestamps, gps locations and resolution didn't excite me so I never included that. Maybe now that the cameras provide it I'll pull the EXIF info out when I do a JPG extract. Info like "dog" and "animal" are far more useful to me. I can randomly see every picture with "animal"
@Xyro said:
Ditto the scan and digital camera stuff. I am going to do the EXIF extract ( to SSDS format: "photo " and "xxx." and 2 lines) as my next VB5 project, Thanks for the link. If the info is too long for 1 line make a duplicate set with the 2nd line having the additional info. SSDS has a setting to skip subsequent files if the size is the same. Ie duplicates.Information like focal length or exposure time wouldn't be applicable to a scanned photo, but such metadata comes with all photos taken by digital cameras. Please look at this example of metadata available with the Exif metadata format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif#Example. Are you suggesting that whole table should be flattened out into one line for SSDS?
@Xyro said:
What if you wanted to find all photos older than 1990 or some other arbitrary date? Such a filter criteria is common and trivial with most search utilities. Is the "oldie" tag the best SSDS can look for?
It took us 2 months to sort and scan these 5000+ pics in. We should have added more info like date and camerman and we still can.
@Xyro said:
And again, what happens when you want to share your hoard with someone who cannot run SSDS? The description of the picture, names of individuals, etc, is now completely disassociated with the jpg. The MetaData isn't Free, it's locked up in the SSDS OpenOpen format. But also see in that example the screen shot of Konqueror displaying all the metadata? (FYI, you can think of Konqueror is more or less as KDE's equivalent to Windows Explorer, at least in this use case.) That Exif metadata CAN be shared across platforms and software. AND it's directly associated with the jpg file.
When I initally shared the pics. I had SSDS set to auto run showing the pictures randomly. SSDS for pictures runs on everything from Windows 95 through Windows XP (maybe even Vista and 7 I don't know) I always made sure they had a family1.txt file with the details. Not hard to find on the CD. Being that I didn't have the other computers (Mac Linix) and that windows is still 90% of the computer users. It would have been a waste of my time. The code is out there. You take it and Jam it to what ever platform you like. Can Konqueror do random along with a "noshow" My sister didn't want to see her X's ugly mug, so I added that option. We scanned the bums picture and the "noshow" kept my sister from being subjected to it. Once I have the JPG export working I'll create an UPDATE jpg version. Loading the metadata I have on the family pictures right into the jpg. That will satisfy the other 10%.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Having to get rid of emails that are 5 years or older requires more effort than keeping it all. I think most people will agree. Keeping all your non spam emails is better than an arbitrary 5 year cut off.
Shit, not this debate again. It was ridiculous to read the first time, now we have to hear Spectate Swamp's arguments.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Spenk Spenk Spenk The user doesn't have to know very much because SSDS is so simple in what it does. Good Software should be kept as simple as possible. That is the first thing we learned in computers KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
If you followed that same principle on SSDS, you wouldn't have to hit "enter enter enter" and "fff" to get arbitrary results. Instead you'd use something that has been around for as long as VGA has been around: Graphic User Interfaces. And that "OK" button on the prompt doesn't cut it. If I want to go into random mode, a simple button or icon with an easy to remember keybind (CTRL-R, for example), you'd have an even simpler program.@SpectateSwamp said:
Oh SSDS could have searched a file at a time. But the directory overhead would be killer. Making the search very slow. This is a much faster and better way. It's pure silly to keep emails and text files (that will never be sent out again) seperate. Way way to messy of a directory to look at. With SSDS the directories are quite tidy.
...and the tradeoff for a clean directory is a clusterfuck of a text document that is completely disorganized and a bitch to maintain, and is at risk of reaching critical mass capable of imploding it into a black hole, destroying the world. Is that what you want? Huh? I guess your medicine stones will save you, though.
@SpectateSwamp said:
I'm glad to hear you did a random slide show. Do you stop the random search after 2 or 3 lines if no match is found. Then do another random search? If not the results won't be random at all. Say the 1st picture of my dog "prince" was 1/2 through the file. That pic would show and show. Not very random at all. It is very very random the way SSDS does it.
I've been trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to say, but am at a loss. I'll just assume it's plain old "boondoggle" speech and will ignore it.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
It's easy to go back in and add any keywords you want. "animal" is added to every pic that has a cat or dog.
It is easy to do this in explorer as well, this doesn't answer the question regarding other meta data though.@SpectateSwamp said:
Ditto the scan and digital camera stuff. I am going to do the EXIF extract ( to SSDS format: "photo " and "xxx." and 2 lines) as my next VB5 project, Thanks for the link. If the info is too long for 1 line make a duplicate set with the 2nd line having the additional info. SSDS has a setting to skip subsequent files if the size is the same. Ie duplicates.
Why not just leave it in the original file though? Why require this extract to a text file step at all?@SpectateSwamp said:
When I initally shared the pics. I had SSDS set to auto run showing the pictures randomly. SSDS for pictures runs on everything from Windows 95 through Windows XP (maybe even Vista and 7 I don't know) I always made sure they had a family1.txt file with the details. Not hard to find on the CD. Being that I didn't have the other computers (Mac Linix) and that windows is still 90% of the computer users. It would have been a waste of my time. The code is out there. You take it and Jam it to what ever platform you like. Can Konqueror do random along with a "noshow" My sister didn't want to see her X's ugly mug, so I added that option. We scanned the bums picture and the "noshow" kept my sister from being subjected to it. Once I have the JPG export working I'll create an UPDATE jpg version. Loading the metadata I have on the family pictures right into the jpg. That will satisfy the other 10%.
Wonderful anecdote but didn't really address Xyro's point though - you are just introducing a proprietary format that adds nothing to the already existing standard format, there is no reason for anyone to adopt your standard when the existing ones work.
-
Furthermore, what percentage of that 90% are willing to run SSDS? Why should they have to use specialized software to browse your hoard?
Also, I'd still like a definition in your own words of metadata. It would clear up a bit of SpenkSwampExasperation, I'm sure. That way, we can fight over the definition of words rather than the implementation of them, as God intended. In particular, while labels of "animal", "oldie", etc, are perfectly valid description tags (that could be stored in the Exif comments section and indexed in a semantic database or something), they are a very incomplete usage of metadata.
Would you define metadata as manually-entered words that the user thinks useful at the time?
Let me give you another example of metadata. This time it's on the filesystem, which I know confuses you a little. At a complete minimum, every file on any modern filesystem has such associated metadata as the owner of the file, the file's last modification time, the read and write permissions on the file. These attributes are unsearchable by SSDS unless they are manually entered by the user. Why would a non-techie want to manually enter metadata just to be able to find files that were, for example, modified yesterday
Under your scheme, such a search criteria would require the user to manually edit his search.txt file every time he updates a document.
Additionally, SSDS is a simple text search, it can't fulfill simple use case scenarios as "Find all files that were modified in the the last week" or "Find all songs that I have given a 4-star or better rating" or "Find all files in the system directory that are owned by user XYZ."
-
Random means everything. A more random app than SSDS - no chance
@spenk said:
I have used it to keep folders in sync that contain large files (CD iso images, DVD isos, over 40G of mp3s, 10G of photos with no problems at all as it just syncs in the background without any noticible impact on performance.
