Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #55220 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-23 10:42 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-23 22:06 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 10:42 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 14:24 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 13:00 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 21:11 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 16:38 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-24 01:57 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 18:03 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 21:25 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-23 16:31 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-23 17:02 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 21:28 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 16:32 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 16:22 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 19:48 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 23:54 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 08:09 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-24 08:44 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 22:06 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 23:37 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-23 20:46 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-23 23:19 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 18:38 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-24 00:49 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 19:59 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 15:25 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 18:37 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 16:05 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 19:47 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 17:10 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-24 17:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 16:42 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-24 20:08 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:31 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 17:31 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-25 17:57 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:09 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 23:02 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 05:04 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 10:58 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 10:29 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 13:39 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 13:45 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 13:27 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 16:30 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 13:33 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 16:52 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 17:31 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-25 22:35 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 17:49 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 22:55 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 18:33 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 17:38 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 22:50 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:49 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-26 14:21 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 15:17 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 00:17 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 12:23 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:54 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:52 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:32 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:55 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 05:02 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 18:03 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 17:49 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 15:59 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 00:24 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 17:30 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:57 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 22:46 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:49 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:55 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 12:08 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 17:31 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 13:00 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 20:13 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 16:15 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 18:07 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 18:24 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:58 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 17:36 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 17:51 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 00:39 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 15:43 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 08:19 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 16:31 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 09:54 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 18:14 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 10:44 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 19:10 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-27 11:14 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 16:22 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-27 11:44 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-27 13:06 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-27 12:48 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-27 05:49 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-26 12:05 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 17:08 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-26 12:27 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 17:37 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-26 15:36 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 21:46 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 12:16 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 21:47 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 16:21 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 01:57 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 10:32 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 18:54 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-26 15:40 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-26 13:30 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 15:06 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-26 18:20 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 23:35 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-27 13:06 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 19:14 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-27 23:18 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-28 04:27 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-29 14:01 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-29 14:01 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-27 01:19 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 18:28 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-28 02:26 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-28 06:35 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-27 10:55 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 21:41 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:13 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 17:30 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-25 18:51 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-25 19:06 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:37 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:35 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 22:06 -0500
