14 New Messages
Digest #9330
Messages
Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:48 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
>> Should I be concerned? I'm running Mountain Lion on my MACBookPro.
>
> NO
YES
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>
> NO
YES
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:02 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Randy B. Singer" randybrucesinger
On Jan 13, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken wrote:
> Should I be concerned? I'm running Mountain Lion on my MACBookPro.
It is definitely a minor concern, because just about all of the new malware for the Mac released last year was Java based. However, if you allow Software Update to keep your Mac updated, you probably don't even have Java enabled at this point.
See:
http://www.reedcorn
>
> If so, how do I disable it?
It is quite easy.
It's a good idea to disable Java in your Web browser(s).
In Safari, this is done by unchecking Enable Java in the Security pane of the preferences window (accessed by choosing Preferences from the Safari menu).
In Firefox, select Add-ons from the Tools menu, and in the Plugins pane, disable anything related to Java.
LEAVE ANYTHING THAT IS CALLED "JAVASCRIPT&qu
Disabling Java on your Macintosh entirely is also probably a good idea if you don't have any applications that use Java.
Common applications that use Java:
Adobe's Creative Suite
Open Office apps (NeoOffice, OpenOffice/Mac, LibreOffice)
CrashPlan
jEdit
Freemind
To disable Java entirely on your Mac, open the Java Preferences utility in:
/Applications/
and uncheck the checkboxes.
____________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattor
____________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:58 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Eric" emanmb
I'd be interested in low-cost or free VNC hosts as well as clients recs as Thailand'
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> On 13 January 2013, at 11:44 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
>
> > A quick search in Google led me to:
>
>
> -=-=-=-
>
> >> that you have experience with and can recommend?
>
> I, too, can -- and have -- Googled. The reason I like such lists as these is for *recommendations* that come from experience.
>
> Dave
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:43 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Eric" emanmb
Oops, sorry I was thinking VPN! Apologies.
e
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , "Eric" wrote:
>
>
> I'd be interested in low-cost or free VNC hosts as well as clients recs as Thailand's internet is NOT free. I use Tor browser to anonymize one's basic browsing to access anything, but better to be "safer".
>
e
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
>
> I'd be interested in low-cost or free VNC hosts as well as clients recs as Thailand'
>
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:35 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
There are a few free options available, but it would help if you tell us
what the host and client platforms are, and whether this local (LAN) or
across-internet.
Otto
On 13 January 2013 19:07, Dave C davec2468@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Suggestions for free or commercial that you have experience with and can
> recommend?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
what the host and client platforms are, and whether this local (LAN) or
across-internet.
Otto
On 13 January 2013 19:07, Dave C davec2468@yahoo.
> Suggestions for free or commercial that you have experience with and can
> recommend?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:15 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Barbara Adamski" bkadamski
Hi, Barry.
I actually took it in for the iMac hard-drive recall/replacement (which I ended up not needing because I didn't have the affected drive). While it was in the shop, the guy noticed that I had some dust behind the screen. Since it was covered under Apple Care, he asked if I'd like a new screen. So I said yes, because the dust was really noticeable.
The screen problem hasn't returned, so I'm thinking (hoping) I resolved it by unplugging it and replugging it in.
Barb
I actually took it in for the iMac hard-drive recall/replacement (which I ended up not needing because I didn't have the affected drive). While it was in the shop, the guy noticed that I had some dust behind the screen. Since it was covered under Apple Care, he asked if I'd like a new screen. So I said yes, because the dust was really noticeable.
The screen problem hasn't returned, so I'm thinking (hoping) I resolved it by unplugging it and replugging it in.
Barb
Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:48 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Barry Austern" barryaus
On Jan 13, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Barbara Adamski wrote:
>
> I actually took it in for the iMac hard-drive recall/replacement (which I ended up not needing because I didn't have the affected drive). While it was in the shop, the guy noticed that I had some dust behind the screen. Since it was covered under Apple Care, he asked if I'd like a new screen. So I said yes, because the dust was really noticeable.
>
> The screen problem hasn't returned, so I'm thinking (hoping) I resolved it by unplugging it and replugging it in.
Sometimes a restart will fix things, especially if you also unplugged it. Would have been embarrassing had you taken in the machine (obviously unplugging it unless you have a several mile long extension cord) and they found out it was okay. Do, though, save the paperwork. Even if you are almost out of AppleCare, any repair does have a 90-day warranty.