I have that much trapline video (50 or 60 gig) and probably twice that when I covered political forums, hunting for plants. I shoot shoot and shoot. Syncing all that would be horrible just horrible. With SSDS there is no Background jobs indexing and syncing things. How can you be so sure things are in order and not missed without SSDS to check?
@spenk said:
SSDS is 1 program and all anybody needs for video, music pics and text. How many programs and utilities would they need to learn to cover as much. How much do them apps cost? SSDS is FREE. There is only 3 prompts (#1 file name) (#2 options) (#3 search criteria) and the internal "help.txt' file that is generated when "help" is entered at prompt #2. Your options will show them 1 picture then click on a second. SSDS runs as a screen saver around the clock. No they don't have to run "gf" on every folder. Select "c:\" and everything is cataloged. If you have a second drive. use that device instead of "c:\ " with the next "gf" and use the "append" option to tag the text to the end of the first text file. Very simple. I have trained novices how to edit the MetaData and it is never a problem. Your poor old dad has been ill informed. Give me half a day with him and he would be saying get lost son. And take that bundle of software with you.SSDS requires the user to understand your cryptic syntax. SSDS requires users to maintain index files by hand. SSDS requires users to edit control.txt with no documentation. SSDS has no help of value, has no simple interfaces to guide the user. If a user is wanting to search files under windows they can simply type the search terms into explorer and it will search file names and any meta data. SSDS requires them to do gf on every folder, combine all this into a single file. They would then need to understand your format for entering meta data with only notepad as a tool. How is this easier than the windows way of doing things? There is nothing simple in using SSDS - a normal user e.g. my father would have no desire to remember that before finding a photo he needed to have create a manual index and then enter terms like .tt 8 at prompt #2 but prompt #1 could be ignored. His current method of 'just typing a keyword or two' is far, far simpler and more understandable.
@spenk said:
As I have said time and time again - SSDS suits you and your way of doing things, it is not however suitable for the vast majority of the planet and yet you insist it is the only way to work and everyone should adopt your way of doing things! If it suits you fine, just stop proclaiming it to be the greatest thing ever because it isn't really all that good.Many people do care about attachments and will want to keep the original including formatting etc as this is part of the context and information - your method removes all this useful stuff. How can you claim other tools give a bastardised view of the text when your way strips all formatting and colour - if that isn't bastardising then I have no idea what is. You claim this nonsense about context but all it seems to do is display a wall of text (or bugger all as you would have seen in my previous screenshots which you chose to ignore); an email that shows related emails is far more sensible and contains more context, a list of all images (including previews) that match the keyword etc. is far more useful than each image being flashed in a random order etc.
Time and time again. You are beating a dead horse. A damn big horse at that. you better answer a few of my questions. Does your shuffle have a noshow option. Can you randomly look for "dog" or "animal". I won't stop proclaiming untill a showdown. Care about keeping your attachments (but not after 5 years) hum bug. I keep any attachments I want. including screen captures of these long long posts. (up to 3 jpgs per post) Formatting and color is a poor reason to have data in a propriatory format. Just do a screen capture and save that along with the text that you cut and paste into SSDS. Context is important. That is why SSDS holds and displays 8 or 10 lines before the match and then the "match" then displays till the end of the screen. You can't get more context per page than that. There is also a use for "no context" as when the "s" for single / matching lines only display is entered at prompt #2. I use it to track my "youtube views 75012 18Jan2010" I search for "youtube views/2010" and get the 18 for this year and that is it. Showing emails that are related. That's a lie. First you have to click on them. otherwise they show nothing of use. Previews and thumbnails don't match up to a full screen picture. (yes they can display in sequential order as well) dumb bunny.
@spenk said:
Back this up with figures and timing otherwise I am calling bullshit, a modern file system is an advanced structure with performance an overriding consideration - directory overheads are minimal and far less than searching through several megabytes of text. You are speculating and claiming speculation as fact - that is not proof.
You should know BS you have been filling your brain washed old dad with it for some time. Just do a directory of "c:\" looking for *.jpg files. It takes time. The 'gf' option will show you that. Your system is building indexes in the background. Not so with SSDS. When running screen savers etc. Who wants their jobs getting bumped by some shit indexer. Several megabytes of text is extremely fast. 20,000,000 characters per second. And that will only get faster as computers do. Proof you want. OR try the "dir" option at prompt #2. It will do a complete directory of "c:\" and puts the date last modified in there as well. Then search that directory.txt file at prompt #1 with the "s" option at prompt #2 and enter "d" (for today) as the search criteria at prompt #3 and see all the time it takes and what files have changed today. You would be surprised at how slow the directory is and how fast the search is.
@spenk said:
A directory structure that is organised is not messy and is a great aide to locating and organising information. Removing information such as file names simple obscures the information and requires SSDS to find what could have been done by opening a folder and reading descriptive folder names. Again you are trying to force people to adopt your way of working despite it being far more cumbersome than their existing methods.
Don't try looking looking for pictures when they are spread out over directories or all in 1 folder if you have 10's of thousands. SSDS will search it for you.A few pictures is ok for the file name and folder stuff. When you keep every picture you shoot (and you should) because disk is so cheap. And Yes I would FORCE you to use a much simpler and more powerful SSDS. Start using SSDS SpenkSwamp. You'll move light years ahead of your old Dad.
@spenk said:
I actually used the meta data to locate all matching files and stored the paths in a collection, I then selected an image at random and removed it from the list to prevent it being picked twice until all had been displayed. Optionally it would add the items to a second list and then this could be played in sequence or reshuffled. The idea of picking 3 lines only makes sense in your implementation of a shuffle like behaviour.
You had better add a "noshow" option as well allow them to back up a picture or (40) as SSDS allows for.
I hope you don't get fired Spenk. This discussion has got to be eating into your work hours. But thanks again. This is a far better way to explain what a wonderful wonderful progam SSDS is. A manual or help file just doesn't match up to a discussion like this.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Give me half a day with him and he would be saying get lost son. And take that bundle of software with you.
I don't think it would take him that long.
-
Spenk senior could learn SSDS in a couple hours
@Xyro said:
Get lost to "Spenk" his son. It probably wouldn't take a half day. Most old guys are pretty smart. Geez I like these short posts@SpectateSwamp said:
Give me half a day with him and he would be saying get lost son. And take that bundle of software with you.
I don't think it would take him that long.
-
Fine, here's another short one:
What is metadata?
-
Speed Bump Swampies - Keep this thread and SSDS at the top
@Xyro said:
Fine, here's another short one:
What is metadata?
I can't stand "info" "metadata" being dumped into files. SSDS is here to simplify all that.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
I have that much trapline video (50 or 60 gig) and probably twice that when I covered political forums, hunting for plants. I shoot shoot and shoot. Syncing all that would be horrible just horrible. With SSDS there is no Background jobs indexing and syncing things. How can you be so sure things are in order and not missed without SSDS to check?
