Messages

10251

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: 33% discount on the purchase of SUPERAntiSpyware Professional

« on: December 04, 2007, 06:25 AM »

Threatfire sounds interesting justice - is that free or paid version?
I see paid version has "AntiVirus engine with signature updates"
http://www.threatfire.com/download/ (with free/paid comparison)

also curious :
are you using the free version of antivir? - reason i ask is..
as far as i know the unpaid doesnt check incoming mail?

10252

General Software Discussion / Re: Physical Memory Dump while XP installation - urgent help needed

« on: December 04, 2007, 03:22 AM »

This one might be more user friendly? Prob good to read both..
(have not started in safe mode self but know ms stuff can be a heavy read)
How to start Windows in Safe Mode

10253

Living Room / Re: Another cody spotting? CAPTION THIS PICTURE CONTEST

« on: December 01, 2007, 06:29 AM »

nice one Phil!

if I may be so bold:

10254

Living Room / Re: What's Your Favorite Productivity or Programming Supplement?

« on: November 30, 2007, 04:09 PM »

as a tea drinking snob i object to coffee and tea being lumped together.
i think they should be separated.

-mouser (November 28, 2007, 09:12 AM)

you a black tea drinker mouser?
I only need two cups a day, but if I dont get them people think I havent had any sleep the previous night.
Good irish tea (they grow it on the misty mountain slopes - no, actually they blend it from indian & african teas i think. ah well..)
drink with milk

or when abroad (in cafe, etc) a good strong cup of assam. ahh, it's great to enjoy legal drugs
(just BTW, I didnt select anything illegal)

10255

Living Room / Re: Another cody spotting? CAPTION THIS PICTURE CONTEST

« on: November 30, 2007, 12:41 PM »

10256

Living Room / Re: Name the screensaver.

« on: November 30, 2007, 10:47 AM »

that first one has a sort of a town plan meets Kandinsky feel to it

I love the second one, they're both really beautiful images though...

10257

General Software Discussion / Re: Acronis True Image OR maybe not ???

« on: November 30, 2007, 07:15 AM »

tomos - can't you just set up a scheduled job (at the bottom of the window) but rather than schetting a schedule time just choose run manually later and then when you want to run it you just click on the job and hit run ?

-Carol Haynes (November 30, 2007, 06:57 AM)

Yes,
I'll try that-
that's what I was thinking here

solution might be to schedule a backup, deactivate it and then reactivate it manually when required ?

-tomos (November 30, 2007, 06:44 AM)

to give it a bit of context:-
I was posting after reading in the other thread about "bored programmers" at Acronis adding bits & pieces..
and was thinking here's something they can sort out/make more user friendly.
It's minor but when you're using the programme for the first time it's a pain to have to dig so much to figure this basic stuff out

10258

General Software Discussion / Re: Acronis True Image OR maybe not ???

« on: November 30, 2007, 06:44 AM »

I must say I'm fairly disappointed with True Image's interface -

-tomos (November 01, 2007, 12:40 PM)

the thread about new Acronis Workstation got me looking at this again

this Post is either a complaint or I simply havent figured out this programme yet

if I do a manual backup:
actually I'm just after doing one, was overdue

and I counted:-
After opening the programme
I have to go through TWELVE panes before clicking on the final "Proceed"
Excluding files that were previously excluded: FOUR clicks for each file, more if not previously excluded
"Settings" - I have to set each time, there's ELEVEN "pages" of those in the settings tree to be adjusted.
There's no obvious way to save all this for the next manual backup (incremental).

In fairness I've only skimmed the help file.
If this possibility is there, well and good, but they could make it a bit more obvious

If it isnt there, all i can say is WTF 

it's possible the solution might be to schedule a backup, deactivate it and then reactivate it manually when required ?
I havent scheduled anything cause I prefer doing it manually (but not because of all that above )

10259

General Software Discussion / Re: BitmapRip - Bitmap Ripper

« on: November 29, 2007, 02:20 PM »

well I'm certainly getting places,
but no success with the chosen file for some reason
ignore the first few lines


the file is two scanned (A4) images
they arent very high resolution, not sure how file was made (could find out tomorrow)

I did try using "PDF Image Extraction Wizard" (trial) software earlier -
it was able to extract the images but reduced them to half their width (kept same height though )
I've gotten round it by taking screenshots of the maps but would like to figure this out all the same if possible
At least it found the correct file and windows found it so I've learned quite a bit for an IT-analphabetic as Curt says.

also, thanks for your patience Marko

10260

General Software Discussion / Re: BitmapRip - Bitmap Ripper

« on: November 29, 2007, 01:54 PM »

oops    will try now...

