Ramon F. Herrera Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Ramon is wrong when he says that "Google Drive" items only require one single click. All G-Drive stuff require double-clicks, whether it's clicking on a folder or DVP: In my years of experience with those drives (I call them "A Poor Man's Website" :-) when I am logged in, I need to double click. Next, in order to duplicate some other user's experience I log out from Google (have 4 "personalities") and a single click is all it is needed. -RFH Edited June 22, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ramon F. Herrera said: DVP: In my years of experience with those drives (I call them "A Poor Man's Website :-) when I am logged in, I need to double click. Next, in order to duplicate some other user's experience I log out from Google (have 4 "personalities") and a single click is all [that] is needed. -RFH Oh, really? I was unaware of that difference, Ramon. That's interesting (and kind of curious too). I'll now log off and try it out. Edited June 22, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) G-Drive Follow-Up.... Well I'll be French-dipped! Ramon F. Herrera is absolutely correct about the single/double-clicking on Google Drive links (when viewing stuff out of a "Google Drive Folder", that is). I just logged out of all my Google accounts and accessed one of my folders, and, sure enough, just a single click is needed to get the file (or video) to pop up. But for most people in this Google-ubiquitous world we live in, I would guess that the double-clicking would still be required most of the time, since there are probably very few people here (or anywhere on the Web) that operate their computers without being logged in to a "Google" account. (I'm certainly one person who is never "logged off" completely from Google at any time.) Is there actually a person out there in cyberland who DOESN'T have at least one Google account? (I've got about 50.) Anyway, thanks for the info, Ramon. I'll keep it in mind if I'm ever logged off from Google ever again (as unlikely as that occurrence might be). Edited June 22, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, Ramon F. Herrera said: 22 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Ramon is wrong when he says that "Google Drive" items only require one single click. All G-Drive stuff require double-clicks, whether it's clicking on a folder or DVP: In my years of experience with those drives (I call them "A Poor Man's Website :-) when I am logged in, I need to double click. Next, in order to duplicate some other user's experience I log out from Google (have 4 "personalities") and a single click is all it is needed. -RFH For me, double-click works, single-click doesn't. So I just checked and was surprised to find myself logged in. Surprised because I've never even used Google Drive. I apparently do use some Google service that I can't recall at the moment, and am apparently logged into it, and as such I am apparently logged into other (maybe all) Google services. That said, I can't imagine why the clicking behavior would change depending upon whether one is logged in or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I just checked and was surprised to find myself logged in. Surprised because I've never even used Google Drive. I apparently do use some Google service that I can't recall at the moment, and am apparently logged into it, and as such I am apparently logged into other (maybe all) Google services. Exactly, Sandy. If you're logged in to anything "Google", you are automatically also logged in to Google Drive. Up until early last year, like you, I had never used the Google Drive service before at all. I never even knew it existed (even though it was created in 2012). But I'm glad I discovered it (better late than never). And, Sandy, whether you know it or not, you've got 15 gigabytes of free "Google Drive" storage space awaiting you at G-Drive anytime you want to use it. And that's a heck of a lot of space if you're storing only documents or photos. Videos, OTOH, are a different story. Edited June 22, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) On 6/21/2017 at 9:01 PM, David Von Pein said: G-Drive Follow-Up.... Well I'll be French-dipped! Ramon F. Herrera is absolutely correct about the single/double-clicking on Google Drive links (when viewing stuff out of a "Google Drive Folder", that is). I just logged out of all my Google accounts and accessed one of my folders, and, sure enough, just a single click is needed to get the file (or video) to pop up. I found it annoying, until I realized that there are two types of users: producers and consumers. - The person who controls the drive has the usual PC-like needs: he may select multiple files to be moved/deleted. Think of this environment as being in a PC. Her end product is a link that she gives to ... - The people who just peruse and look around. They do not rename files, etc. Think of this environment as a (hyperlinked) web page. After a while, their design confirms why Google employs so many geniuses. -Ramon Edited June 25, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 7 hours ago, David Von Pein said: Exactly, Sandy. If you're logged in to anything "Google", you are automatically also logged in to Google Drive. Up until early last year, like you, I had never used the Google Drive service before at all. I never even knew it existed (even though it was created in 2012). But I'm glad I discovered it (better late than never). And, Sandy, whether you know it or not, you've got 15 gigabytes of free "Google Drive" storage space awaiting you at G-Drive anytime you want to use it. And that's a heck of a lot of space if you're storing only documents or photos. Videos, OTOH, are a different story. Thanks David. But if I have photos stored on Google