It is not horrible, it works well with no noticable performace impact at all. I would much rather have my computer doing stuff for me in the background instead of me having to waste my time copying and manually indexing every single file on my system. I also thought SSDS did use background jobs - you claimed it as a feature in a previous post.@SpectateSwamp said:
]SSDS is 1 program and all anybody needs for video, music pics and text. How many programs and utilities would they need to learn to cover as much. How much do them apps cost? SSDS is FREE. There is only 3 prompts (#1 file name) (#2 options) (#3 search criteria) and the internal "help.txt' file that is generated when "help" is entered at prompt #2. Your options will show them 1 picture then click on a second. SSDS runs as a screen saver around the clock. No they don't have to run "gf" on every folder. Select "c:\" and everything is cataloged. If you have a second drive. use that device instead of "c:\ " with the next "gf" and use the "append" option to tag the text to the end of the first text file. Very simple. I have trained novices how to edit the MetaData and it is never a problem. Your poor old dad has been ill informed. Give me half a day with him and he would be saying get lost son. And take that bundle of software with you.
SSDS is not a tool for anyone who wants to be productive, the vast majority of the things I am talking about are part of windows and have no extra cost anyway. Whatever you claim about ease of use I have actually tried to make SSDS work and you never once managed to explain my screenshots or provide simple instructions that actually worked.You are honestly saying SSDS is easier than using windows' built in features? Here is a simple step by step guide to getting photos from a camera and adding meta data and then making this data searchable - could you provide an exact step by step guide to doing the same under SSDS. Your guide should include the steps to add meta data to every single photo copied from the camera to give a fair comparison.
- Plug in camera or insert SD card.
- Select import pictures and videos when wizard launches automatically.
- Enter keywords when wizard prompts
- Click Import
That is it in it's entirety, the images are copied and fully searchable with no extra effort, no gf, no text files to edit. It is all done and searchable. Simple. Easy. All wizard driven with no confusing syntax.
To search I can now do
- click start button in bottom left of windows
- type keyword or words and see results.
That is it. End of Story. No further. Work. Required.
So go on, give me a full step by step guide required to import 4 photos from your camera and get the meta data searching to work with SSDS - note the above steps would work regardless of the number of files imported.
My father is not a stupid man and with no real computer experience at all he worked out the above process for himself, he did not need a half day of training or any odd syntax to learn. It was simple and intuative with minimal effort on his part.
@SpectateSwamp said:
You should know BS you have been filling your brain washed old dad with it for some time. Just do a directory of "c:\" looking for *.jpg files. It takes time. The 'gf' option will show you that. Your system is building indexes in the background. Not so with SSDS. When running screen savers etc. Who wants their jobs getting bumped by some shit indexer. Several megabytes of text is extremely fast. 20,000,000 characters per second. And that will only get faster as computers do. Proof you want. OR try the "dir" option at prompt #2. It will do a complete directory of "c:\" and puts the date last modified in there as well. Then search that directory.txt file at prompt #1 with the "s" option at prompt #2 and enter "d" (for today) as the search criteria at prompt #3 and see all the time it takes and what files have changed today. You would be surprised at how slow the directory is and how fast the search is.
My father can use his computer how he wants to, I have never once needed to explain file systems, searching, indexing or anything like that to him - this was all intuitive discoverable functionality.More to the point your analysis of file systems compared to your index is way off base. To give a simplified explanation of what is happing- your index (that is what your .txt file is) will be searched in a sequential order, the more entries in it the search time will get longer in a direct proportion to the number of entries, you have effectively created an simple duplication of the older FAT file system minus file meta data such as access time and so on. NTFS internally implements something called a B-Tree which provides high performance retrieval and searching by organising the data in a format designed to minimize query times and will out perform your simple method every time. If you disagree I am willing to record actual time runs to compare the two methods side by side - are you?
Further more a modern OS is a fully multi tasking system and indexing jobs etc will run at a lower priority than your own process and will not impact on the performance of foreground applications.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Time and time again. You are beating a dead horse. A damn big horse at that. you better answer a few of my questions. Does your shuffle have a noshow option. Can you randomly look for "dog" or "animal". I won't stop proclaiming untill a showdown. Care about keeping your attachments (but not after 5 years) hum bug. I keep any attachments I want. including screen captures of these long long posts. (up to 3 jpgs per post) Formatting and color is a poor reason to have data in a propriatory format. Just do a screen capture and save that along with the text that you cut and paste into SSDS. Context is important. That is why SSDS holds and displays 8 or 10 lines before the match and then the "match" then displays till the end of the screen. You can't get more context per page than that. There is also a use for "no context" as when the "s" for single / matching lines only display is entered at prompt #2. I use it to track my "youtube views 75012 18Jan2010" I search for "youtube views/2010" and get the 18 for this year and that is it. Showing emails that are related. That's a lie. First you have to click on them. otherwise they show nothing of use. Previews and thumbnails don't match up to a full screen picture. (yes they can display in sequential order as well) dumb bunny.
If I was to search for pictures, videos or music using the built in search I can use full boolean syntax, I could use a search like "cat OR dog Or horse NOT brown" to include anything with the words cat or dog or horse but to then exclude any that also contain the word brown - that good enough for your noshow then? If you are so hell bent on a show down why do you never accept any offered? You refuse any show down that isn't random, random, gee haw, jam boondoogle or similar bollocks. Why take a screen shot of text? Why not just store the text? You cannot search a jpg for textual content, this is madness incarnate.
Opening an email takes a click, finding related ones is another click - I count that as 2 clicks. How would you use SSDS to track related emails when they may have been sent and received over the course of several weeks? Your inmail.txt will not contain this contextual information, you will have to guess based on subject line or similar. Colour and formatting are not a poor reason, for many documents this is important information and there is no reason to discard it.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Don't try looking looking for pictures when they are spread out over directories or all in 1 folder if you have 10's of thousands. SSDS will search it for you.A few pictures is ok for the file name and folder stuff. When you keep every picture you shoot (and you should) because disk is so cheap. And Yes I would FORCE you to use a much simpler and more powerful SSDS. Start using SSDS SpenkSwamp. You'll move light years ahead of your old Dad.
My pictures are organised in a fairly simple structure and I can find things without too much effort, if I need to search I simple type keywords in the little box at the top right and I get matches including previews, clicking a preview opens it u. The thumbnails mean I can skim over irrelevant ones and narrow the search down visually in minimum time, SSDS would just flash pictures at random and I hope I spot the correct one, when I find it I then need to note down it's location and browse to it manually anyway.@SpectateSwamp said:
You had better add a "noshow" option as well allow them to back up a picture or (40) as SSDS allows for.
I hope you don't get fired Spenk. This discussion has got to be eating into your work hours. But thanks again. This is a far better way to explain what a wonderful wonderful progam SSDS is. A manual or help file just doesn't match up to a discussion like this.
I simply changed it when Vista came out to use the built in search components, I can use boolean searches as explained above so no need for a noshow option. SSDS does not backup files though does it. Be honest how does it back up files.
I really hope I am explaining just how good SSDS is, the fact I never got it to search .c files or understood any of it's results shall stand as a testament to SSDS' capabilities.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
So you can't stand useful and related information being stored with the actual content in a cross platform and useful way. Good for you, if you work hard I am sure you can drag computing back into the dark ages.@Xyro said:
Fine, here's another short one:
What is metadata?
I can't stand "info" "metadata" being dumped into files. SSDS is here to simplify all that.