10261

General Software Discussion / Re: BitmapRip - Bitmap Ripper

« on: November 29, 2007, 01:15 PM »

hmm..

cd "\program files\bitmaprip"
gives the message -
cant find "cd"

could this be a problem with my relatively fresh windows install..
indexing is turned off; search works okay;
help is turned off in services too I think, cant think of anything else that might be relevant.

This is the first time I've tried to run anything "non-windows" from command line -
windows stuff seem okay (regedit, perfmon.msc, etc)

10262

General Software Discussion / Re: BitmapRip - Bitmap Ripper

« on: November 29, 2007, 05:28 AM »

You need to change to the folder where you unzipped/put the bitmaprip.exe file.
So, assumed that you unzipped the package in a c:\bitmaprip folder, you need to do something:

-Mark0 (November 29, 2007, 05:19 AM)

sorry Marko,
I'm not fully clear there -
should I move it to c:\bitmaprip ?
(I would prefer to have it in a programme folder of sorts but wont loose any sleep over it )

If I have it
C:\Program files\bitmaprip\

Should I type:-
CD Program files\bitmaprip bitmaprip F:\TIFFs\ASI\ASI_CorkVol5\MAP0100.pdf

or
because of the space, with "*" (or '*')
CD "Program files\bitmaprip" bitmaprip F:\TIFFs\ASI\ASI_CorkVol5\MAP0100.pdf

10263

General Software Discussion / Re: BitmapRip - Bitmap Ripper

« on: November 29, 2007, 05:15 AM »

First, the bitmaprip files are in
C:\Program files\bitmaprip\

I never use command line stuff so maybe I'm doing something wrong:
Win+R
then type:
bitmaprip MAP0100.pdf

I get the message:
---------------------------
bitmaprip
---------------------------
Windows cannot find 'bitmaprip'. Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again. To search for a file, click the Start button, and then click Search.
---------------------------
OK   
---------------------------

or, for
F:\TIFFs\ASI\ASI_CorkVol5>bitmaprip MAP0100.pdf
which is - the parent folder>etc filename
I get:

Windows cannot find 'F:\TIFFs\ASI\ASI_CorkVol5>bitmaprip'. etc

PS thanks for quick response!

10264

General Software Discussion / Re: BitmapRip - Bitmap Ripper

« on: November 29, 2007, 04:42 AM »

hi

anyone got any tips on how to use this
unfortunately got a 404 on tinyvillagers screencast

Tried putting in folder name where file is then followed hints from image in first post
eg
F:\TIFFs\Cork>bitmaprip MAP0100.pdf
also tried using Temp folder??

thanks for any help

10265

General Software Discussion / Re: Flexible File and Folder Organizing Tool

« on: November 28, 2007, 06:52 AM »

if you do a search on tagging theres some very interesting threads there here -
also there's been a couple lately about organising files/folders etc
if i come across i will post again

10266

General Software Discussion / Re: Bug-free software that does -- nothing

« on: November 28, 2007, 06:49 AM »

sort of like the blank canvas of the software world

10267

Living Room / Re: Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

« on: November 28, 2007, 06:43 AM »

for a diplomatic/studied response (also very critical - from the comments to same article in nontroppos last post)

http://commentisfree....html#comment-941965

There is another strawman that floats in this same area: the notion that homeopathy treats the whole patient instead of narrowly defined diseases as recognised by conventional medicine. It shouldn't bother them that the study gives them a pool of similar patients. The homeopath only needs to define ahead of time what they would regard as being a measure of a successful outcome ... The homeopaths' requirement for individualisation and 'holism' is no obstacle to trialling. ... Mr MaqcEoin should find us a 'rational' homeopath who can answer for all of these problems.

-
I have quite a basic understanding of homeopathy,
yet off the top of my head I can think of a few possible "scenarios" for clinical trials that could take into account the different approach of homeopathy.
Which begs the question why arent these happening or being organised...
(no smart answers to that one please )

10268

Living Room / Re: Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

« on: November 27, 2007, 07:41 PM »

You're just a black sheep, Tom?

-Darwin (November 27, 2007, 07:10 PM)

nope,
I'm a piebald

nice read about the black swans there nontroppo

10269

Living Room / Re: Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

« on: November 27, 2007, 07:03 PM »

Tomos : your black swan image is nice, but it doesn’t say much without any contextualization. What proposition are we trying to refute here : “all swans are white” ? “most swans are white” ? etc.  In the same manner, if there should be any meaningful debate about homeopathy, evolution, etc., it should always be about precise aspects, and IMO it should be backed up with serious studies (preferably multiple) ..