drive, can I post it on the forum and have member see it without their having to click a link? (Somehow I got the impression I can't do that.) I currently do that with Photobucket. But Photobucket is so awfully slow that I've come to hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Thanks David. But if I have photos stored on Google drive, can I post it on the forum and have member see it without their having to click a link? (Somehow I got the impression I can't do that.) Apparently you can't post a picture through G-Drive and embed the actual image into a forum post (unfortunately). And that's one of the reasons I have none of my photos stored at G-Drive. The best place for storing photos, IMO, is Blogger.com, which allows you virtually unlimited storage space for free (unless you've got super-enormous pics). Blogger, like Google Drive, is excellent (in my opinion). All you need to do, Sandy, is create a blog at Blogger for the sole purpose of uploading photos and just keep it set on "Private". I've got one of my Blogger blogs set up that way (that only I can see), which I use only for uploading pictures (and some short videos). I then grab the URL of the photo and put it into whatever blog post (on another blog) I want to use it on. The photos are all stored permanently in a series of "albums" within a separate storage area created automatically by Blogger. Here's one of my storage albums: https://get.google.com/albumarchive/116346794942510830112/album/AF1QipME6... Quote I currently do that with Photobucket. But Photobucket is so awfully slow that I've come to hate it. I agree. I don't like Photobucket either. It's terribly slow and cumbersome now, which is why I've switched all my pictures to Blogger, which has the extra nice feature built-in to every image URL---the "S" feature (which I assume stands for "Size"). Instead of messing with re-sizing codes and tags, you can merely change the number after the "S" in the URL to change the size of the image you want to post, so that it will fit into whatever page you want to embed it on, without overlapping the page. (Example below.) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NNL7lh6-0o8/UE4Mp1wGfuI/AAAAAAAAIog/GrenGBwZYyc/s400/Jackie-Kennedy-And-Clint-Hill-In-Fort-Worth-Texas-On-11-22-63.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NNL7lh6-0o8/UE4Mp1wGfuI/AAAAAAAAIog/GrenGBwZYyc/s340/Jackie-Kennedy-And-Clint-Hill-In-Fort-Worth-Texas-On-11-22-63.jpg ------ Edited June 22, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 First of all, I am glad Ramon got mentioned in the article. But I think the real point of it is lost. I thought the main aim of Ramon's work, and what he will be writing about for us, isa that the official number of documents being withheld is wrong. The real number is almost three times what the Archives has given out. Which is a key discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) On 6/23/2017 at 0:50 PM, James DiEugenio said: First of all, I am glad Ramon got mentioned in the article. But I think the real point of it is lost. I thought the main aim of Ramon's work, and what he will be writing about for us, is that the official number of documents being withheld is wrong. The real number is almost three times what the Archives has given out. Which is a key discovery. You are correct, Jim. I would like to add a "missing link" that has not been mentioned much publicly but for me turned out to be a critical breakthrough, one that I never expected at a time when I could really use one. I guess it is true what they say: "God works in mysterious ways". :-) I really did TWO completely separate jobs. The first one was announced here in the Ed Forum, the material was donated to the Mary Ferrell Foundation, what Jeff and Rex call "scrapping" and I -always looking for extra effect, as a fan of Joe Kennedy Sr- call "hacking". One is too lame (reminds people of "bottom of the barrel") and the other too risqué. Let's meet in the middle and say that it was an "Incursion". The 2nd. job was done when I learned about the FOIA Action being introduced and granted. I found the original FOIA requester in LinkedIn, asked him if there was a better copy, he told me: "That's all they delivered and I am DONE with JFK FOIAs, feel free to introduce new ones" [or words to that effect, see my next post] I was shocked when I saw the awful quality: it was obvious that the original information was in an Excel file, which they printed, then scanned at the worst possible quality (next they wonder why there are so many conspiracies that point the finger to the Archives) and unceremoniously shoved inside a PDF file. Bill Kelly, the CAPA spokesperson, asked me for help (and/or I volunteered). I hired a lady from Bangladesh, a veritable expert in OCR (computer-based and human-eye-based), BithiXpert, The Lady from Bangladesh Who Did a Great Job Shameless Plug: Hire Her! She triple checked the 3,600+ RIFs. A few RIFs and words were outside the scanned area but based on my clone website, I was able to figure them out. I have publicly chastised the National Archives' authorities in no uncertain terms. My words have been along these lines: "Mr. Ferriero and Ms. Murphy: What you have delivered is an insult. Next time you release any information would you please show a minimum respect for your employers, The People" (but I still get the golden treatment every time I ask them if I can bring a top quality X-ray film digitizer to the sacred room or make an autopsy expert co-signed donation of the cranium+cerebrum's 3D model to The Archives, go figure). Our esteemed doctor David Mantik says that he has reached the end with Paul Kirk: Paul Kirk, Kennedys Lawyer ... meanwhile, my experience is the total opposite. I could not possibly ask for better attention and approval to my requests. Next, I had to write some computer programs in order to give CAPA the records by Agency, by RIF Number, etc. This is the unexpected breakthrough: Larry Schnapf (in charge of half the Mock Trial of Lee, the other is Wecht) was looking all over the place for somebody who knew 3D and Bill Kelly recommended me. Initially doctor Mantik was not "too sanguine" (Larry's words) about my proposal. Eventually he conceded that it is a good idea to digitize the 2 X-rays (for the densitometer work by him and Dr. Michael Chesser) PLUS my plan to deliver the 2 DICOM files to the Berlin researchers who have declared to be able to definitely determine whether the X-rays are genuine. 