-
@spenk said:
@SpectateSwamp said:
Who said anything about useful and related information? He still hasn't told us what metadata is. For all we know, the SwampDictionAry defines metadata as "words that the voices howl when I look at the pictures". We may have living proof of a bicameral consciousness!@Xyro said:
So you can't stand useful and related information being stored with the actual content in a cross platform and useful way. Good for you, if you work hard I am sure you can drag computing back into the dark ages.Fine, here's another short one:
I can't stand "info" "metadata" being dumped into files. SSDS is here to simplify all that.What is metadata?
-
@Xyro said:
I have long since given up expecting a straight answer, quite frankly I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on a coherent answer either. If he manages a response that achieves a full sentence (not just words with a full stop at the end) then I would consider it a success, unless it contains the usual mix of Jam, Noodle, gee haw, boondongle, spaghetti, random, random, search, video, reshoot, random or irrelevant anecdote about how computers worked in 'times past'. Actually getting him to define a term, or explain anything at all is really just wishful thinking. Try getting him to even give you instructions on how to use such an easy tool and he will fail to provide a coherent response...@spenk said:
@SpectateSwamp said:
Who said anything about useful and related information? He still hasn't told us what metadata is. For all we know, the SwampDictionAry defines metadata as "words that the voices howl when I look at the pictures". We may have living proof of a bicameral consciousness!@Xyro said:
So you can't stand useful and related information being stored with the actual content in a cross platform and useful way. Good for you, if you work hard I am sure you can drag computing back into the dark ages.Fine, here's another short one:
I can't stand "info" "metadata" being dumped into files. SSDS is here to simplify all that.What is metadata?
-
Hahahah, whoa, wait, you were actually at one time expecting a lucid response?
-
@Xyro said:
Once. A very long time ago. I try not to think about those days anymore. Dark times indeed.Hahahah, whoa, wait, you were actually at one time expecting a lucid response?
-
Boo Boo Boolean - SSDS don't need that crap
@spenk said:
It is not horrible, it works well with no noticable performace impact at all. I would much rather have my computer doing stuff for me in the background instead of me having to waste my time copying and manually indexing every single file on my system. I also thought SSDS did use background jobs - you claimed it as a feature in a previous post.
It does have an impact if you are running a slower computer and the indexing starts up. I have set SSDS to run showing video of a bunch of 8 year olds playing Hockey. It was running around the clock. I'd sooner have it do that than indexing. Lots of people have been complaining about indexing not just me. It is much faster to do manual pictures by adding lines to a text file. As you can see there is quite a bit of copy and paste you can do. Even down to the file name. Only the last few characters change each time. The "gf" option has the ability to view and then enter the catalog info; but I never use it. It is way faster the SSDS way. SSDS does run background jobs when I and the users want them to run. Like the scrolling text. It is easier to do with a background version of SSDS running and more fun too. I don't want some indexer sneaking around behind my back stealing CPU cycles.
@spenk said:
SSDS is not a tool for anyone who wants to be productive, the vast majority of the things I am talking about are part of windows and have no extra cost anyway. Whatever you claim about ease of use I have actually tried to make SSDS work and you never once managed to explain my screenshots or provide simple instructions that actually worked.
You can't be productive if you spend your time learning new software. Like I said SSDS is the only program anyone needs. No more to learn. Nada. I can't stand those propriatory files either. Don't send me .doc or .pps. My machine won't run them. $$$ needed to make those go. SSDS is extremely free that way. You didn't really try to make SSDS work. As for your requests for a show and tell; all of them are for something every Search and do. I want to show you the stuff none of them can do. Scrolling text, Random trapline video. Specific video segments, super slow motion, "dir" at prompt #2, then search that file for those that have a modified date of today. etc etc. SSDS does so much more that your glut of dirty windows packages.
@spenk said:
You are honestly saying SSDS is easier than using windows' built in features? Here is a simple step by step guide to getting photos from a camera and adding meta data and then making this data searchable - could you provide an exact step by step guide to doing the same under SSDS. Your guide should include the steps to add meta data to every single photo copied from the camera to give a fair comparison.
- Plug in camera or insert SD card.
- Select import pictures and videos when wizard launches automatically.
- Enter keywords when wizard prompts
- Click Import
That is it in it's entirety, the images are copied and fully searchable with no extra effort, no gf, no text files to edit. It is all done and searchable. Simple. Easy. All wizard driven with no confusing syntax.
To search I can now do
- click start button in bottom left of windows
- type keyword or words and see results.
That is it. End of Story. No further. Work. Required.
Another super simple test.
How does your system handle screen captures. These are pictures too. With SSDS. I know where they are. Like some of your posts it takes me 2 or 3 or 4 screen captures to cover them all. They are saved sequentially. I then go to SSDS and hit "e" for enter at prompt #2. I enter the 1st line with the detail of the photo ie "photo scapture0201 thedailywtf nobody shares knowledge better than this. - Random means everything part 1 of 3" (I copy this info into the clipboard because there are 2 more to follow. then I enter "xxx.c:\search\webscreens\scapture0201.jpg" and that one is done. I then do the 2nd screen capture. pasting the info into line #1 and modifying the "201" to "202" and the "part 1 of 3" to "part 2 of 3" etc. And that is it. I usually check the typeing by at prompt #2 enter "p" for photo display and at the search string prompt #3 enter "0201" then "0202" then "203" just to make sure the links are ok. I could look for "random means everything" and have each display one after the other.
@spenk said:
I'm sure your dad is quite smart. But the learning curve is more than a couple hours. Take him away from his computer for a year and he would be starting at square one. If it is so simple and intuative why are so few people doing anything with Video and music and pictures on a PC. SSDS play options just blows everything else away. The world needs more randomMy father is not a stupid man and with no real computer experience at all he worked out the above process for himself, he did not need a half day of training or any odd syntax to learn. It was simple and intuative with minimal effort on his part.
@spenk said:
My father can use his computer how he wants to, I have never once needed to explain file systems, searching, indexing or anything like that to him - this was all intuitive discoverable functionality.
He doesn't have a clue as to what computers with SSDS are capable of. Video Navigation as another example. Windows can't touch this search.
@spenk said:
More to the point your analysis of file systems compared to your index is way off base. To give a simplified explanation of what is happing- your index (that is what your .txt file is) will be searched in a sequential order, the more entries in it the search time will get longer in a direct proportion to the number of entries, you have effectively created an simple duplication of the older FAT file system minus file meta data such as access time and so on. NTFS internally implements something called a B-Tree which provides high performance retrieval and searching by organising the data in a format designed to minimize query times and will out perform your simple method every time. If you disagree I am willing to record actual time runs to compare the two methods side by side - are you?
My text file is not an index. Index is what an indexer / desktop search does. You can't go in with notepad and change indexes can you? Searching in sequential order is extremely fast. After the first pass the text probably resides completely in memory. I could have SSDS go through the 12,000 or so lines of text in my family album showing me only the ones that have "oldie" in them. 10 a second isn't too fast to see. But then again you wouldn't have seen anything like the Great great SSDS fast photo display. You'd lose lose lose.
@spenk said:
Further more a modern OS is a fully multi tasking system and indexing jobs etc will run at a lower priority than your own process and will not impact on the performance of foreground applications.
