 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:59:58 -0700, Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> Cry me a frickin' river. The internet's not a right, it's a privilege
> afforded with money. If you can't or won't pay up for a decent
> connection, tough.. you get left behind. That's how computing always works.
Not everybody *has* the option. I didn't, it wasn't that I wasn't willing
to pay.
> I'm convinced your argument for consideration really boils down to this:
> "I think I'm the only right one, so it's my way or the highway." And you
> know what? That's not your decision to make.
No, but it is the decision of the owners, and it seems to me that they
would prefer not to have large attachments posted.
Sheesh, you'd think we were arguing over people getting shot. Go take a
chill pill.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> What you believe isn't really relevant...
Neither is what you believe. Your entire argument is an emotional appeal
for an arbitrary standard for which you have no logical justification.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> it's what i was saying : " you make your netiquette"
> you don't know what is good but you decide you are right imposing
> restrictions [...]
Of course the customs of this medium have developed over the past
twenty-odd years for the sole purpose of giving some snobs a way to
criticize Eric Chapuzot.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In a group setting, consideration for the majority
>> is the rule of thumb, not consideration for the minority.
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> You're suggesting that the majority have slow connections.
> I do not believe this to be the case.
Both of you: The majority don't need wheelchair ramps, either.
In all my sporadic participation in this group over the years, I've
rarely seen complaints that an image was compressed too far to enjoy,
and never any complaint that excessively compressed images were common.
So long as that's true, what harm is there in leaning a little bit
toward the convenience of the less blessed (like me last year)?
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> (And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
By Grabthar's hammer, you ain't kidding.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<G>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very simple justification - it takes little to be considerate of those
less fortunate than yourself.
But you and those like you seem to think that you're the only ones who
matter in the equation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
42687eb2$1@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >
> > (And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
>
> By Grabthar's hammer, you ain't kidding.
>
then (yes, i don't know the word for "enfin" in american) it's like that ,
that i would translate in talking speak.
>
>
> --
> Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4268c763@news.povray.org...
>
> 42687eb2$1@news.povray.org...
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
"Vous faites chier le peuple, grave..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhr net> wrote in message
news:42680d1f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > When subscribing to a group with a title of 'binaries.animations', it's
> > pretty obvious the files are going to be of a significant size. When
> > subscribing to an 'images' group, it's not clear what the average size
is.
>
> curiously, i realize you are right and i was wrong...
> i think now that people who comes here are looking for 50-60 ko images.
>
I think from what other people have said, and from what other people post,
you are wrong in this belief. You are taking an over exagerated view of the
situation. If you quickly browse the file sizes of a lot of the recent
images, you see a lot of 130k and larger. Some outliers like the 500k or
800k images posted recently, and a few on the other end like "The Dreamer"
by Tim Nikias that compressed amazingly well to 27k and looks very nice.
Use your observational skills. Realize that the rules are fuzzy, but also
realize you are getting a lot of complaints because of your actions. To me
that says, compress your images, resize your image, post details of
interesting parts. You have many options, the one you have chosen doesn't
make people happy. Chose again.
Or, since technology is so advanced these days, run your own webserver. Host
your own images. Pay for your own bandwidth. Post a small teaser here, send
us links and we'll come look at them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
