Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 12/05/2013 00:42 (12/05/2013 12:42) |
Message-ID | <ovev99t39etaogkg5jmt19lfdi2i749beq@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (7h & 16m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanDo you really think all engineering skills come with diplomas?
In article <bp9v99p9gj3bd48h7u8uesjr1p02n02o5s@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandman
But then you have to explain how it is that individual drivers will have their cars set up differently to suit their own preferences.
No I don't. For these reasons:1. I said that a race car driver doesn't NEED to know about car MECHANICS2. You said ALL successful ones have ENGINEERING skillsThis is not only clearly false, it is also your usual switching of words and usage of absolute terms.Eric Stevens
It's not only factually true and its only usage of absolute terms in your mind.
Another claim from Eric.
Your job now is to list all "successful" race car drivers and present copies of their engineering diplomas and/or credentials.
Stop making absolute claims you can't support. That makes you a liar.You obviously haven't been following motor racing to any considerable extent.SandmanAnd your followup question is totally unrelated to this. A race car driver can have their car "set up differently" to suit their preferences without knowing the first thing about car mechanics (and especially ENGINEERING) since they are part of a race team where there are actual mechanics that will adjust whatever needs adjusting, and would do a far better job than if the driver did it himself.Eric Stevens
How do you think they know what needs adjusting? They know because the driver tells them. There will be discussion over the details (as no adjustment affects only one aspect of the car's performance) but the top drivers have major technical input.
Any support for this? Of course not! So, move above paragraph to bozo bin.
You mean you don't understand it. You often have this problem.SandmanEric StevensSandmanWhat part of the sentence made it "seem" that way, Eric. The part where the programmer would do well to understand the basics of architecture to better build solutions for his collegues? How do you arrivbe at the conclusion that I meant that the "programmer leads the way"??Eric Stevens
Because you didn't say the architect could do well to understand the basics of computing.
That's not an answer to my question. Me not saying that is not the same as me saying that the "Programmer leads the way". You have a reading disorder. Maybe dyslexia? Maybe ADHD? I don't know, but you clearly can't read English.
The problem is that you have a narrow understanding. It's up to the architect to decide where he wants to. It's the programmer who has to take him. This only works if the architect has some understanding of what is possible.
The above paragraph has 0% to do with the preceeding paragraph.
I've already said they should have an understanding of computing, of which programming is just a sub-set.SandmanEric StevensSandman
My opinion is that the architect is the creative person and has the responsibility to know how to employ the tools he is using.
You should really stop uttering your opinions in the form of statements of facts. If you learned to read and write English correctly, then most of this could be avoided.You should have said "I think an architect could benefit from understanding programming"Eric Stevens
Why? I never started this discussion.
I never claimed you started the discussion, dyslexia boy.
You haven't really been following the thread, have you?SandmanAnd then "Ooops, I didn't mean programming, I meant computing"Eric Stevens
Apart from the "Ooops", Ive already done that.
You should have realized your ignorant error from the start, not 20+ posts in.
Hmm.SandmanEric StevensSandman1. A "zillion" scripts were used by the architects in the making of the designs in that linkEric Stevens
By golly yes.
I.e. you have no support, and you know it. You know what that makes the statement by now.
This is just a debating trick. I'm not going to even try to explain in this news group how these large packages work and how you make them do what you want them to do. For a start, I doubt that you have the necessary knowledge of physics, engineering or mathematics.
I know you won't support your explicit statement - you never do, because you never can. You have exactly no credibility when it comes to.. just about anything.
You make thousands of claims and never ever support a single one of them. It's just a trolling game for you - make as much diversions as possible to keep us normal people arguing with you, you live for the argument, and if you were reasonable and supported your claims and/or didn't make ignorant incorrect claims to begin with - there would be no argument and you wouldn't have your fun.Why do you repeatedly refuse to engage in thought when discussing these things?SandmanEric StevensSandman2. That those scripts were made by the architects themselves.Eric Stevens
They would certainly have spelled out what they wanted to do and what tools they wanted to use.
Also something you've yet to support, making this the same as the above.
Well who do you think is going to make these decisions?
I'm not the one making a claim, Eric. You are. Trying to divert it back to me by asking me a question does not mean you have supported your position.
This is a classic troll technique.Hmm.SandmanEric StevensSandmanAbsolutely.Eric Stevens
Then tell us.
Why? You haven't told us anything. It's your claim, and you refuse to back it up, why would you expect me to talk about your example? I've already relayed many of the things I know about design work in conjunction with programmers in earlier posts.
With respect, you know damn little about design work.
No respect needed, you have zero credibility when it comes to anything related to these matters, your opinion about me and the subject at hand amounts to exactly nothing. All I ever wanted here was for you to support your claims, but you can't and won't and refuse to admit that you can't and won't meaning that you are once again a proven liar.
I've known that for a very very long time, Eric. This is like what, the 30th time I've exposed your misinformation and lies? Something like that.Yes, you are way ahead of me (in your mind).
So, basically, having you tell me I know nothing is one of the best endorsement I could get. It's a sure sign I didn't get anything wrong along the way, which I could have done. I'll start worrying the day you agree with me, Eric.Your 'logic' is incredible, as always. --