When I showed the Hockey video it was running for weeks non stop. Video is fairly intensive. Any indexing would have an impact.
@spenk said:
Don't talk boolean here. That is another word techies use to lord over the non techies. Boolean smoolean is crap. Your "not brown" has to be entered every time. SSDS had " allen " in the noshow (ie a never show) His ugly face never shows for me or my sister. Any offer for a showdown should show the SSDS features that others seem to think are useless. SSDS will kick all butts in a showdown. Screen shots would only be handy for text that had fancy fonts and colors. Like I say keeping documents in propriatory formats ensures that they don't move easily from computer to computer. Unless you have the originating software. Searching for jpgs is what SSDS does. The text is in an associate text file. But I will make sure I create an uploader so that the family pictures can be shown either way. The slow way and the fast fun way with SSDS. Your continual resistance is madness incarnate.If I was to search for pictures, videos or music using the built in search I can use full boolean syntax, I could use a search like "cat OR dog Or horse NOT brown" to include anything with the words cat or dog or horse but to then exclude any that also contain the word brown - that good enough for your noshow then? If you are so hell bent on a show down why do you never accept any offered? You refuse any show down that isn't random, random, gee haw, jam boondoogle or similar bollocks. Why take a screen shot of text? Why not just store the text? You cannot search a jpg for textual content, this is madness incarnate.
@spenk said:
Opening an email takes a click, finding related ones is another click - I count that as 2 clicks. How would you use SSDS to track related emails when they may have been sent and received over the course of several weeks? Your inmail.txt will not contain this contextual information, you will have to guess based on subject line or similar. Colour and formatting are not a poor reason, for many documents this is important information and there is no reason to discard it.
I can find the complete sequence of emails from 2000 where jholmstrom from Hi-times called me "ignorant" Putting them out to an extract file, showing both sides of the argument. SSDS can also show me the last page of my inmail or outmail. Then backup a page at a time. Way quicker than scrolling down and looking for and clicking on the last message. If color and formatting makes it difficult to move to another computer then it is a problem and not a good thing. But if you are stuck on keeping the original formatting. SSDS can put the resultant file path into the clipboard for you to paste into the software that holds your data hostage. Data is not a hostage with SSDS. It's free range data.
@spenk said:
My pictures are organised in a fairly simple structure and I can find things without too much effort, if I need to search I simple type keywords in the little box at the top right and I get matches including previews, clicking a preview opens it u. The thumbnails mean I can skim over irrelevant ones and narrow the search down visually in minimum time, SSDS would just flash pictures at random and I hope I spot the correct one, when I find it I then need to note down it's location and browse to it manually anyway.
You didn't spend 2 months scanning in family heirloom pictures. At the search prompt I can enter "oldie" and as quick as I hit the "enter" another oldie will show up. Hold your finger down and watch them fly by. SSDS is designed for this. That's what I mean by jamming it. And you can always view the previous ones. It keeps 40 of the last views pictures internally. If one flashes by just back up till you see it again.
@spenk said:
NeverShow is better than any Boo Boo boolean searches not this or not that boolean. When everything is in 1 folder backup is simple. I just drag and drop it onto my external drive. That reminds me I will do a complete backup tomorrow. Any backup not on an external drive is in peril. Maybe even move the drive next door. I think it would be easier to explain this to your dad.I simply changed it when Vista came out to use the built in search components, I can use boolean searches as explained above so no need for a noshow option. SSDS does not backup files though does it. Be honest how does it back up files.
I really hope I am explaining just how good SSDS is, the fact I never got it to search .c files or understood any of it's results shall stand as a testament to SSDS' capabilities.
-
<font size="4">ATTENTION, EVERONE!
<font size="3">The truth has finally been revealed!</font> </font>@SpectateSwamp said:
At the search prompt I can enter "oldie" and as quick as I hit the "enter" another oldie will show up. Hold your finger down and watch them fly by. SSDS is designed for this. That's what I mean by jamming it.
Add a noodle and hold your finger down and watch them fly by!
-
Where can we find your latest spaghetti code/recipe?
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
It does have an impact if you are running a slower computer and the indexing starts up. I have set SSDS to run showing video of a bunch of 8 year olds playing Hockey. It was running around the clock. I'd sooner have it do that than indexing. Lots of people have been complaining about indexing not just me. It is much faster to do manual pictures by adding lines to a text file. As you can see there is quite a bit of copy and paste you can do. Even down to the file name. Only the last few characters change each time. The "gf" option has the ability to view and then enter the catalog info; but I never use it. It is way faster the SSDS way. SSDS does run background jobs when I and the users want them to run. Like the scrolling text. It is easier to do with a background version of SSDS running and more fun too. I don't want some indexer sneaking around behind my back stealing CPU cycles.
I really don't care if you would rather watch hockey for 24 hours solid, I use my computer for more useful things (and this as well), background indexing has never been a performance issue for me and it means I can search all my data without having to manually create an index file. I can bulk edit the keywords, subject etc. direct from windows explorer with no need for any cut and paste either.@SpectateSwamp said:
You can't be productive if you spend your time learning new software. Like I said SSDS is the only program anyone needs. No more to learn. Nada. I can't stand those propriatory files either. Don't send me .doc or .pps. My machine won't run them. $$$ needed to make those go. SSDS is extremely free that way. You didn't really try to make SSDS work. As for your requests for a show and tell; all of them are for something every Search and do. I want to show you the stuff none of them can do. Scrolling text, Random trapline video. Specific video segments, super slow motion, "dir" at prompt #2, then search that file for those that have a modified date of today. etc etc. SSDS does so much more that your glut of dirty windows packages.
I really did try Swampie I really did, I asked questions you never gave answers to and I posted screenshots you ignored. I couldn't get it to search for files, to build it's index when the folder contain files with a .C extension, I couldn't understand the results either and you failed to explain what I was doing wrong, how to make it work or what the results meant - this is not useful software for me or for the majority of the planet. I am asking for you to tell me how to search because that is the primary function of a search tool, I can use Copernic, GDS or WDS without requiring explanations from the software creators and can search for files easily - surely being able to search with a search tool should work without requiring a complex set of instructions.
Given SSDS is not a photo editor, video editor, music player, tag editor, text editor, compiler, spreadsheet, document editor, email client, web browser, nntp reader, im client or any form of game I fail to see how it can replace all these other applications. Please explain how I can ditch all the things I have just listed and replace them with SSDS.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Well done on not actually giving me the steps required to do the same as I gave steps for - I am assuming you can't be bothered to respond to a civil request for a set of comparative instructions. If I was taking screen shots I would save them in a folder based on the topic or application or project (depending on why I was taking them), name them after what the screen showed and would fill in the related meta data with relevant information such as project, application or so on directly through explorer. I can then simply look for them in their location (because the folder structure would make this easy to locate) or search by typing any of the tags into the search box on my start menu or top right of explorer.Another super simple test.