Barry Austern
barryaus@fuse.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:54 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Barbara Adamski" bkadamski
Yes, I thought I'd better cover the basics before packing up an iMac and complaining about the monitor. Thanks!
b
On 2013-01-13, at 2:48 PM, Barry Austern barryaus@fuse.net > wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Barbara Adamski wrote:
>
> >
> > I actually took it in for the iMac hard-drive recall/replacement (which I ended up not needing because I didn't have the affected drive). While it was in the shop, the guy noticed that I had some dust behind the screen. Since it was covered under Apple Care, he asked if I'd like a new screen. So I said yes, because the dust was really noticeable.
> >
> > The screen problem hasn't returned, so I'm thinking (hoping) I resolved it by unplugging it and replugging it in.
>
> Sometimes a restart will fix things, especially if you also unplugged it. Would have been embarrassing had you taken in the machine (obviously unplugging it unless you have a several mile long extension cord) and they found out it was okay. Do, though, save the paperwork. Even if you are almost out of AppleCare, any repair does have a 90-day warranty.
>
> Barry Austern
> barryaus@fuse.net
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
b
On 2013-01-13, at 2:48 PM, Barry Austern barryaus@fuse.
>
> On Jan 13, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Barbara Adamski wrote:
>
> >
> > I actually took it in for the iMac hard-drive recall/replacement (which I ended up not needing because I didn't have the affected drive). While it was in the shop, the guy noticed that I had some dust behind the screen. Since it was covered under Apple Care, he asked if I'd like a new screen. So I said yes, because the dust was really noticeable.
> >
> > The screen problem hasn't returned, so I'm thinking (hoping) I resolved it by unplugging it and replugging it in.
>
> Sometimes a restart will fix things, especially if you also unplugged it. Would have been embarrassing had you taken in the machine (obviously unplugging it unless you have a several mile long extension cord) and they found out it was okay. Do, though, save the paperwork. Even if you are almost out of AppleCare, any repair does have a 90-day warranty.
>
> Barry Austern
> barryaus@fuse.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:33 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Barbara Adamski" bkadamski
Dang. It's started up again. No settings have been changed since the last time, and the computer hasn't been moved. Blech.
Barb
On 2013-01-13, at 4:54 PM, Barbara Adamski adamski@telus.net > wrote:
> Yes, I thought I'd better cover the basics before packing up an iMac and complaining about the monitor. Thanks!
> b
>
> On 2013-01-13, at 2:48 PM, Barry Austern barryaus@fuse.net > wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 13, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I actually took it in for the iMac hard-drive recall/replacement (which I ended up not needing because I didn't have the affected drive). While it was in the shop, the guy noticed that I had some dust behind the screen. Since it was covered under Apple Care, he asked if I'd like a new screen. So I said yes, because the dust was really noticeable.
> > >
> > > The screen problem hasn't returned, so I'm thinking (hoping) I resolved it by unplugging it and replugging it in.
> >
> > Sometimes a restart will fix things, especially if you also unplugged it. Would have been embarrassing had you taken in the machine (obviously unplugging it unless you have a several mile long extension cord) and they found out it was okay. Do, though, save the paperwork. Even if you are almost out of AppleCare, any repair does have a 90-day warranty.
> >
> > Barry Austern
> > barryaus@fuse.net
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Barb
On 2013-01-13, at 4:54 PM, Barbara Adamski adamski@telus.
> Yes, I thought I'd better cover the basics before packing up an iMac and complaining about the monitor. Thanks!
> b
>
> On 2013-01-13, at 2:48 PM, Barry Austern barryaus@fuse.
>
> >
> > On Jan 13, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I actually took it in for the iMac hard-drive recall/replacement (which I ended up not needing because I didn't have the affected drive). While it was in the shop, the guy noticed that I had some dust behind the screen. Since it was covered under Apple Care, he asked if I'd like a new screen. So I said yes, because the dust was really noticeable.
> > >
> > > The screen problem hasn't returned, so I'm thinking (hoping) I resolved it by unplugging it and replugging it in.
> >
> > Sometimes a restart will fix things, especially if you also unplugged it. Would have been embarrassing had you taken in the machine (obviously unplugging it unless you have a several mile long extension cord) and they found out it was okay. Do, though, save the paperwork. Even if you are almost out of AppleCare, any repair does have a 90-day warranty.