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 00:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkj2gsF26qmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55365 |
On 2014-01-25, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <bkishmF11p0U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> tested on snow leopard and mountain lion: select a file or folder >> >> (doesn't matter), command-d, and everything is the same, including >> >> create/mod dates. >> > >> > cat original.dat > copy.dat >> > >> > Copy.dat will have identical data, but different metadate such as >> > creation date. >> >> mr.know-it-all's got to be one of THE most thick-headed individuals I >> think I've ever seen. What a fucking dolt. > > once again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. > > i just proved that a copy of a file has the same create date. You're a fucking dimwit. Anyone with half a brain cell knows there are many ways to copy a file, some of which absolutely will not preserve things such as the creation date. You have no fucking idea how the files in question are being copied. You are so fucking closed-minded and boring, it's just plain pathetic. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120141942343676%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55369 |
In article <bkj2gsF26qmU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> tested on snow leopard and mountain lion: select a file or folder > >> >> (doesn't matter), command-d, and everything is the same, including > >> >> create/mod dates. > >> > > >> > cat original.dat > copy.dat > >> > > >> > Copy.dat will have identical data, but different metadate such as > >> > creation date. > >> > >> mr.know-it-all's got to be one of THE most thick-headed individuals I > >> think I've ever seen. What a fucking dolt. > > > > once again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. > > > > i just proved that a copy of a file has the same create date. > > You're a fucking dimwit. Anyone with half a brain cell knows there are > many ways to copy a file, some of which absolutely will not preserve > things such as the creation date. You have no fucking idea how the files > in question are being copied. You are so fucking closed-minded and > boring, it's just plain pathetic. more projection. it's *you* who is the closed-minded idiot in that you just cannot accept that a copy *does* preserve create dates. that's what's really pathetic. i never said there was only one way to make a copy. obviously there are ways to copy a file where not everything is copied. nobody is talking about that. you are grasping at straws if you have to outright lie about what i said. when a file is duplicated in finder, the create date is preserved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 12:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-FD738C.12233426012014@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #55372 |
In article <250120141942343676%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <bkj2gsF26qmU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger > <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > ... > > You're a fucking dimwit. Anyone with half a brain cell > > ... > > ... You have no fucking idea ... > > ... You are so fucking closed-minded and > > boring, it's just plain pathetic. > It will, of course, escape this sad "jolly" little troll that here is an explicit admittance that his life is so bereft of worth that he is forced to deal in the plain pathetic and boring. > more projection. ... -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjbmbF3qa4U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55377 |
On 2014-01-26, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > In article <250120141942343676%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <bkj2gsF26qmU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> > ... >> > You're a fucking dimwit. Anyone with half a brain cell >> > ... >> > ... You have no fucking idea ... >> > ... You are so fucking closed-minded and >> > boring, it's just plain pathetic. >> > > It will, of course, escape this sad "jolly" little troll that here is > an explicit admittance that his life is so bereft of worth that he is > forced to deal in the plain pathetic and boring. You and mr.know-it-all should have sex immediately. You deserve each other. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjbk6F3qa4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55372 |
On 2014-01-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <bkj2gsF26qmU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> >> tested on snow leopard and mountain lion: select a file or folder >> >> >> (doesn't matter), command-d, and everything is the same, including >> >> >> create/mod dates. >> >> > >> >> > cat original.dat > copy.dat >> >> > >> >> > Copy.dat will have identical data, but different metadate such as >> >> > creation date. >> >> >> >> mr.know-it-all's got to be one of THE most thick-headed individuals I >> >> think I've ever seen. What a fucking dolt. >> > >> > once again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. >> > >> > i just proved that a copy of a file has the same create date. >> >> You're a fucking dimwit. Anyone with half a brain cell knows there are >> many ways to copy a file, some of which absolutely will not preserve >> things such as the creation date. You have no fucking idea how the files >> in question are being copied. You are so fucking closed-minded and >> boring, it's just plain pathetic. > > more projection. it's *you* who is the closed-minded idiot in that you > just cannot accept that a copy *does* preserve create dates. that's > what's really pathetic. > > i never said there was only one way to make a copy. obviously there are > ways to copy a file where not everything is copied. nobody is talking > about that. you are grasping at straws if you have to outright lie > about what i said. > > when a file is duplicated in finder, the create date is preserved. FACT: The OP never said the images were copies via the Finder. That's really all I need to say here to show what a stupendous ass hat you are. You're just fucking lame, dude. That's all there is to it. And the world is seeing your true colors right fucking now. Good work! -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120142210225747%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55396 |