How does your system handle screen captures. These are pictures too. With SSDS. I know where they are. Like some of your posts it takes me 2 or 3 or 4 screen captures to cover them all. They are saved sequentially. I then go to SSDS and hit "e" for enter at prompt #2. I enter the 1st line with the detail of the photo ie "photo scapture0201 thedailywtf nobody shares knowledge better than this. - Random means everything part 1 of 3" (I copy this info into the clipboard because there are 2 more to follow. then I enter "xxx.c:\search\webscreens\scapture0201.jpg" and that one is done. I then do the 2nd screen capture. pasting the info into line #1 and modifying the "201" to "202" and the "part 1 of 3" to "part 2 of 3" etc. And that is it. I usually check the typeing by at prompt #2 enter "p" for photo display and at the search string prompt #3 enter "0201" then "0202" then "203" just to make sure the links are ok. I could look for "random means everything" and have each display one after the other.
@SpectateSwamp said:
I'm sure your dad is quite smart. But the learning curve is more than a couple hours. Take him away from his computer for a year and he would be starting at square one. If it is so simple and intuative why are so few people doing anything with Video and music and pictures on a PC. SSDS play options just blows everything else away. The world needs more random
People are taking more photos and using there computers to do slideshows, DVD presentations etc, capturing and editing videos etc. SSDS does not allow you to create, edit or manage photos, videos or music so stop claiming it does.@SpectateSwamp said:
He doesn't have a clue as to what computers with SSDS are capable of. Video Navigation as another example. Windows can't touch this search.
Well he manages to watch videos without SSDS, never once has he asked me "how can a play a random length segment of a random video from a random start point" though, presumably because he watches videos from the start like non-mad people tend to do.@SpectateSwamp said:
An index is basically a data structure used to speed up searches - it doesn't matter if they are created by hand or automatically. Your text file is an index that is required to be maintained by hand rather than one that is generated automatically. It is still an index though. The ability to edit something with notepad is not a definition of an index or not however.My text file is not an index. Index is what an indexer / desktop search does. You can't go in with notepad and change indexes can you? Searching in sequential order is extremely fast. After the first pass the text probably resides completely in memory. I could have SSDS go through the 12,000 or so lines of text in my family album showing me only the ones that have "oldie" in them. 10 a second isn't too fast to see. But then again you wouldn't have seen anything like the Great great SSDS fast photo display. You'd lose lose lose.
No searching in sequential order is not extremely fast http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/software/AlgAnim/searching.html is worth a read if you are going to have a serious conversation about searching performance.
@SpectateSwamp said:
When I showed the Hockey video it was running for weeks non stop. Video is fairly intensive. Any indexing would have an impact.
Nope, you thinking it does not make it so.@SpectateSwamp said:
Don't talk boolean here. That is another word techies use to lord over the non techies. Boolean smoolean is crap. Your "not brown" has to be entered every time. SSDS had " allen " in the noshow (ie a never show) His ugly face never shows for me or my sister. Any offer for a showdown should show the SSDS features that others seem to think are useless. SSDS will kick all butts in a showdown. Screen shots would only be handy for text that had fancy fonts and colors. Like I say keeping documents in propriatory formats ensures that they don't move easily from computer to computer. Unless you have the originating software. Searching for jpgs is what SSDS does. The text is in an associate text file. But I will make sure I create an uploader so that the family pictures can be shown either way. The slow way and the fast fun way with SSDS. Your continual resistance is madness incarnate.
Boolean searches are easy to use, I only used the term because that is the name of them - lording it over non-techies is not even part of it. Your noshow means those ones never show, how about if sometimes you want them to be displayed and other times you don't?@SpectateSwamp said:
I can find the complete sequence of emails from 2000 where jholmstrom from Hi-times called me "ignorant" Putting them out to an extract file, showing both sides of the argument. SSDS can also show me the last page of my inmail or outmail. Then backup a page at a time. Way quicker than scrolling down and looking for and clicking on the last message. If color and formatting makes it difficult to move to another computer then it is a problem and not a good thing. But if you are stuck on keeping the original formatting. SSDS can put the resultant file path into the clipboard for you to paste into the software that holds your data hostage. Data is not a hostage with SSDS. It's free range data.
I consider my emails to be emails and not pages, your methods just make no sense to how I work. If I want recent emails they are at the top of my inbox so there is no scrolling up or down anyway.@SpectateSwamp said:
You didn't spend 2 months scanning in family heirloom pictures. At the search prompt I can enter "oldie" and as quick as I hit the "enter" another oldie will show up. Hold your finger down and watch them fly by. SSDS is designed for this. That's what I mean by jamming it. And you can always view the previous ones. It keeps 40 of the last views pictures internally. If one flashes by just back up till you see it again.
No I didn't, but if I had then I would have tagged them in explorer and could then search for "oldie" and display the results in a slide show and use the left and right cursor keys to step backwards and forwards through them. Or I could shuffle them.@SpectateSwamp said:
NeverShow is better than any Boo Boo boolean searches not this or not that boolean. When everything is in 1 folder backup is simple. I just drag and drop it onto my external drive. That reminds me I will do a complete backup tomorrow. Any backup not on an external drive is in peril. Maybe even move the drive next door. I think it would be easier to explain this to your dad.
All my photos are in sub folders of one top level folder, I can copy or backup the entire lot by copying this one folder. Same goes for my mp3s, source code etc. My father is quite happy with the concept of folders and all his backups are done to an online backup store anyway.All my important information is synced between two computers and backed up on line as well. Look no SSDS needed!mod: fixed search link -dh.
-
@Swamp said:
Just do a directory of "c:\" looking for *.jpg files. It takes time.
I just did, with Windows Search.
Results were displayed immediately.
What I did:
- Windowskey + F
- type "*.jpg"
- hit enter
Conclusions:
- it does not take time.
- it is much easier to use than the odd instructions you provide.Yes I would FORCE you to use SSDS.
This is bad.It is much faster to do manual pictures by adding lines to a text file.
That is not true.My text file is not an index.
That is not true.
Your text file is, by definition, an index.Searching in sequential order is extremely fast.
That is not true.10 a second isn't too fast to see.
It's extremely stupid.Hold your finger down and watch them fly by.
I don't want to hold down my finger.And you can always view the previous ones.
So can any other search.It keeps 40 of the last views pictures internally.
Any other search keeps more, as thumbnails.If one flashes by just back up till you see it again.
I want to see them all at the same time, as thumbnails. Calmly, side by side.
-
Wow, okay, now I'm officially giving up on reading the complete spenk - SpectateSwamp dialog... those posts have become ridiculously long!
-
Boo Boo Boolean and computer jargon
@spenk said:
I really don't care if you would rather watch hockey for 24 hours solid, I use my computer for more useful things
Well those that do care can. Maybe you would be more interested in Soccer?
@spenk said:
I can use Copernic, GDS or WDS without requiring explanations from the software creators and can search for files easily
They have their limits. Large files will not be searched by the above desktop searches. That's why you can hide data at the end and have it secure. Unless you use SSDS. The above searches lie as well. 8,138.427 matches found. Who on earth will ever see the end. Why do they keep searching beyone 1000 and wasting computer resources is beyond me.
@spenk said:
Edit why edit. Just use SSDS to skip over the section of video. Editing requires re-rendering. Very time consuming and not as straight forward as SSDS. Reshoots work well if the video file is too long. They do it in cinemas to priate movies. Good going pirates.People are taking more photos and using there computers to do slideshows, DVD presentations etc, capturing and editing videos etc. SSDS does not allow you to create, edit or manage photos, videos or music so stop claiming it does.
