Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>>>> Adobe® Clip Notes® as I posted above?
>>>>> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
>>>>> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
>>>>> Status: 200 OK
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Content-Type: application/pdf
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Content-Length: 2090466
>>>>> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
>>>>> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
>>>>> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
>>>>> as a PDF file?
>>>>> Nothing about some special "Adobe® Clip Notes®" format was given.
>>>>>
>>>> Yo Zaumen,
>>>>
>>>> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
>>>>
>>>> When I go to the link, it says "Adobe® Clip Notes®" right above the
>>>> black box displayed on the page.
>>> There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
>>> modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
>>> the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
>>> when you aren't using Adobe products?
>>>
>> You are the expert, no? I made no previous comment on the surprising
>> nature or lack thereof.
>
> You made a fool of yourself by posting a reply that showed your lack
> of understanding of what I said.
>
Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and had
no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?
>>>> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
>>>> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
>>>> comments...."
>>> .... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.
>> Well it does on mine (actually in the PDF window Firefox opens).
>
> ... which is an accident.
Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
>>> You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
>>> like everyone else's.
>>>
>> I have not examined other people systems.
>>
>> How the hell can it be ignorant to re****t exactly what one sees?
>> Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.
>
> You weren't just re****ting what you saw - you were implying that I
> should have seen the same thing.
Well, no one else is re****ting problems. If you want to set up your
system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do not
project that onto everyone else.
>>>> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
>>>> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.
>>> ... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
>>> doesn't tell you.
>>>
>> So? Again for slow on the uptake, I am re****ting on what happens on MY
>> system. Duh!
>
> Are you really that clueless.
>
I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can observe
myself? WOW!
>> Adobe tells us the Clip Notes is being used by the logo and dialog box
>> appearing on the screen. Duh!
>
> Whe cares what Adobe's software "says" when some of us aren't using
> Adobe products?
We were discussing what is actually on the web page in question. I am
re****ting actual observations of things that Zaumen is denying the
possibility of since his secondary sources do not show it to be there.
Hardly a scientific approach, eh?
>>>> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
>>>> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
>>> No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
>>> for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
>>> it if you are not familiar with the concept.
>>>
>> No Zaumen, you are a fool for claiming I was a fool for saying Adobe®
>> Clip Notes® was involved, when the evidence of such is easily obtained
>> by anyone who system has Adobe's viewer installed.
>
> ... no, *you* made a fool of yourself by assuming that people's system
> should run Adobe's viewer to handle a particular MIME type,
> "application/pdf". That MIME type is not owned by Adobe.
>
Again, am I a fool for re****ting what is actually there, rather than
what Zaumen believes should be there but has no evidence to prove it?
>> You can not make an event that actually occurred go away just because
>> you think it should not have happened. Duh!
>>
>>> Sherman, you really are an idiot.
>>>
>> Accurately re****ting what appears on a computer monitor is a sign of
>> idiocy, just because it disagrees with The Great Bill Zaumen's
>> assumptions? WOW!
>
> ... your assumptions and statements were idiotic in spite of your
> current attempt to pretend you said something else.
>
Yes, real world observations are idiotic when they contradict the
assumptions of The Great Zaumen.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
