Slideshow does not loop

[awwwfri]

Ive tried removing the plist from finder window. Tried checking and unchecking reloop and the slideshow just ends after the last slide. Any ideas?!

[thorstenlemke]

Hello,do you use the current 8.8.2?ThorstenOn 08.11.2013, at 10:10, <awwwfri@yahoo.com> <awwwfri@yahoo.com> wrote: Ive tried removing the plist from finder window. Tried checking and unchecking reloop and the slideshow just ends after the last slide. Any ideas?!__._,_.__. 

[awwwfri]

yes im on the latest version  ---In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, <lemke@...> wrote:Hello,do you use the current 8.8.2?ThorstenOn 08.11.2013, at 10:10, <awwwfri@...> <awwwfri@...> wrote: Ive tried removing the plist from finder window. Tried checking and unchecking reloop and the slideshow just ends after the last slide. Any ideas?!__._,_.__. 

[thorstenlemke]

Attachments :Hi,did you try uncheck, ok, check, ok ?ThorstenOn 08.11.2013, at 18:52, awwwfri@yahoo.com wrote: yes im on the latest version ---In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, <lemke@...> wrote:Hello,do you use the current 8.8.2?ThorstenOn 08.11.2013, at 10:10, <awwwfri@...> <awwwfri@...> wrote:Ive tried removing the plist from finder window. Tried checking and unchecking reloop and the slideshow just ends after the last slide. Any ideas?!__._,_.__. 

[Tony Jackson]

Hi Thorsten, I find that for a couple of years now all your posts have a small attachment called 'signature.asc'. Does this do something useful, or is it just a nuisance which might be stopped? I periodically delete a few dozen of them cluttering up my desktop, and the sky doesn't fall in? The attachment does not usually get displayed with the message, although sometimes there is a rather disreputable little fellow looking on at the bottom, sometimes a document icon. Neither does anything when I double-click it. Best, T. >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename=signature.asc >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; > name=signature.asc >Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:signature.asc ( / ) (013BD582) -- Tony Jackson, Devon, UK.

[Carl von Einem]

Attachments :Hi Tony, If you have a second look at what you just quoted Thorsten's message says "filename=signature.asc" and "Content-Description: Message signed..." Wikipedia is your friend: > .asc, a computer filename extension sometimes used for text > files, as an abbreviation of ASCII (also used by ASCII Armor > in the programs GPG and PGP to convert binary data into ASCII) Thorsten uses Apple Mail and attaches his PGP signature (public key) to his messages. This makes sure the message is sent by him and wasn't altered. Others can use his public key to directly send him confidential (encrypted) messages. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Goo ... signatures Signatures are also needed to sign software and I think Apple now urges developers to sign their software. https://prism-break.org/ has some information about the security topic, scroll down to "Email client" and "Email encryption". I use a certificate by cacert.org for my email signature, in fact as an assurer in the CAcert Web of Trust I can issue the maximum of assurance points to people I meet in real life. See http://wiki.cacert.org/FAQ/AssuranceIntroduction I guess your email application is set to automatically download attachments to your desktop, I'd rather change that. Carl Tony Jackson schrieb am 09.11.13 15:06: > Hi Thorsten, > > I find that for a couple of years now all your posts have a small > attachment called 'signature.asc'. Does this do something useful, > or is it just a nuisance which might be stopped? I periodically > delete a few dozen of them cluttering up my desktop, and the sky > doesn't fall in? > > The attachment does not usually get displayed with the message, > although sometimes there is a rather disreputable little fellow > looking on at the bottom, sometimes a document icon. Neither does > anything when I double-click it. > > Best, T. > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Content-Disposition: attachment; >> filename=signature.asc >> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; >> name=signature.asc >> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail >> >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:signature.asc ( / ) (013BD582)

[Tony Jackson]

