 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In other words "It's not my problem, it's yours".
And people think Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and inconsiderate.
No need to reply, you've been added to my twit filter. Have a nice day.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> je n'aime pas les gens plus royalistes que le roi : le serveur ne refuse pas
>
From a technical standpoint, you're right: your post is valid. From a
nettiquette standpoint it isn't. It's considered good manners not to
clutter the server disk space with unnecessarily large files. If the
same viewing quality can be achieved at a smaller size then it's just
polite to do it no matter what the server will accept.
Jerome
PS: since we are on an english newsgroup, it's also considered polite
to answer in english even if the person you're answering to is french
(or else reply just to him by email).
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrance com *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCZri9qIYJdJhyixIRAnWkAJ9UL+s7TxhtA00LjV5dUthuHtpfFQCfZnZh
wnbxkWLBjF6SnJqBtABezco=
=WVoX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> From a technical standpoint, you're right: your post is valid. From a
> nettiquette standpoint it isn't.
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
knowing that the quality will be necessarly lowest.
i don't want you and me live in a world at a lowest quality.
you certainly can't tollerate the sea because you can't empty it with a
spoon...
now, supports and hard disk are larger and larger ... we have to stop to
think like having a 20 Mo hard disk, while it is 200 Go and some To for the
servers...
we have the freedom then enjoy the freedom and stop to restrict all...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
pan### [at] nospamcom...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:15:24 +0200, Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
>
>> if you are not interrested, you're not forced to read... let it to who
>> likes this. I force nobody and i will be happy if other people make the
>> same.
>>
>> if you enter in a thread, it's that you have love the title...
>
> Apparently you've never used an offline reader. Just an observation, but
> it's foolish to assume that everyone reads news the same way you do.
>
now, we must stop to write books because you can't read all at your speed...
make like with books, read less and better !!!
i like little sentences. Then everybody must today make sentences with less
than ten words. I said...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
pan### [at] nospamcom...
> In other words "It's not my problem, it's yours".
>
> And people think Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and inconsiderate.
>
> No need to reply, you've been added to my twit filter. Have a nice day.
>
> Jim
somewhere, i try to think like you... so i may be ignorant, arrogant, and
inconsiderate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
>
>>From a technical standpoint, you're right: your post is valid. From a
>>nettiquette standpoint it isn't.
>
>
> 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
> knowing that the quality will be necessarly lowest.
> i don't want you and me live in a world at a lowest quality.
> you certainly can't tollerate the sea because you can't empty it with a
> spoon...
>
> now, supports and hard disk are larger and larger ... we have to stop to
> think like having a 20 Mo hard disk, while it is 200 Go and some To for the
> servers...
> we have the freedom then enjoy the freedom and stop to restrict all...
>
>
You may have a point. We encourage you to take others into
consideration, but sure, if you feel that you need only acknowledge the
actual owner if the server as authorized to sanction you, go ahead. And
capacities are generally improving. You should understand that the
other issue is bandwidth cost, and, equally importantly, download
bandwidth for some visitors. With an international audience, there are
some visitors who are restricted to low capacity and there is absolutely
nothing they can do about it. So, as a compromise, it would be very
helpful to post the file size of your attachment in the subject so that
these people can make a reasonable decision about if or when to open the
post.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tell you what, post your own IP address, and we'll slashdot it - since
there's no reason for us to be considerate of your bandwidth. Bandwidth
is cheap, so get more.
Basic consideration is a fairly simple concept - treat others the way you
wish to be treated. Do you wish others to waste your time? To waste your
bandwidth? If you do, I'm sure that can be arranged, but I suspect that
you probably would not like it if someone wasted your time unnecessarily.
From the POVray FAQ in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions:
"Please consider converting 24-bit bitmap images, such as targas and
Windows .bmp, to JPEG (.jpg) file format which uses a compression
algorithm to reduce the file size considerably. This conserves space on
the news.povray.org server for everyone."
The owners of this server have thus *expressly* requested that posters not
waste space on the server unnecessarily. They have *expressly* requested
that images be converted to compressed JPEG format. They also *expressly*
state "Please be reasonable and don't paste a 10mb mesh include file into
the body of a message :)" - so it would seem to me that they do wish that
posters be considerate by not posting files that are larger than they need
to be.
In fact, in the referenced message
(http://news.povray.org/37711f4b.55412882%40news.povray.org), Alan very
specifically thanks posters for their *CONSIDERATION*. That would seem to
me to imply that he expects that people will in fact be *CONSIDERATE* of
others.
(And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> schreef in bericht
news:42670717$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> now, supports and hard disk are larger and larger ... we have to stop to
> think like having a 20 Mo hard disk, while it is 200 Go and some To for
the
> servers...
> we have the freedom then enjoy the freedom and stop to restrict all...
>
>
Have you thought about bandwidth? I do not own a broadband connection, like
many other people on this planet, and I tend to ignore the larger files
because they take too much time to download. I might miss good stuff that
way, but there it is.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
thank you
pan### [at] nospamcom...
> Tell you what, post your own IP address, and we'll slashdot it - since
> there's no reason for us to be considerate of your bandwidth. Bandwidth
> is cheap, so get more.
>
> Basic consideration is a fairly simple concept - treat others the way you
> wish to be treated. Do you wish others to waste your time? To waste your
> bandwidth? If you do, I'm sure that can be arranged, but I suspect that
> you probably would not like it if someone wasted your time unnecessarily.
>
> From the POVray FAQ in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions:
>
> "Please consider converting 24-bit bitmap images, such as targas and
> Windows .bmp, to JPEG (.jpg) file format which uses a compression
> algorithm to reduce the file size considerably. This conserves space on
> the news.povray.org server for everyone."
>
> The owners of this server have thus *expressly* requested that posters not
> waste space on the server unnecessarily. They have *expressly* requested
> that images be converted to compressed JPEG format. They also *expressly*
> state "Please be reasonable and don't paste a 10mb mesh include file into
> the body of a message :)" - so it would seem to me that they do wish that
> posters be considerate by not posting files that are larger than they need
> to be.
>
> In fact, in the referenced message
> (http://news.povray.org/37711f4b.55412882%40news.povray.org), Alan very
> specifically thanks posters for their *CONSIDERATION*. That would seem to
> me to imply that he expects that people will in fact be *CONSIDERATE* of
> others.
>
>
> (And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Tell you what, post your own IP address, and we'll slashdot it - since
> there's no reason for us to be considerate of your bandwidth. Bandwidth
> is cheap, so get more.
>
> Basic consideration is a fairly simple concept - treat others the way you
> wish to be treated. Do you wish others to waste your time? To waste your
> bandwidth? If you do, I'm sure that can be arranged, but I suspect that
> you probably would not like it if someone wasted your time unnecessarily.
Since I have enough bandwidth to download them in a reasonable space of
time, I'd like others to post minimally-compressed or lossless images here.
Therefore, I will post such images in the future.
Please be considerate towards me and do not overcompress your images.
(playing devil's advocate, here, though I do prefer minimally compressed
or lossless images)
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