@spenk said:
Well he manages to watch videos without SSDS, never once has he asked me "how can a play a random length segment of a random video from a random start point" though, presumably because he watches videos from the start like non-mad people tend to do.
He doesn't have random random option like SSDS has
@spenk said:
No searching in sequential order is not extremely fast http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/software/AlgAnim/searching.html is worth a read if you are going to have a serious conversation about searching performance.
What do they know. SSDS produces stats at every page full of results and at the end of the file. As fast as you can hit enter the results are displayed, being that there are matches throughout the file. Computers are so fast. That is why there is a "pause" option and "slowed print" capabilities. Techies are always looking for more and more speed, making their code complex, all to go from 2 kazillionths of a second to 1 laying waste to stability and simplicity. Keep It Simple you Stupid stupids.
@spenk said:
Boolean searches are easy to use, I only used the term because that is the name of them - lording it over non-techies is not even part of it.
Techies have been lording words over the non techies since the beginning. Just watch their eyes glaze over when you start trotting out those words that are not in their vocabulary. Greek words, Latin words, Grep and all kinds of other Computer jargon. Lordy lordy that is lording
@spenk said:
I consider my emails to be emails and not pages, your methods just make no sense to how I work. If I want recent emails they are at the top of my inbox so there is no scrolling up or down anyway.
Your emails don't easily travel from computer to computer. Mine have been with me for 14 years and counting. You lose yours every time you change jobs or every 5 years which ever comes first.
@spenk said:
No I didn't, but if I had then I would have tagged them in explorer and could then search for "oldie" and display the results in a slide show and use the left and right cursor keys to step backwards and forwards through them. Or I could shuffle them.
SSDS does all that and can mix and match video music pictures and text all at the same time in the same file. With video navigation with slowed print in between. With some dumb ditty that isn't copy protected playing in the background. That is what SSDS backgrounder allows you. Start simple and get as complex as you wish. SSDS can do it all
@spenk said:
All my photos are in sub folders of one top level folder, I can copy or backup the entire lot by copying this one folder. Same goes for my mp3s, source code etc. My father is quite happy with the concept of folders and all his backups are done to an online backup store anyway.All my important information is synced between two computers and backed up on line as well. Look no SSDS needed!
They don't get to that folder by themselves. You have to mouse around or change folder names. Backup store. Don't keep family secrets there. put them at the end of a huge file if you do. They will be safe there. Trusting others with your valuable data in this economic climate is pure silly. Things could be gone tomorrow. Just like the Trillions the Stock Marketers took.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
@spenk said:
Well he manages to watch videos without SSDS, never once has he asked me "how can a play a random length segment of a random video from a random start point" though, presumably because he watches videos from the start like non-mad people tend to do.
He doesn't have random random option like SSDS has
You. Don't. Get. It.
Spenk is saying his father doesn't need the random option. His idea of enjoying videos is by watching them from start to finish because:
a.) He doesn't have videos of motionless rocks that have nothing specacular going on except for a bird that flies by after 4 minutes.
b.) When he watches video he wants to get a sense of context instead of just jumping into the middle of it.
I know you're going to say something along the lines of, "Poor sob doesn't know what he's missing without random" so I'll just respond to that right away: It doesn't matter. He doesn't need it. Get that in your head.
@SpectateSwamp said:
SSDS can do it all
It's tax season. Can SSDS fill out my 1040 and all the other necessary forms before April 15th without getting my ass in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison? @SpectateSwamp said:
They don't get to that folder by themselves.
@SpectateSwamp said:
They don't get to that folder by themselves.
Your emails don't go into inmail.txt by themselves, either. What the hell is your point?
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
They have their limits. Large files will not be searched by the above desktop searches. That's why you can hide data at the end and have it secure. Unless you use SSDS. The above searches lie as well. 8,138.427 matches found. Who on earth will ever see the end. Why do they keep searching beyone 1000 and wasting computer resources is beyond me.
Nobody but you would want to search a file that big. Then again if I put my secret information in a file called my.secrets SSDS wouldn't be able to see it's contents either. Then again SSDS has been proven to have limits but you choose to ignore this fact. Go figure.@SpectateSwamp said:
Edit why edit. Just use SSDS to skip over the section of video. Editing requires re-rendering. Very time consuming and not as straight forward as SSDS. Reshoots work well if the video file is too long. They do it in cinemas to priate movies. Good going pirates.
I would edit to provide a better video and not require skipping the same sections every time. Editing a video will not require recompressing of the entire stream either, most modern editors will keep the bits that aren't spanning a key frame intact and not recompress the them.@SpectateSwamp said:
He doesn't have random random option like SSDS has
He doesn't want one, nobody but you wants that option.@SpectateSwamp said:
What do they know. SSDS produces stats at every page full of results and at the end of the file. As fast as you can hit enter the results are displayed, being that there are matches throughout the file. Computers are so fast. That is why there is a "pause" option and "slowed print" capabilities. Techies are always looking for more and more speed, making their code complex, all to go from 2 kazillionths of a second to 1 laying waste to stability and simplicity. Keep It Simple you Stupid stupids.
Presumably they know more than you due to them having researched the topic and not just assumed they are correct. Pick an argument - is SSDS the fastest or not? You can't claim one and then when proved wrong claim the other. Plus I do not want to keep hitting enter to skip through the results, I like and want a nice list of matches.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Your emails don't easily travel from computer to computer. Mine have been with me for 14 years and counting. You lose yours every time you change jobs or every 5 years which ever comes first.
I simply chose not to keep emails that aren't relevant, the 5 year mark was when I changed jobs - nothing more and certainly not a limitation of the tool.
@SpectateSwamp said:
They don't get to that folder by themselves. You have to mouse around or change folder names. Backup store. Don't keep family secrets there. put them at the end of a huge file if you do. They will be safe there. Trusting others with your valuable data in this economic climate is pure silly. Things could be gone tomorrow. Just like the Trillions the Stock Marketers took.
They don't get to your single folder on their own either, your index file isn't updated on it's own either - what is your point? I keep my data in two places plus an online backup, the online is extra protection
-
My friends, this thread has long since been derailed
by SpectateSwamp and his derangéd mind.
Our troll still dreams for recognition here:
"His mind too far ahead to comphrehend."
So now we fight the war against his wares.
We fight and fight but cannot turn the tide.
He will not read, he does not understand,
he flames and talks and rambles on and on.
What can we do to energize this thread?
Here I will write replies iambic'ly.
But oh! in this betwisting conversé,
no help or hope remains for lucid thought.
-
Perfect perfects don't get no source.txt
@XIU said:
@SpectateSwamp Where can we find your latest spaghetti code/recipe?
Yup I took it down. No more copies for the Perfect Perfects, they only look at what they consider a mess and proclaim it no good. I'll email you the latest source.txt if you like. It sure is nice having just 1 file/source code to look at, when there is a bug. You need a good DTS for that too. It's great to have only 1 program to worry about. Do I have my SSDS swamp search with me. Is my data folder also on my USB thingie. I can show off my video, music, text and more like no other. Random keeps me in touch with my pics and videos. I don't want to watch my trapline video from start to end. But I do like having it as a screen saver. Making the videos far more interesting than from start to finish. Just too predictable.