> >
> > Barry Austern
> > barryaus@fuse.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:23 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy Otto.
I have a Nikon D60.
In Menu
Shooting Menu
Image Quality
The Nikon D60 available settings for Image Quality are:
JPEG Fine
JPEG Normal
JPEG Basic
NEF (RAW)
and
NEF (RAW) + JPEG basic
Then the next settings menu is for Image Size.
Large = 3872x2592, 10.0 MP
Medium = 2896x1944, 5.6 MP
Small = 1936x1296, 2.5 MP
I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592,
10.0 MP.
A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
Denver Dan
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:27:12 +0000, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> I haven't seen a DPI setting in a camera. Which model is your Nikon?
>
> Otto
I have a Nikon D60.
In Menu
Shooting Menu
Image Quality
The Nikon D60 available settings for Image Quality are:
JPEG Fine
JPEG Normal
JPEG Basic
NEF (RAW)
and
NEF (RAW) + JPEG basic
Then the next settings menu is for Image Size.
Large = 3872x2592, 10.0 MP
Medium = 2896x1944, 5.6 MP
Small = 1936x1296, 2.5 MP
I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592,
10.0 MP.
A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
Denver Dan
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:27:12 +0000, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> I haven't seen a DPI setting in a camera. Which model is your Nikon?
>
> Otto
Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:42 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
>> I haven't seen a DPI setting in a camera. Which model is your Nikon?
>> Otto
>
> I have a Nikon D60.
>
> In Menu
> Shooting Menu
> Image Quality
> The Nikon D60 available settings for Image Quality are:
>
> JPEG Fine
> JPEG Normal
> JPEG Basic
> NEF (RAW)
> and
> NEF (RAW) + JPEG basic
>
> Then the next settings menu is for Image Size.
>
> Large = 3872x2592, 10.0 MP
> Medium = 2896x1944, 5.6 MP
> Small = 1936x1296, 2.5 MP
As Otto suggested, there is no camera DPI settings.
> I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592, 10.0 MP.
That is YOU choosing inches in a processing program. The camera doesn't know inches, and simply creates an image with (a) a specific pixel number, and (2) a specific storage algorithm.
> A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
IFF you tell the processing software either the DPI value or the inch dimensions.
If you choose to print a full image on a 4"X6" piece of photo paper, it will be over 600 DPI.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>> Otto
>
> I have a Nikon D60.
>
> In Menu
> Shooting Menu
> Image Quality
> The Nikon D60 available settings for Image Quality are:
>
> JPEG Fine
> JPEG Normal
> JPEG Basic
> NEF (RAW)
> and
> NEF (RAW) + JPEG basic
>
> Then the next settings menu is for Image Size.
>
> Large = 3872x2592, 10.0 MP
> Medium = 2896x1944, 5.6 MP
> Small = 1936x1296, 2.5 MP
As Otto suggested, there is no camera DPI settings.
> I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592, 10.0 MP.
That is YOU choosing inches in a processing program. The camera doesn't know inches, and simply creates an image with (a) a specific pixel number, and (2) a specific storage algorithm.
> A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
IFF you tell the processing software either the DPI value or the inch dimensions.
If you choose to print a full image on a 4"X6" piece of photo paper, it will be over 600 DPI.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:59 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
On 14 January 2013 02:42, Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.com > wrote:
>
> As Otto suggested, there is no camera DPI settings.
>
> > I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592, 10.0
> MP.
>
> That is YOU choosing inches in a processing program. The camera doesn't
> know inches, and simply creates an image with (a) a specific pixel number,
> and (2) a specific storage algorithm.
>
> > A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
>
> IFF you tell the processing software either the DPI value or the inch
> dimensions.
>
> If you choose to print a full image on a 4"X6" piece of photo paper, it
> will be over 600 DPI.
>
Thanks Jim. This is what I would've replied. The camera knows nothing of
the size you will view or print, so DPI is meaningless.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> As Otto suggested, there is no camera DPI settings.
>
> > I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592, 10.0
> MP.
>
> That is YOU choosing inches in a processing program. The camera doesn't
> know inches, and simply creates an image with (a) a specific pixel number,
> and (2) a specific storage algorithm.
>
> > A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
>
> IFF you tell the processing software either the DPI value or the inch
> dimensions.
>
> If you choose to print a full image on a 4"X6" piece of photo paper, it
> will be over 600 DPI.