In article <bkjbk6F3qa4U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> You're a fucking dimwit. Anyone with half a brain cell knows there are > >> many ways to copy a file, some of which absolutely will not preserve > >> things such as the creation date. You have no fucking idea how the files > >> in question are being copied. You are so fucking closed-minded and > >> boring, it's just plain pathetic. > > > > more projection. it's *you* who is the closed-minded idiot in that you > > just cannot accept that a copy *does* preserve create dates. that's > > what's really pathetic. > > > > i never said there was only one way to make a copy. obviously there are > > ways to copy a file where not everything is copied. nobody is talking > > about that. you are grasping at straws if you have to outright lie > > about what i said. > > > > when a file is duplicated in finder, the create date is preserved. > > FACT: The OP never said the images were copies via the Finder. so what? that was never in dispute. you said a copy doesn't have identical data and i proved you wrong. as expected, you refuse to acknowledge your error. nowhere did i say how he copied it or if he did so properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 03:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjdunF3qa4U12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55404 |
On 2014-01-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <bkjbk6F3qa4U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> You're a fucking dimwit. Anyone with half a brain cell knows there are >> >> many ways to copy a file, some of which absolutely will not preserve >> >> things such as the creation date. You have no fucking idea how the files >> >> in question are being copied. You are so fucking closed-minded and >> >> boring, it's just plain pathetic. >> > >> > more projection. it's *you* who is the closed-minded idiot in that you >> > just cannot accept that a copy *does* preserve create dates. that's >> > what's really pathetic. >> > >> > i never said there was only one way to make a copy. obviously there are >> > ways to copy a file where not everything is copied. nobody is talking >> > about that. you are grasping at straws if you have to outright lie >> > about what i said. >> > >> > when a file is duplicated in finder, the create date is preserved. >> >> FACT: The OP never said the images were copies via the Finder. > > so what? that was never in dispute. So if the images in question were copied one way or another, they may in fact have different creation dates yet still be otherwise exact copies of the same file. If you refuse to see this distinction, so be it, but that's not going to stop those of us with actual intellect from making the distinction. You lose. > you said a copy doesn't have identical data and i proved you wrong. Nice try, troll, but you lose. What I said was that *some* ways of copying a file may not preserve things such as the creation date. You have not proven me wrong by miles and miles. Try harder, fucknuts. > as expected, you refuse to acknowledge your error. I haven't made an error in my statement. Try harder, fucknuts. > nowhere did i say how he copied it or if he did so properly. You have absolutely no idea how the copies were made, which is why your position on this matter is so fucking wrong it's just pathetic. God, you are so fucking lame, dude, seriously. How do you live with yourself? -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 22:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120142255388694%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55406 |
In article <bkjdunF3qa4U12@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > i never said there was only one way to make a copy. obviously there are > >> > ways to copy a file where not everything is copied. nobody is talking > >> > about that. you are grasping at straws if you have to outright lie > >> > about what i said. > >> > > >> > when a file is duplicated in finder, the create date is preserved. > >> > >> FACT: The OP never said the images were copies via the Finder. > > > > so what? that was never in dispute. > > So if the images in question were copied one way or another, they may in > fact have different creation dates yet still be otherwise exact copies > of the same file. If you refuse to see this distinction, so be it, but > that's not going to stop those of us with actual intellect from making > the distinction. You lose. if the copy did not preserve the create date then it's not an exact copy. you can pretend it is, but you would be wrong. also, i'm well aware of the distinction, so you are wrong on that too. > > you said a copy doesn't have identical data and i proved you wrong. > > Nice try, troll, but you lose. > > What I said was that *some* ways of copying a file may not preserve > things such as the creation date. that was never in dispute. anything else irrelevant, or is that it? > You have not proven me wrong by miles and miles. Try harder, fucknuts. i don't need to do jack shit since you contradict yourself quite often and then go off your juvenile rants when cornered. in fact, it's usually a good metric to tell you're full of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 05:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjj7jF55lbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55410 |
On 2014-01-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <bkjdunF3qa4U12@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> > i never said there was only one way to make a copy. obviously there are >> >> > ways to copy a file where not everything is copied. nobody is talking >> >> > about that. you are grasping at straws if you have to outright lie >> >> > about what i said. >> >> > >> >> > when a file is duplicated in finder, the create date is preserved. >> >> >> >> FACT: The OP never said the images were copies via the Finder. >> > >> > so what? that was never in dispute. >> >> So if the images in question were copied one way or another, they may in >> fact have different creation dates yet still be otherwise exact copies >> of the same file. If you refuse to see this distinction, so be it, but >> that's not going to stop those of us with actual intellect from making >> the distinction. You lose. > > if the copy did not preserve the create date then it's not an exact > copy. you can pretend it is, but you would be wrong. What I said was "otherwise exact copies". Pretend I said something other than that all you want, but you cannot change reality. You are transparent, fuck nuts. Try harder. > also, i'm well aware of the distinction, so you are wrong on that too. You're aware of the distinction I just made, yet you claim I made no such distinction. Which is it, asshole? You are transparent. Try harder. >> > you said a copy doesn't have identical data and i proved you wrong. Anyone with a brain cell can see that is not what I said. What I said was creation dates may differ while the rest o the image data may be exactly the same. Above, you claim to be aware of this distinction while simultaneously wrongly claiming I made no such distinction. You are transparent. Try harder. >> Nice try, troll, but you lose. >> >> What I said was that *some* ways of copying a file may not preserve >> things such as the creation date. > > that was never in dispute. You are the only one disputing it, fuck nuts. > anything else irrelevant, or is that it? Yes: you are irrelevant. >> You have not proven me wrong by miles and miles. Try harder, fucknuts. > > i don't need to do jack shit since you contradict yourself quite often > and then go off your juvenile rants when cornered. in fact, it's > usually a good metric to tell you're full of shit. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night. The rest of us see right through you, fuck nuts. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120141404381071%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55416 |
