Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #269006 > unrolled thread
| Started by | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-11-25 10:58 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-11-26 11:20 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 78 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Ad Nauseum vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-25 10:58 -0800
Re: Ad Nauseum Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 12:19 -0700
Re: Ad Nauseum vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-25 11:24 -0800
Re: Ad Nauseum Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 13:14 -0700
Re: Ad Nauseum Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-25 19:43 -0500
Re: Ad Nauseum Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 18:48 -0700
Re: Ad Nauseum chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-26 07:26 -0600
Re: Ad Nauseum Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-26 10:59 -0500
Re: Ad Nauseum DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-28 09:04 -0500
Re: Ad Nauseum DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-26 20:56 -0500
I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-11-26 13:51 -0800
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-26 14:19 -0800
I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-11-26 14:44 -0800
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 15:53 -0700
Zooming "the entire screen" ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-11-26 15:01 -0800
Re: Zooming "the entire screen" ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: Zooming "the entire screen" ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 16:44 -0700
Zooming "the entire screen" ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-11-26 17:08 -0800
Re: Zooming "the entire screen" ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 18:35 -0700
Re: Zooming "the entire screen" ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 19:06 -0700
I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-11-26 23:49 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:10 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-27 11:33 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:50 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-27 15:51 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-27 22:05 +0100
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-27 17:11 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 14:22 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-27 17:11 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 20:38 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-27 19:13 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 20:38 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:49 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-27 23:01 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 21:08 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-28 08:56 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 09:31 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-29 13:36 -0600
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-29 12:48 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-29 11:59 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-29 15:14 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-29 13:28 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 14:11 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 09:06 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 12:09 -0500
StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-11-27 14:53 -0800
Re: StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 16:47 -0700
Re: StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 16:54 -0800
The font size that OSX uses. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-11-27 17:14 -0800
Re: The font size that OSX uses. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 18:29 -0700
Re: The font size that OSX uses. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:33 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 08:14 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 11:17 -0500
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 10:29 -0800
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 14:11 -0700
Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 14:24 -0800
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-26 15:14 -0800
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 15:36 -0800
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-26 15:43 -0800
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 16:57 -0700
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 19:29 -0500
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 17:35 -0700
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 16:45 -0800
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 20:39 -0500
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 18:48 -0700
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-28 08:52 -0500
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-28 09:11 -0500
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 17:39 -0700
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-26 20:55 -0500
Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-11-27 12:57 -0600
Re: Ad Nauseum Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Ad Nauseum Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 18:45 -0700
Re: Ad Nauseum Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 13:24 -0500
Re: Ad Nauseum Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 11:29 -0500
Re: Ad Nauseum Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 09:41 -0700
Re: Ad Nauseum Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 13:41 -0500
Re: Ad Nauseum Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 12:09 -0700
Re: Ad Nauseum Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 11:20 -0800
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-29 15:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <os4kerzzjp8k$.1j466s32iesm0$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #269661 |