-Armando (November 27, 2007, 06:55 PM)

eh,
I think you got me and the black swan out of context there Amando -
I didnt say anything about a white swan or a black one either...

10270

Living Room / Re: Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

« on: November 27, 2007, 04:54 PM »

The first couple of paragraphs and the last probably contain what you feel is offensive.

-nontroppo (November 27, 2007, 12:38 PM)

true, designed to put off any one with any homeopathic sympathies
WHY put an article in an offensive sandwich???

Someone said in an earlier post it would be nice if there was more debate
I say simply:
this article will not encourage any debate.
He says it is not an attack.
The Lancet article, if you have read it, is not an attack - it is a model article - brief, succinct, referenced, to the point.
The Guardian article unfortunately is an attack.

First sentence:
"There are some aspects of quackery that are harmless - childish even - and there are some that are very serious indeed."
nontroppo -
imagine if someone said something like that about your career for example or something you believe in?
Maybe you are the type to smile nonchonantly but most people arent - they get their backup

I am not defending homeopathy or attacking this facts quoted in this article.
(so there's no need to argue them with me at any rate)
I am simply saying he is damaging his own case if he really wants to get talking to the homeopathic community

10271

Living Room / Re: Forum Angst

« on: November 27, 2007, 04:32 PM »

+1 for nudone's approach

I do go through phases of saving stuff in Surfulater "for later"
but it hasnt quite resolved the problem for me [yet] - even just here there's so much stuff -
was that you tinjaw that was telling people to post less?!

10272

Living Room / Re: Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

« on: November 27, 2007, 11:24 AM »

thanks Darwin for taking the trouble

It's easy for me to say what I've said - if someone aggravates me, I react too.. or if I frustrated or whatever
Suppose I just expect more in scientific debate/commentary .. but then why should I...

Think of it this way -
say if you supported an Anthropological theory that had no scientific backing but for some reason you had belief in it,
then you read an article about it by a member of the establishment* where in the first line they're talking about "quackery" or the anthropological equivalent (hoaxery maybe) - I reckon that would get your back up.
Well,
that's how Ben Goldacre starts his article.
Thats why I say what I've been saying - it's harder to see I think when you either agree or are disinterested/neutral

* the establishment which is very conservative, tends to react very strongly to new ideas from inside or out, or old ideas (even though they, or the drug companies I should say are now making drugs from herbs for example that were scoffed at as remedies at for years) etc.etc.
-
In fact the more I write in this thread the more I realise my problem is really that I am [unfortunately] a very disillusioned patient of modern medicine.
I think this is the reason people are turning in droves to alternative treatments, very many of which are much scarier than you who have posted above find homeopathy...[this, naturally, is not a defence of homeopathy!]

I think I've made my point about 20 ways at this stage so will retire to my life

PS nontroppo: I agree with you it is appalling behaviour on the part of the SoH threatening to sue bloggers speaking against them.
Doesnt do them any favours does it!

10273

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Locate 3.0 - great *FAST* HD search tool!

« on: November 27, 2007, 06:10 AM »

just a reminder,
Link is:-
http://locate32.webhop.org/

10274

Living Room / Re: Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

« on: November 27, 2007, 05:36 AM »

I'm really surprised that no-one seems to acknowledge or agree with my problems with the presentation of this article (the Guardian one from Ben Goldacre)

Judging by what he's saying, he is reacting against, well, lots.
But unfortunately reacting is a key word.
Look at it this way, if a kid is obnoxious to you & you're obnoxious back, what do you get -
escalation.
Exactly the same with adults, families, countries, or followers of X or Y, whatever.
I'm coming down hard on Ben Goldacre it's because that's the article posted here,
if I read a similarly patronising & not objectively presented one from a homeopath I would give it a hard time too.

I'm not questioning his facts here, I'm questioning the patronising and rude presentation of same in the Guardian article.
It's as I say unfortunate because he is actually reasonably fair in terms of not seeing the medical community as a bed of roses etc..
I also think it's unfortunate because if he has a message for people, for example who dabble in homeopathy but don't know much about it this patronising tone is not going to win him any converts.
It is an article for the converted and an "up yours" message to homeopathy.
But maybe that's what he wanted...

and he's responding to an article by a novelist - what's going on there ???
maybe that's the problem - it's not scientific/objective/polite because he's responding/reacting to a novelist...
actually the Lancet article is scientific, with references, and not rude etc.
Dont know why he feels he has to be patronising and rude for the other one then...

10275

Coding Snack Guidelines / Re: IDEA: slim folder menus on taskbar (not in system tray)

« on: November 27, 2007, 04:34 AM »

app,
how do you get the other stuff (i.e. not my docs & not drives) at top level with drives?