>
Thanks Jim. This is what I would've replied. The camera knows nothing of
the size you will view or print, so DPI is meaningless.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:47 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
This is not the case.
As I stated and copied settings directly from my camera, the camera
DOES have the ability to determine the size and quality of an image.
Whether you call it dpi in printing terminology or ppi in screen
display terminology, or large, medium, or small image size settings,
the results are digital photos that have a larger or smaller physical
dimension in inches or cm when transferred to computer.
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:59:36 +0000, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> On 14 January 2013 02:42, Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.com > wrote:
>
>>
>> As Otto suggested, there is no camera DPI settings.
>>
>>> I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592, 10.0
>> MP.
>>
>> That is YOU choosing inches in a processing program. The camera doesn't
>> know inches, and simply creates an image with (a) a specific pixel number,
>> and (2) a specific storage algorithm.
>>
>>> A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
>>
>> IFF you tell the processing software either the DPI value or the inch
>> dimensions.
>>
>> If you choose to print a full image on a 4"X6" piece of photo paper, it
>> will be over 600 DPI.
>>
>
> Thanks Jim. This is what I would've replied. The camera knows nothing of
> the size you will view or print, so DPI is meaningless.
>
> Otto
As I stated and copied settings directly from my camera, the camera
DOES have the ability to determine the size and quality of an image.
Whether you call it dpi in printing terminology or ppi in screen
display terminology, or large, medium, or small image size settings,
the results are digital photos that have a larger or smaller physical
dimension in inches or cm when transferred to computer.
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:59:36 +0000, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> On 14 January 2013 02:42, Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.
>
>>
>> As Otto suggested, there is no camera DPI settings.
>>
>>> I normally keep it set to JPEG Fine and Image Size Large 3872x2592, 10.0
>> MP.
>>
>> That is YOU choosing inches in a processing program. The camera doesn't
>> know inches, and simply creates an image with (a) a specific pixel number,
>> and (2) a specific storage algorithm.
>>
>>> A typical JPEG photo will be 3.5 MB at 8.6 x 12.9 inches, 300 ppi.
>>
>> IFF you tell the processing software either the DPI value or the inch
>> dimensions.
>>
>> If you choose to print a full image on a 4"X6" piece of photo paper, it
>> will be over 600 DPI.
>>
>
> Thanks Jim. This is what I would've replied. The camera knows nothing of
> the size you will view or print, so DPI is meaningless.
>
> Otto
Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:38 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Yes, it does, as does any digital camera, size being the pixel dimensions
and quality being the degree of JPEG compression. What it does *not* have
is the ability to allow you to select a PPI or DPI figure. These have
meaning only when combined with the size in inches and the camera knows
nothing about inches, as Jim said.
Your example is 8.6 x 12.9 inches at 300 ppi. True, and it would also give
you any other size and PPI combination totalling the same pixel dimensions,
such as
2.16 x 3.23 @ 1200
4.32 x 6.45 @ 600 PPI
17.28 x 25.81 @ 150 PPI
The camera knows nothing of that, only the pixel dimensions.
Otto
On 14 January 2013 14:47, Denver Dan denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> This is not the case.
>
> As I stated and copied settings directly from my camera, the camera
> DOES have the ability to determine the size and quality of an image.
>
> Whether you call it dpi in printing terminology or ppi in screen
> display terminology, or large, medium, or small image size settings,
> the results are digital photos that have a larger or smaller physical
> dimension in inches or cm when transferred to computer.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
and quality being the degree of JPEG compression. What it does *not* have
is the ability to allow you to select a PPI or DPI figure. These have
meaning only when combined with the size in inches and the camera knows
nothing about inches, as Jim said.
Your example is 8.6 x 12.9 inches at 300 ppi. True, and it would also give
you any other size and PPI combination totalling the same pixel dimensions,
such as
2.16 x 3.23 @ 1200
4.32 x 6.45 @ 600 PPI
17.28 x 25.81 @ 150 PPI
The camera knows nothing of that, only the pixel dimensions.
Otto
On 14 January 2013 14:47, Denver Dan denver.dan@verizon.
> This is not the case.
>
> As I stated and copied settings directly from my camera, the camera
> DOES have the ability to determine the size and quality of an image.
>
> Whether you call it dpi in printing terminology or ppi in screen
> display terminology, or large, medium, or small image size settings,
> the results are digital photos that have a larger or smaller physical
> dimension in inches or cm when transferred to computer.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