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:36:45 -0600, chrisv wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>Slimer wrote: >>> >>> File sizes are USUALLY larger with open formats. I think OGG Vorbis and >>> FLAC are the only exceptions. >> >>PNG is larger than JPG because it is a lossless format. >> >>Don't you dimbulbs ever get something right? > > Rarely, on technical issues. You are correct. Peter Kohlmann is most likely to get technical issues incorrect. In fact it's difficult to find him actually being correct about anything technical. Kind of like you chrisv. -- flatfish+++ Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of Business. Before Switching To Linux Read This: http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-29 13:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <D09F7A82.420A1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #269682 |
On 11/29/14, 1:14 PM, in article os4kerzzjp8k$.1j466s32iesm0$.dlg@40tude.net, "flatfish+++" <phlatphish@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:36:45 -0600, chrisv wrote: > >> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> Slimer wrote: >>>> >>>> File sizes are USUALLY larger with open formats. I think OGG Vorbis and >>>> FLAC are the only exceptions. >>> >>> PNG is larger than JPG because it is a lossless format. >>> >>> Don't you dimbulbs ever get something right? >> >> Rarely, on technical issues. > > You are correct. > Peter Kohlmann is most likely to get technical issues incorrect. > In fact it's difficult to find him actually being correct about > anything technical. > > Kind of like you chrisv. Not only are they rarely correct, they refuse to admit to their errors, esp. if someone outside of the herd points it out. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 14:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <D09CE17E.41EA0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #269361 |
On 11/27/14, 1:51 PM, in article m582s8$kgt$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: ... >>> PNG is better in every imaginable way. I can't help but notice that open >>> formats are generally superior in every area. MP3 and AAC are jokes next >>> to OGG & especially Opus whereas WMA and iTunes lossless are pathetic >>> compared to FLAC's excellent compression. Sure the quality is the same, >>> but the compression isn't. >> >> PNG is larger... and if you care about GIF animation it lacks that, too. But >> it does work for pretty much any kind of image. > > Are you sure that PNG doesn't do animation? As far as I remember, it was > meant as a total replacement for GIF. There is a non-standard addition which adds it (APNG), but it is not commonly used and not well supported in browsers. You can test if your browser supports it here: <https://people.mozilla.org/~dolske/apng/demo.html> Safari and Firefox support APNG Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Opera do not. Seems the same on OS X and Windows, though of course IE is not on OS X. APNG allows for much better control of transparency and supports far more colors than do GIFs. The file size is generally bigger though. ... >>> I disagree. I truly see no weakness in PNG whatsoever. >> >> File size. Other than that, though, not much if anything. > > File sizes are USUALLY larger with open formats. I think OGG Vorbis and > FLAC are the only exceptions. If you have a lot of images it can matter - especially on the web when some people pay by the amount of data they download, or even if not mobile networks can be relatively slow. Still, does not mean you should never use PNGs... they are often the best choice. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 09:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <b31eaeb9-1c0b-4001-b6a5-0db37c0e0943@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #269322 |
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:33:21 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote:
> On 27/11/2014 11:10 AM, Snit wrote:
> > On 11/27/14, 12:49 AM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.26{11.49P.Seattle.2014},
> > "Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> After watching you (snit) zoom my screenshot,
> >> I realize that I should post -only- .PNG screenshots;
> >> .JPG files are waaay too "lossy".
> >
> > For crisp images, yes.
>
> PNG is better in every imaginable way.
Not when it comes to bandwidth.
> I can't help but notice that open
> formats are generally superior in every area. MP3 and AAC are jokes next
> to OGG & especially Opus whereas WMA and iTunes lossless are pathetic
> compared to FLAC's excellent compression. Sure the quality is the same,
> but the compression isn't.
??!
> >> Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG
> >> Jeff-Relf.Me/Super.Fast.Monopoly.PNG
> >> Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG
> >>
> >> Sadly, some are 4 megs, instead of 11Ž2 megs.
> >
> > They do tend to be quite a bit larger... so it really depends on your
> > purpose. For photos and the like JPGs are often fine. For sharp lines and
> > the like JPGs are not a good choice. GIFs might work just fine for most of
> > what you post - the text. For text and images PNGs will serve you best.
>
> I disagree. I truly see no weakness in PNG whatsoever.
If a person has 100 (or more) photos in their web gallery you think it makes more sense to use .png over .jpg?
> It was
> brilliantly thought out and should replace JPG and has already replaced
> the format it sought to destroy in GIF.
You're confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 12:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2ee124d65dfaa9e59896a8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #269334 |
In article <b31eaeb9-1c0b-4001-b6a5-0db37c0e0943
@googlegroups.com>, fretwizzer@gmail.com says...
>
> On Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:33:21 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote:
> > On 27/11/2014 11:10 AM, Snit wrote:
> > > On 11/27/14, 12:49 AM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.26{11.49P.Seattle.2014},
> > > "Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> After watching you (snit) zoom my screenshot,
> > >> I realize that I should post -only- .PNG screenshots;
> > >> .JPG files are waaay too "lossy".
> > >
> > > For crisp images, yes.
> >
> > PNG is better in every imaginable way.
>
> Not when it comes to bandwidth.
>
> > I can't help but notice that open
> > formats are generally superior in every area. MP3 and AAC are jokes next
> > to OGG & especially Opus whereas WMA and iTunes lossless are pathetic
> > compared to FLAC's excellent compression. Sure the quality is the same,
> > but the compression isn't.
>
> ??!
>
> > >> Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG
> > >> Jeff-Relf.Me/Super.Fast.Monopoly.PNG
> > >> Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG
> > >>
> > >> Sadly, some are 4 megs, instead of 11Ž2 megs.