-
Back to the 70's with SSDS
@derula said:
Wow, okay, now I'm officially giving up on reading the complete spenk - SpectateSwamp dialog... those posts have become ridiculously long!
Yeah me too.
Tell SpenkSwamp and SpenkDadSwamp to start ANSWERING my questions. and no more dumb scenarios about syncing this and that and having nothing to do. You'll lose your data that way. It has to be sharable otherwise it's locked in to the software that creates the .doc & .pps crap that gets sent my way. Quit sending that shit out. The systems from back in the early 70's can still deal with Plain Text files. You can read my family album catalog like a book.
The random 400+ short clips of WhiteCrowSwamp brightens up my day. I miss that bird. I hear he had young this year. A couple other crows with some white on them hanging in the bread&butter spot.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
Tell SpenkSwamp and SpenkDadSwamp to start ANSWERING my questions. and no more dumb scenarios about syncing this and that and having nothing to do. You'll lose your data that way. It has to be sharable otherwise it's locked in to the software that creates the .doc & .pps crap that gets sent my way. Quit sending that shit out. The systems from back in the early 70's can still deal with Plain Text files. You can read my family album catalog like a book.
How does having two copies plus an online backup result in lost data?
Although doc and pps are MS formats they can be opened and edited in other applications (including free ones like open office) so where is the problem?
You haven't asked a question I haven't answered so it would be nice if you could return the favour and actually give a real, coherent answer to any of the questions or requests for instructions posted here without talking bollocks like gee haw, noodle, jam, and similar crap.
@SpectateSwamp said:
more dumb scenarios about syncing this and that
That is how I keep two machines in sync, isn't dumb and isn't in the slightest bit relevant to how you think manually creating and editing a text based index is superior to a well designed automatic indexing and searching system.
-
Hey SpectateSwamp I have a deal for you:
here I will answer anything you give
if you tell me what metadata is.
-
BigFoot 6 or 7 of them
@Xyro said:
Hey SpectateSwamp I have a deal for you:
here I will answer anything you give
if you tell me what metadata is.My friend got back to me about that large foot print in stone (12" wide) The guy has it in town. There were 6 or 8 more tracks that were hurridly dumped into the crusher. Do you think this guy should be allowed to sell it on Ebay? I'll get some video for sure.
Thats why I can't stand archaeologists either. So much good stuff lost.
MetaDAta well if I came across it. I'd grab it by the throat till its eyes poped out. Just like that weasel on the trapline. Then once it is truly dead. I'd give it the Swahili name for meta then add the "data" ????data Can't be any more stupid than Greek or Latin or Mumbo Jumbo. If you want to lord it over the people make up words from obscure languages. Go you dumb asses go away.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
@Xyro said:
Hey SpectateSwamp I have a deal for you:
here I will answer anything you give
if you tell me what metadata is.My friend got back to me about that large foot print in stone (12" wide) The guy has it in town. There were 6 or 8 more tracks that were hurridly dumped into the crusher. Do you think this guy should be allowed to sell it on Ebay? I'll get some video for sure.
Thats why I can't stand archaeologists either. So much good stuff lost.
MetaDAta well if I came across it. I'd grab it by the throat till its eyes poped out. Just like that weasel on the trapline. Then once it is truly dead. I'd give it the Swahili name for meta then add the "data" ????data Can't be any more stupid than Greek or Latin or Mumbo Jumbo. If you want to lord it over the people make up words from obscure languages. Go you dumb asses go away.
And that my friends is why the human race is doomed.
-
@SpectateSwamp said:
My friend got back to me about that large foot print in stone (12" wide) The guy has it in town. There were 6 or 8 more tracks that were hurridly dumped into the crusher. Do you think this guy should be allowed to sell it on Ebay? I'll get some video for sure.
Thats why I can't stand archaeologists either. So much good stuff lost.
MetaDAta well if I came across it. I'd grab it by the throat till its eyes poped out. Just like that weasel on the trapline. Then once it is truly dead. I'd give it the Swahili name for meta then add the "data" ????data Can't be any more stupid than Greek or Latin or Mumbo Jumbo. If you want to lord it over the people make up words from obscure languages. Go you dumb asses go away.
W T F?
Virtually every word in the English language has roots from Latin, Greek, or another ancient language. Hell, your own screenname, Spectate, comes from the Latin Specto, meaning "to watch."
This kind of buffoonery is exactly what gets you banned and your threads locked... you refuse to answer questions and, in this case, go into some kind of tangent about how you hate Greek language.
Now, tell us for real: What is metadata?
-
In the 70's it was Search NOT Desktop Search NOT dumb GREP but Search - there was NO metadata
i want xyroswamp to answer my question first. Question for question.
I hate metadata I've never heard of it till these dumb forums. Invent a new word for info / catalogue what ever. They change the national anthem in my life time. Why not next year sing a totally different tune. Keep with the common words when talking to the non-techies please. And Swampies from now only call it MD as will I. Pronounced MmDee. Quit draging up these old languages and Grepplers it is Search not GREP so you shut up too. Search was search on the old PdP 11/70 back in the mid 70's. Now they call it desktop search. Down with new words.
Sorry I'm a little tired from videoing over 3 hours of local council meeting. Watching it makes me tired. so tired.
Yup and my text file is not an index. It is the object of my search. SSDS is just doing a little more than most searches. But initially it was searching text files only. At some point it became much more. SSDS and video Rules
-
Stuffed not Jammed into media files. SSDS helps remove those nasties.
@RHuckster said:
Now, tell us for real: What is metadata?
A more complete definition of MmmDee "Data / info / catalog details that are stuffed not jammed into Music and Picture files & other Media by some Dumb SOB fat ass computer Geek." You know who you are.
-
Boo Boo Boolean and computer jargon
@Xyro said:
That's damn good. Too funny making all that shit up.My friends, this thread has long since been derailed
by SpectateSwamp and his derangéd mind.
Our troll still dreams for recognition here:
"His mind too far ahead to comphrehend."
So now we fight the war against his wares.
We fight and fight but cannot turn the tide.
He will not read, he does not understand,
he flames and talks and rambles on and on.
What can we do to energize this thread?
Here I will write replies iambic'ly.
But oh! in this betwisting conversé,
no help or hope remains for lucid thought.
-
""Just too predictable"" without SSDS swamp search
@RHuckster said:
I'll ignore that swear word maybe even double ignore it. Hell, your own screenname, Spectate, comes from the Latin Specto, meaning "to watch."
I'm just going to quote myself more SpenkSwamp and SpenkDaddySwamp are skipping over most of the real good stuff. Ie ""Just too predictable"" Without SSDS swamp search computer life is ""just too predictable"". Should that be Triple double quotes or just Double double quotes? Miserable yous and your MD
.
-
Censorship that is SlashDot.net - still hanging in there at 31 rejected 1 pending and 0 *%$(
@RHuckster said:
This kind of buffoonery is exactly what gets you banned and your threads locked...
More than banned on the video forums. Worse than banished. All records of my fine fine posts on a non video editing tangent; that brought them to tears. So they burned em all in the giant fire pit of Censorship. Never to be seen to this day. Maybe someday though. We can always hope.