In article <bkjj7jF55lbU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > you said a copy doesn't have identical data and i proved you wrong. > > Anyone with a brain cell can see that is not what I said. What I said > was creation dates may differ while the rest o the image data may be > exactly the same. Above, you claim to be aware of this distinction while > simultaneously wrongly claiming I made no such distinction. You are > transparent. Try harder. if that's the case, then either don't use the creation date or use a copy routine that *doesn't* change the creation date. you're so fucking stupid you can't even figure that out, can you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 18:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <sj61p74hz1.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55365 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: > In article <bkishmF11p0U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger > <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > > >> tested on snow leopard and mountain lion: select a file or folder > > >> (doesn't matter), command-d, and everything is the same, including > > >> create/mod dates. > > > > > > cat original.dat > copy.dat > > > > > > Copy.dat will have identical data, but different metadate such as > > > creation date. > > > > mr.know-it-all's got to be one of THE most thick-headed individuals I > > think I've ever seen. What a fucking dolt. > > once again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. You are using second person where you obviously meant to use first person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120142210175451%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55389 |
In article <sj61p74hz1.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > once again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. > > You are using second person where you obviously meant to use first > person. nope and you're in second place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120141749517910%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55362 |
In article <52e43b57$0$12701$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > tested on snow leopard and mountain lion: select a file or folder > > (doesn't matter), command-d, and everything is the same, including > > create/mod dates. > > cat original.dat > copy.dat > > Copy.dat will have identical data, but different metadate such as > creation date. of course it will, because you're creating a new file. do what i described above. the create date is identical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 15:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #55358 |
On 2014-01-25 21:33:25 +0000, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said: > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: > >> In article <vey523eopt.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson >> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> if he wants to know it's a different *file*, all that needs to be done >>>> is compare the creation date. there's no reason to bother with >>>> comparing pixels. >>> >>> That might work, but it might not. Depending on the protocal by which >>> the file was tranmitted to his computer, the creation dates could be >>> different even though the contents of the files are identical. >> >> if the creation date was changed (or any other attribute or metadata), >> then it's not an exact copy. > > You want to add anything else to opinions you express that betray you > know nothing about what you are talking about? > > If I have a file I made yesterday (call it file1), I can make a copy > today and call it file2. The creation date of file1 will be yesterday > and of file2 will be today. > > But if I do a diff or a cmp on file1 and file2, they will be shown to > be identical as they contaion the _same_ data on a byte-by-byte basis. > > Just try it if you don't believe me - don't waste 30 posts saying black > is white. Personally this whole project seems a little silly to me The OP should just make his time lapse cqptures and compile them into the video/movie format of his choice. Why worry if one frame appears visually identical tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in cinematography. Then regarding the concept of creation date; I have thousands of RAW & JPEG image files, the date and time i tripped the shutter to capture the image as an NEF or JPEG is recorded in the EXIF metadata as the "Create Date". No matter how many times, or when I copy one of those files, the "Create date & time" remains unchanged. However, the metadata contains a "Modify Date" field and that will reflect the date and time any such modification is made. So in this example I shot in 2009, we have a "Create" date of: 2009:06:17 09:31:19 and a "Modify" date of: 2014:01:17 15:29:45-08:00. Additionally there is also a record of when the metadata was altered, Metadata date: 2014:01:17 15:29:45-08:00. As it appears in PS/CC with the info window. < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_541.jpg > ...and a more detailed chunk of the metadata; < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_542.jpg > -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 00:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkj2u5F26qmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55368 |
On 2014-01-25, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> Personally this whole project seems a little silly to me The OP should
> just make his time lapse cqptures and compile them into the video/movie
> format of his choice. Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
> cinematography.
No, we don't know enough about how the images are being captured and
delivered to be able to say whether he really needs to identify such
duplicates, or how many there are.
> Then regarding the concept of creation date; I have thousands of RAW &
> JPEG image files, the date and time i tripped the shutter to capture
> the image as an NEF or JPEG is recorded in the EXIF metadata as the
> "Create Date". No matter how many times, or when I copy one of those
> files, the "Create date & time" remains unchanged. However, the
> metadata contains a "Modify Date" field and that will reflect the date
> and time any such modification is made.