Hi Carl, >If you have a second look at what you just quoted Thorsten's message >says "filename=signature.asc" and "Content-Description: Message >signed..." > >Wikipedia is your friend: > > .asc, a computer filename extension sometimes used for text > > files, as an abbreviation of ASCII (also used by ASCII Armor > > in the programs GPG and PGP to convert binary data into ASCII) Yes, I get all that, but mercifully no one else's email comes with such attachments, so the quantity of such floating debris is finite. So far... >Thorsten uses Apple Mail and attaches his PGP signature (public key) >to his messages. This makes sure the message is sent by him and >wasn't altered. Others can use his public key to directly send him >confidential (encrypted) messages. See also >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Goo ... signatures This looks to mean that I need to have software which understands the certificates, which presumably I don't? But then I checked, and it seems that Eudora includes such software, though I can't figure how to use it. >https://prism-break.org/ has some information about the security >topic, scroll down to "Email client" and "Email encryption". My arcane email client, Eudora, doesn't get a mention. And afaik all the email clients available nowadays are so much worse as to be a reason for not updating past OS 10.6. But I can think of no benefit for any one tampering with Thorsten's emails? So isn't he defending himself against a non-existent threat, at the price of cluttering up the world's computers with extra files? I know that in an ideal world we'd have honest governments, staffed by competent public servants, and we'd spare them the temptation to get otherwise by making our communications impenetrable when we wanted them to be - or perhaps always, if we fear that government might write stuff and insert it into our communications, then blame us for it. But we have, instead, incompetent and crooked governments, served by venal, self-serving goons, so there is no stopping them. Surely no one believes that PGP keeps the spooks out - rather that it flags mail as worth checking out, surely. Perhaps PGP is strong enough to prevent Google discovering what I'm interested in and then sending me advertising for stuff I've just bought, but I doubt it. >Signatures are also needed to sign software and I think Apple now >urges developers to sign their software. That sounds fine. And I don't buy 50 or so applications a day, so it is not oppressive. >I use a certificate by cacert.org for my email signature, in fact as >an assurer in the CAcert Web of Trust I can issue the maximum of >assurance points to people I meet in real life. >See http://wiki.cacert.org/FAQ/AssuranceIntroduction But all that does is to assure people that you are indeed Carl. In the nicest possible way I have to say that whether you are Carl or George or Edwina is of very little importance to most of the people you communicate with, at least on a forum. What matters is what you say, and the degree to which your opinion can be trusted, and your knowledge relied upon. So, writing 'Carl' at the bottom may help people trust what they read, in the light of earlier postings they've seen. But I'm not sure that a signature adds to this? The main issue is the degree to which your *content* can be trusted. So, if you were selling medicine, then there may be a secondary advantage to being sure who you are, in that when my granny dies following a dose of your jollop I have a name to pass on to the police, or to sue. But actually, the police will not normally bother, and if you are being successful you'll be able to hire a bigger lawyer than I can, so the law is no use either. Perhaps with an address I'd know where to lob a brick, but I don't think we'd want to encourage that... But being sure the jollop was beneficial, or failing that, not harmful, *would** be helpful. >I guess your email application is set to automatically download >attachments to your desktop, I'd rather change that. At least that way they are fairly obvious, and I can clean them out periodically (as I did this morning). How come these signatures are not written in such a way as to self-destruct after a chosen time interval? Best, T. -- Tony Jackson, Devon, UK.

[awwwfri]