> > >
> > > They do tend to be quite a bit larger... so it really depends on your
> > > purpose. For photos and the like JPGs are often fine. For sharp lines and
> > > the like JPGs are not a good choice. GIFs might work just fine for most of
> > > what you post - the text. For text and images PNGs will serve you best.
> >
> > I disagree. I truly see no weakness in PNG whatsoever.
>
> If a person has 100 (or more) photos in their web gallery you think it makes more sense to use .png over .jpg?
>
> > It was
> > brilliantly thought out and should replace JPG and has already replaced
> > the format it sought to destroy in GIF.
>
> You're confused.
This is a snit forgery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 14:53 -0800 |
| Subject | StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.27{2.53P.Seattle.2014}> |
| In reply to | #269305 |
<PRE><big><big> @snit, I watched: * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> I was impressed with the quality and effort you put into it; but I don't use Desktop Linux, so I have no further comment. I think you're -very- well educated, very literate. While I appreciate that, still, we're quite different, you and I; I'm more into programming, you're more into "general education". You told me: > For text and images PNGs will serve you best. Right, I agree, thanks for helping me realize that. We agree on something ! ! Imagine that. You replied to me: > > 27 people ? Are you sure ? > > I -never- get numbers like that, never. > > I'm lucky if one person sees it, much less 5. > > I am often surprised by how many people actually read COLA and click my > links. There are lurkers apparently. I rarely check the actual file hits > with my host (though they are available), I mostly use the StatCounter stuff > that relies on JavaScript. If people have a blocker I do not see them. So be it. StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. I take the raw logs, filter out the bots, and look at that. For me, bots outnumber humans 5 to 1, or some such. And the bots are hard to filter out. Bots pretend to be humans, and people hide their identities. When a visitor is obviously human, well identified, with a resonable IP address ( I check )... then, and only then, do I count it as "a hit". It's a fine art, and it requires much manual effort; > > X.EXE needs that final slash; to wit: > > > > tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OSXZoom/ > > [ Not: tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OSXZoom ] > > Hmmm, I did not think any would care about the final slash. Odd. FireFox just redirects; X.EXE should too, I suppose. If it's a folder, and not a file, you need the slash. "OSXZoom" is not a file. > > "command-+" seems more awkward than Ctrl·Wheeling. > > If Ctrl+wheel was not already set up for zooming the full screen I might set > mine to that. As I noted elsewhere, though, the wheeling does not give you > smaller increments. > > I rarely zoom but, to see if I like it, > I might [ set Ctrl+wheel to ] zoom in and out in Safari. Suppose you want larger text everywhere, all the time, whenever you reboot... how do you do that ? In Win8, you change the "eb,ff,ff,ff" ( 0xffeb, -21 pixels high ), below, merge it with the registry, and then reboot. It's more fucked up than Desktop Linux... oh well. From: "Jeff-Relf.Me/Win_8_.REG.TXT": [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics] ; This sets font sizes but, sadly, not the font faces. ; "DejaVu LGC Sans Mono", -25 px, 96 (185) dpi ( 2160 x 3840, 24 Inch, scaled 150% ). ; Defined in "struct tagLOGFONT". ; "CaptionFont"=hex:e7,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,\ "CaptionFont"=hex:eb,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 16:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. |
| Message-ID | <D09D0611.41EC6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #269391 |
On 11/27/14, 3:53 PM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.27{2.53P.Seattle.2014},
"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote:
>
> @snit, I watched:
>
> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
>
> I was impressed with the quality and effort you put into it;
> but I don't use Desktop Linux, so I have no further comment.
Fair enough. Many of the bugs I show there I have reported... though the
COLA "advocates" still deny them.
> I think you're -very- well educated, very literate.
Thank you. I do use screencasting quite a bit with the classes I teach, so I
have a fair amount of experience with doing so. Those videos were made, in
part, to get me back into the swing of things before I went into a "real"
project.
> While I appreciate that, still, we're quite different, you and I;
> I'm more into programming, you're more into "general education".