There's also the file system creation date, which is much more volatile.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120141942363778%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55368 |
In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> Then regarding the concept of creation date; I have thousands of RAW &
> JPEG image files, the date and time i tripped the shutter to capture
> the image as an NEF or JPEG is recorded in the EXIF metadata as the
> "Create Date". No matter how many times, or when I copy one of those
> files, the "Create date & time" remains unchanged. However, the
> metadata contains a "Modify Date" field and that will reflect the date
> and time any such modification is made.
that's an exif tag *in* the file, not metadata within the file system.
there's also a very high likelihood that the webcam he is using does
not write exif tags to the images it creates.
pick a file in finder and do a get info (command-i) and it will show
you the create and mod dates in the file system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 17:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2014012517300157895-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #55373 |
On 2014-01-26 00:42:36 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
> In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> Then regarding the concept of creation date; I have thousands of RAW &
>> JPEG image files, the date and time i tripped the shutter to capture
>> the image as an NEF or JPEG is recorded in the EXIF metadata as the
>> "Create Date". No matter how many times, or when I copy one of those
>> files, the "Create date & time" remains unchanged. However, the
>> metadata contains a "Modify Date" field and that will reflect the date
>> and time any such modification is made.
>
> that's an exif tag *in* the file, not metadata within the file system.
I'm sorry! I think like a photographer, and for me the meaningful
metadata is the EXIF & XMP data.
> there's also a very high likelihood that the webcam he is using does
> not write exif tags to the images it creates.
Highly likely, so he should consider buying something which does a better job.
> pick a file in finder and do a get info (command-i) and it will show
> you the create and mod dates in the file system.
Yup! That might work for the purposes of this discussion, but it is a
misleading set of information which will probably prove to be useless
to solve the OP's problem. If I want information on an image file I
usually go to9 EXIF data.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjbt6F3qa4U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55378 |
On 2014-01-26, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-26 00:42:36 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
>
>> In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Then regarding the concept of creation date; I have thousands of RAW &
>>> JPEG image files, the date and time i tripped the shutter to capture
>>> the image as an NEF or JPEG is recorded in the EXIF metadata as the
>>> "Create Date". No matter how many times, or when I copy one of those
>>> files, the "Create date & time" remains unchanged. However, the
>>> metadata contains a "Modify Date" field and that will reflect the date
>>> and time any such modification is made.
>>
>> that's an exif tag *in* the file, not metadata within the file system.
>
> I'm sorry! I think like a photographer, and for me the meaningful
> metadata is the EXIF & XMP data.
>
>> there's also a very high likelihood that the webcam he is using does
>> not write exif tags to the images it creates.
>
> Highly likely, so he should consider buying something which does a better job.
Some network cameras don't bother to add EXIF metadata to captured
images. Unless I missed it, the OP has not stated whether or not these
images contain EXIF metadata. Solutions that rely on EXIF metadata may
not be sufficient solutions to solve his problem.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 22:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52e48517$0$45923$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55373 |
On 14-01-25 19:42, nospam wrote: > that's an exif tag *in* the file, not metadata within the file system. The OP has specified there is NO EXIF data in the images. He has not specified is file creation dates available to his app reflect data transfer timestamp, or image file creation. Remember, images are transfered to his systrem at regular intervals, and may transfer the same image more than once if the camera ghas not regerated the image file in that interval.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 03:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjev5F4g5uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55407 |
On 2014-01-26, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-01-25 19:42, nospam wrote: > >> that's an exif tag *in* the file, not metadata within the file system. > > The OP has specified there is NO EXIF data in the images. He has not > specified is file creation dates available to his app reflect data > transfer timestamp, or image file creation. > > Remember, images are transfered to his systrem at regular intervals, and > may transfer the same image more than once if the camera ghas not > regerated the image file in that interval. Aha, so EXIF data is irrelevant, as I suspected. And until we know exactly how these so-called "duplicate" images were created, we really can't count on the file system creation date either. The OP would do himself and everyone else a huge favor by better describing the problem he's trying to solve. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web