ImageProcessing Group

Discussion in 'Java' started by Rajesh.Rapaka, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Hi all,

    A new group solely for ImageProcessing is started. I welcome all of you
    who are interested in ImageProcessing to join the group immediately.

    search the google groups with "Imageprocessing Group". and ull get the
    group.
    Dont miss any activity.

    regards

    Rajesh Rapaka.
    Rajesh.Rapaka, Mar 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rajesh.Rapaka

    bugbear Guest

    Rajesh.Rapaka wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > A new group solely for ImageProcessing is started. I welcome all of you
    > who are interested in ImageProcessing to join the group immediately.
    >
    > search the google groups with "Imageprocessing Group". and ull get the
    > group.
    > Dont miss any activity.


    What purpose will this "new" group serve that hasn't
    been served by sci.image.processing since 1993 ?

    BugBear
    bugbear, Mar 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bugbear wrote:
    > What purpose will this "new" group serve that hasn't
    > been served by sci.image.processing since 1993 ?


    He is just another victim of the new Google Groups Beta. The main page
    has an apparently unresistable "Create new groups" link. Which of course
    only creates a local google-group's forum, and not a Usenet group at all.

    The GUI "conveniently" hides the fact that google-groups carries Usenet
    groups which are not owned by and are not under the control of Google at
    all. Of course Google doesn't explain the different, doesn't provide
    some introduction to Usenet groups and also no longer cares about abuse
    in Usenet groups :-(

    /Thomas


    --
    The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
    ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq
    Thomas Weidenfeller, Mar 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Thomas Weidenfeller coughed up:
    > bugbear wrote:
    >> What purpose will this "new" group serve that hasn't
    >> been served by sci.image.processing since 1993 ?

    >
    > He is just another victim of the new Google Groups Beta. The main page
    > has an apparently unresistable "Create new groups" link. Which of
    > course only creates a local google-group's forum, and not a Usenet
    > group at all.
    > The GUI "conveniently" hides the fact that google-groups carries
    > Usenet groups which are not owned by and are not under the control of
    > Google at all. Of course Google doesn't explain the different,
    > doesn't provide some introduction to Usenet groups and also no longer
    > cares about abuse in Usenet groups :-(
    >
    > /Thomas



    Yep. They're annoying as hell. Actually, I recently posted a question in
    comp.programming, asking how the heck can I get that stupid beta groups
    thing to find /only/ usenet groups and not return the brain dead crap.
    There is no way other than to use groups.google.co.uk, which came as a
    suggestion. It works as the old interface.

    Furthermore I just cannot stand it when people try to fragment groups
    unnecessarily. It is just ridiculous. I also wish I could remove ng's like
    comp.lang.java from verizon and other big servers, because it was retired
    from the published big-8 newsgroup lists a /while/ ago, yet people will
    still post to it, which depletes the population from c.l.j.programmer.



    --
    I've seen this a few times--Don't make this mistake:

    Dwight: "This thing is wildly available."
    Smedly: "Did you mean wildly, or /widely/ ?"
    Dwight: "Both!", said while nodding emphatically.

    Dwight was exposed to have made a grammatical
    error and tries to cover it up by thinking
    fast. This is so painfully obvious that he
    only succeeds in looking worse.
    Thomas G. Marshall, Apr 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Rajesh.Rapaka

    bugbear Guest

    Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
    > bugbear wrote:
    >
    >> What purpose will this "new" group serve that hasn't
    >> been served by sci.image.processing since 1993 ?

    >
    >
    > He is just another victim of the new Google Groups Beta. The main page
    > has an apparently unresistable "Create new groups" link. Which of course
    > only creates a local google-group's forum, and not a Usenet group at all.


    I though the (effective) demise of Yahoo's groups had ended
    that debacle.

    Sadly not.

    BugBear
    bugbear, Apr 4, 2005
    #5
  6. bugbear coughed up:
    > Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
    >> bugbear wrote:
    >>
    >>> What purpose will this "new" group serve that hasn't
    >>> been served by sci.image.processing since 1993 ?

    >>
    >>
    >> He is just another victim of the new Google Groups Beta. The main
    >> page has an apparently unresistable "Create new groups" link. Which
    >> of course only creates a local google-group's forum, and not a
    >> Usenet group at all.

    >
    > I though the (effective) demise of Yahoo's groups had ended
    > that debacle.
    >
    > Sadly not.
    >
    > BugBear



    No. For all the things that google had done /right/ in the past concerning
    groups, they have essentially wiped it clean with this @#$%ing stupid
    interface. They have really got to rethink things.

    I'm worried that they might be getting swayed by positive feedback from the
    yokels that want their own groups.



    --
    It's time for everyone to just step back, take a deep breath, relax,
    and stop throwing hissy fits over crossposting.
    Thomas G. Marshall, Apr 4, 2005
    #6
  7. hi,
    I somehow couldnt find the sci.'s image processors group. So i've
    created a group in the google's group which i wholly owned by google.
    And with the great efforts google is putting in various sectors, i
    believe we can have the best of the technologies upgrade etc etc.

    Well it is all upto you. I respect you decision if u dont join the
    group also.

    good luck
    regards,
    Rajesh Rapaka.
    Rajesh.Rapaka, Apr 7, 2005
    #7
  8. Rajesh.Rapaka wrote:
    > I somehow couldnt find the sci.'s image processors group. So i've
    > created a group in the google's group which i wholly owned by google.


    Google groups mixes googles private web-based local groups with public
    Usenet groups. Non of the Usenet groups which you find on Google groups
    is in whole or part owned by Google. In fact, Usenet groups are owend by
    no one at all. Google doesn't point out that fact for some reason, but
    google's neglectance doesn't change the fact.