is this supposed to help me with the slideshow?  ---In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, <tony@...> wrote:Hi Carl, >If you have a second look at what you just quoted Thorsten's message >says "filename=signature.asc" and "Content-Description: Message >signed..." > >Wikipedia is your friend: > > .asc, a computer filename extension sometimes used for text > > files, as an abbreviation of ASCII (also used by ASCII Armor > > in the programs GPG and PGP to convert binary data into ASCII) Yes, I get all that, but mercifully no one else's email comes with such attachments, so the quantity of such floating debris is finite. So far... >Thorsten uses Apple Mail and attaches his PGP signature (public key) >to his messages. This makes sure the message is sent by him and >wasn't altered. Others can use his public key to directly send him >confidential (encrypted) messages. See also >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Goo ... signatures This looks to mean that I need to have software which understands the certificates, which presumably I don't? But then I checked, and it seems that Eudora includes such software, though I can't figure how to use it. >https://prism-break.org/ has some information about the security >topic, scroll down to "Email client" and "Email encryption". My arcane email client, Eudora, doesn't get a mention. And afaik all the email clients available nowadays are so much worse as to be a reason for not updating past OS 10.6. But I can think of no benefit for any one tampering with Thorsten's emails? So isn't he defending himself against a non-existent threat, at the price of cluttering up the world's computers with extra files? I know that in an ideal world we'd have honest governments, staffed by competent public servants, and we'd spare them the temptation to get otherwise by making our communications impenetrable when we wanted them to be - or perhaps always, if we fear that government might write stuff and insert it into our communications, then blame us for it. But we have, instead, incompetent and crooked governments, served by venal, self-serving goons, so there is no stopping them. Surely no one believes that PGP keeps the spooks out - rather that it flags mail as worth checking out, surely. Perhaps PGP is strong enough to prevent Google discovering what I'm interested in and then sending me advertising for stuff I've just bought, but I doubt it. >Signatures are also needed to sign software and I think Apple now >urges developers to sign their software. That sounds fine. And I don't buy 50 or so applications a day, so it is not oppressive. >I use a certificate by cacert.org for my email signature, in fact as >an assurer in the CAcert Web of Trust I can issue the maximum of >assurance points to people I meet in real life. >See http://wiki.cacert.org/FAQ/AssuranceIntroduction But all that does is to assure people that you are indeed Carl. In the nicest possible way I have to say that whether you are Carl or George or Edwina is of very little importance to most of the people you communicate with, at least on a forum. What matters is what you say, and the degree to which your opinion can be trusted, and your knowledge relied upon. So, writing 'Carl' at the bottom may help people trust what they read, in the light of earlier postings they've seen. But I'm not sure that a signature adds to this? The main issue is the degree to which your *content* can be trusted. So, if you were selling medicine, then there may be a secondary advantage to being sure who you are, in that when my granny dies following a dose of your jollop I have a name to pass on to the police, or to sue. But actually, the police will not normally bother, and if you are being successful you'll be able to hire a bigger lawyer than I can, so the law is no use either. Perhaps with an address I'd know where to lob a brick, but I don't think we'd want to encourage that... But being sure the jollop was beneficial, or failing that, not harmful, *would** be helpful. >I guess your email application is set to automatically download >attachments to your desktop, I'd rather change that. At least that way they are fairly obvious, and I can clean them out periodically (as I did this morning). How come these signatures are not written in such a way as to self-destruct after a chosen time interval? Best, T. -- Tony Jackson, Devon, UK.

[Jeffrey Lomicka]

Attachments :Screen shot 2013-11-09 at 7.47.49 PM.pngI'm using a set of scripts to resize JPEG images for different presentation. I use either the "max size" command or "scale to pixel count, best interpolation" commands to do the scaling. Each stage is introducing an unacceptable color shift toward darker, and toward red, as seen in the screen snapshot below. I did not have this problem when I ran the same scripts last April, but don't know what version of GraphicConverter I was using (and can't find it in the EXIF data of those pictures?). Does anyone know what I did to cause this, and is there another way to do this that I can use to work around this problem? The image attached is of three Safari windows side by side, using Safari window size adjustment to scale them all to the same size. - The leftmost image is the master image that I've carefully color corrected in Adobe Raw and Photoshop. - The center image is the result of a "scale to pixel count", and is noticeably shifted. - The rightmost image is after an additional "max size", and is shifted so far I can't use it. 8.8.2 (1367)

[Tony Jackson]

'awwwfri' wrote: >is this supposed to help me with the slideshow? Nope! And its subject line, when it left me, was 'Signatures...' to avoid confusion (I'm sorry, the first post got out before I'd changed the subject line. So, is some one demonstrating the importance of encryption by altering the subject line? Or what? Indeed, when I received my last posting, via the list, its subject was indeed 'Signatures...' So, I'm sorry if I ignorantly made a nuisance, or if some one else did, yes, I understand how clever you are! Or something... Best, T. -- Tony Jackson, Devon, UK.