3D Reconstruction of Anatomical Structures from 2D X Ray Images For now, let's just say that such declaration sent tremors to the autopsy experts this side of The Pond. Whether that will result in tectonic plate shifts (zero evidence so far) remains to be seen. In short: At this point, I am not sure whether the CAPA Mock Trial of Lee will use the JFK Numbers evidence (developed by this humble servant of The People) or that investigation will be postponed until after November --- of after we die, like Gaet and so many others. :-( -Ramon Edited June 25, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 On 6/22/2017 at 0:59 PM, David Von Pein said: On 6/22/2017 at 3:45 AM, Sandy Larsen said: Thanks David. But if I have photos stored on Google drive, can I post it on the forum and have member see it without their having to click a link? (Somehow I got the impression I can't do that.) Apparently you can't post a picture through G-Drive and embed the actual image into a forum post (unfortunately). And that's one of the reasons I have none of my photos stored at G-Drive. The best place for storing photos, IMO, is Blogger.com, which allows you virtually unlimited storage space for free (unless you've got super-enormous pics). Blogger, like Google Drive, is excellent (in my opinion). Thanks David. I just did some research on the topic and discovered that what we are talking about (inserting a photo hosted on another server) is called hotlinking. It's a good thing I discovered that because I was planning on using Imgur for hosting photos, but read in their TOS that they don't allow hotlinking from blogs or websites. I discovered the same to be true with Google Photos. But I could find no such prohibition with (Google) Blogger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: ...I could find no such prohibition with (Google) Blogger. I've been doing it for 10 years on Blogger. So obviously they have no such "hotlinking" restriction. Edited June 24, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) On 6/23/2017 at 4:49 PM, Ramon F. Herrera said: I really did TWO completely separate jobs. The first one was announced here in the Ed Forum, the material was donated to the Mary Ferrell Foundation, what Jeff and Rex call "scrapping" and I -always looking for extra effect, as a fan of Joe Kennedy Sr- call "hacking". One is too lame (reminds people of "bottom of the barrel") and the other too risqué. Let's meet in the middle and say that it was an "Incursion". The 2nd. job was done when I learned about the FOIA Action being introduced and granted. I found the original FOIA requester in LinkedIn, asked him if there was a better copy, he told me: [...] To be precise (and since I consider my formal promise to you folks -Truth, Whole and Nothing But- to be binding), this is the person who introduced the FOIA request: Michael Ravnitzky, Experienced Regulatory Counsel with Science/Journalism/Law Background This is what I told him: ================================================= "They only gave you 1/3 of the records you asked for" Hi Michael: Please take a look at my posts here: Will the 2017 JFK documents tell us anything new? Regards, -Ramon F Herrera ramon@jfknumbers.org ================================================= ... and this is what he replied: Quote "I agree that what was released may not have been the full deal. Feel free to ask them for more records. I do not plan to do so myself, sorry." -RFH Edited June 25, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 On 24/06/2017 at 3:50 AM, James DiEugenio said: First of all, I am glad Ramon got mentioned in the article. But I think the real point of it is lost. I thought the main aim of Ramon's work, and what he will be writing about for us, isa that the official number of documents being withheld is wrong. The real number is almost three times what the Archives has given out. Which is a key discovery. The real number is 3 times what the Archives has given out??? That certainly is a real discovery. Congratulations to you Ramon. How about you hurry and get that article up on Kennedys and King asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted June 25, 2017 Author Share Posted June 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Vanessa Loney said: The real number is 3 times what the Archives has given out??? That certainly is a real discovery. Indeed. On Wednesday, Jeff Morley, Rex Bradford and I were a little anxious since the Newsweek article was supposed to be out by Monday. Jeff wrote: "stay tuned" ... He then suddenly shouted: "Ramon, Newsweek wants to know: when did you scrape the NARA database?" They were so confused -had to double check everything- that I decided to send them THE authoritative version, the one exclusive for Kennedys and King + the Ed Forum. After I saw the MSM article, I told Jimmy Di: Quote "As I predicted, they published a highly sanitized version (*), despite the fact that they have in their hands the full scoop. They don't have the cojones to publish it, while you do". -Ramon (*) At this point I inserted my index finger deep into my glottis. Edited June 25, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now