    > And with the great efforts google is putting in various sectors, i
    > believe we can have the best of the technologies upgrade etc etc.


    Google hasen't invented Usenet groups at all. There where thousands of
    news servers before Google had their first computer running, not talking
    about Google groups. The technology is even older than the web.

    Google is significantly messing up Usenet groups, e.g. by providing a
    web interface which is error prone and results in duplicate posts.
    Google also has given up on proper new Usenet user education and abuse
    handling. Every news server operator is supposed to do this, but Google
    is not a well behaving net citizen when it comes to Usenet groups.

    Google has past merits when it comes to Usenet. The took over the Usenet
    archive of deja/deja news, made it available again and they continue the
    archiving until today. However, this doesn't excuse their current behavior.

    /Thomas

    --
    The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
    ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq
    Thomas Weidenfeller, Apr 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Well I dont find u completely wrong. But I can see you are completely
    one sided. I believe google is getting the usenet groups more into
    light than ever before. Well the rest is left to the usenet users and
    the organisers to frame rules not to join google etc. for which you
    should be talking to ur new group chiefs.

    ok .. good luck with ur job.

    regards,
    Rajesh Rapaka.
    Rajesh.Rapaka, Apr 7, 2005
    #9
  10. Rajesh.Rapaka coughed up:
    > Well I dont find u completely wrong. But I can see you are completely
    > one sided. I believe google is getting the usenet groups more into
    > light than ever before. Well the rest is left to the usenet users and
    > the organisers to frame rules not to join google etc. for which you
    > should be talking to ur new group chiefs.
    >
    > ok .. good luck with ur job.
    >
    > regards,
    > Rajesh Rapaka.



    What on earth are you talking about? His response is not one sided at all.
    He established the merits, and pointed out to you the problems.

    The issue here is that *you* want to create a group, regardless as to
    whether or not one or more already exists. *You* want one that *you* made.
    This by itself is an almost understandable issue, many people want to create
    something of their own, but don't pretend that it isn't the reason for you
    doing this.

    And keep in mind---you'll not find many usenet people there. Most of the
    folks I've spoken to on usenet are irritated that google groups allows
    personal groups to even exists to /any/ degree. Usenet has too many groups
    now as it is, and it continually fragments, even though there are rules as
    to how one is created: it requires a vote. Google doesn't have any such
    forethought.

    Do a search for "image processing" (notice the space) and there are quite a
    few groups already out there. And in this case, as well as in general, only
    usenet matters.

    --
    "I don't want FOP, God dammit! I'm a DAPPER DAN MAN!"
    Thomas G. Marshall, Apr 7, 2005
    #10
  11. Excuse me but what the heck is bugging you ??? If you dont wanna join
    the group just mind you work. what do thing u r doing here ??

    Fine i find google good. u dont find it. fine not everyone accepts
    Darwin !!

    So keep somethings * SHUT * and good luck with u job.
    Rajesh.Rapaka, Apr 8, 2005
    #11
  12. I dont kind of understand what is the loss of making a new group ???
    huh?? y do u think every one would like to join the Usenet groups??? i
    dont want to may be..

    after all what heck is bugging u fellows. do hell with ur usenet groups
    and yourselves. Should i ask you or what to start a group.

    Yes i didnt find YOUR wonderful soooo called image processing group. so
    i opened one with an intention to group all those who is waiting for
    such group.

    huh whom am i explain to...
    Rajesh.Rapaka, Apr 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Rajesh.Rapaka

    Alex Buell Guest

    On 8 Apr 2005 05:46:34 -0700, "Rajesh.Rapaka"
    <> wrote:

    >I dont kind of understand what is the loss of making a new group ???
    >huh?? y do u think every one would like to join the Usenet groups??? i
    >dont want to may be..
    >
    >after all what heck is bugging u fellows. do hell with ur usenet groups
    >and yourselves. Should i ask you or what to start a group.
    >
    >Yes i didnt find YOUR wonderful soooo called image processing group. so
    >i opened one with an intention to group all those who is waiting for
    >such group.
    >
    >huh whom am i explain to...


    Rajesh, meet my killfile.
    Killfile, meet Rajesh.

    *plonk*

    Cheers,
    Alex.
    --
    http://www.munted.org.uk
    Alex Buell, Apr 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Alex Buell coughed up:
    > On 8 Apr 2005 05:46:34 -0700, "Rajesh.Rapaka"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I dont kind of understand what is the loss of making a new group ???
    >> huh?? y do u think every one would like to join the Usenet groups???
    >> i dont want to may be..
    >>
    >> after all what heck is bugging u fellows. do hell with ur usenet
    >> groups and yourselves. Should i ask you or what to start a group.
    >>
    >> Yes i didnt find YOUR wonderful soooo called image processing group.
    >> so i opened one with an intention to group all those who is waiting
    >> for such group.
    >>
    >> huh whom am i explain to...

    >
    > Rajesh, meet my killfile.
    > Killfile, meet Rajesh.


    So cordial :)

    >
    > *plonk*
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Alex.







    --
    I've seen this a few times--Don't make this mistake:

    Dwight: "This thing is wildly available."
    Smedly: "Did you mean wildly, or /widely/ ?"
    Dwight: "Both!", said while nodding emphatically.

    Dwight was exposed to have made a grammatical
    error and tries to cover it up by thinking
    fast. This is so painfully obvious that he
    only succeeds in looking worse.
    Thomas G. Marshall, Apr 8, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Akaketwa
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,832
    impaler
    Sep 22, 2006
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    502
  3. christopher taylor
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
    christopher taylor
    Sep 17, 2008
  4. cpld-fpga-asic
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,174
    rickman
    Jul 6, 2009
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    980
Loading...

Share This Page