Fair enough. I have taken some programming classes years ago and do basic
scripting - enough to do thing like my recent script to allow me to go up a
directory in Safari by hitting Command+Up Arrow, but I am by no means a
programmer. The whole script is maybe 20-30 lines long and, I am sure, could
be made shorter (and more clear) by someone who really knew what they were
doing. That is true of most of my "programs". I have a few exceptions, but I
think my biggest program (script, really) was 2000-3000 lines long of
AppleScript (hardly a "real" language) and was designed as a AIM room bot.
It worked pretty darn well as a psuedo-Turing machine... people in chat
rooms would think it was human (if a bit odd) for hours at a time.
> You told me:
>> For text and images PNGs will serve you best.
>
> Right, I agree, thanks for helping me realize that.
> We agree on something ! ! Imagine that.
I will try harder in the future. :)
> You replied to me:
>>> 27 people ? Are you sure ?
>>> I -never- get numbers like that, never.
>>> I'm lucky if one person sees it, much less 5.
>>
>> I am often surprised by how many people actually read COLA and click my
>> links. There are lurkers apparently. I rarely check the actual file hits
>> with my host (though they are available), I mostly use the StatCounter stuff
>> that relies on JavaScript. If people have a blocker I do not see them. So be
>> it.
>
> StatCounter doesn't work, sorry.
It has its flaws... as I said, anyone using a blocker will not be counted. I
use it for basic stats such as what browsers are common and the like -
mostly to see the low end people use. People using the low end in terms of
screen resolution and browsers are not likely to use blockers so it serves
my needs well.
> I take the raw logs, filter out the bots, and look at that.
> For me, bots outnumber humans 5 to 1, or some such.
Wow... I do not get that, though I do get a fair number of bots.
> And the bots are hard to filter out.
> Bots pretend to be humans, and people hide their identities.
>
> When a visitor is obviously human, well identified,
> with a resonable IP address ( I check )...
> then, and only then, do I count it as "a hit".
>
> It's a fine art, and it requires much manual effort;
I do not worry too much about hits... even with my real sites, there are
other things I care about more (which pages are being viewed, how many calls
I get, how much work I get, etc.).
>>> X.EXE needs that final slash; to wit:
>>>
>>> tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OSXZoom/
>>> [ Not: tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OSXZoom ]
>>
>> Hmmm, I did not think any would care about the final slash. Odd.
>
> FireFox just redirects; X.EXE should too, I suppose.
>
> If it's a folder, and not a file, you need the slash.
> "OSXZoom" is not a file.
By default the server should show the index.html file but no doubt
technically, yes, I should include the /.
>>> "command-+" seems more awkward than Ctrl·Wheeling.
>>
>> If Ctrl+wheel was not already set up for zooming the full screen I might set
>> mine to that. As I noted elsewhere, though, the wheeling does not give you
>> smaller increments.
>>
>> I rarely zoom but, to see if I like it,
>> I might [ set Ctrl+wheel to ] zoom in and out in Safari.
>
> Suppose you want larger text everywhere, all the time,
> whenever you reboot... how do you do that ?
I can set Safari to not show text smaller than a size I select (that is
available in its preferences) but that would not make fonts bigger than that
increase. If I wanted all text to be bigger I could do that with a CSS file.
As it is I have one now that I add the right scroll bar to all pages (I have
a pet peeve about centered sites jumping back and forth when they are or are
not taller than the browser window - this fixes that) and it overrides
Google News's stupid behavior to *not* show you visited links.
I could, of course, also set the resolution to be lower making everything on
the screen bigger (I have done that for sight impaired people).
> In Win8, you change the "eb,ff,ff,ff" ( 0xffeb, -21 pixels high ), below,
> merge it with the registry, and then reboot.
> It's more fucked up than Desktop Linux... oh well.
I think just about any browser lets you define a user style sheet... and
doing it that way seems to give more control and to my mind is more straight
forward.
> From: "Jeff-Relf.Me/Win_8_.REG.TXT":
>
> [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics]
> ; This sets font sizes but, sadly, not the font faces.
> ; "DejaVu LGC Sans Mono", -25 px, 96 (185) dpi ( 2160 x 3840, 24 Inch,
> scaled 150% ).
> ; Defined in "struct tagLOGFONT".
> ;
>
"CaptionFont"=hex:e7,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,>
\
>
>
>
"CaptionFont"=hex:eb,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,>
\
>
Doing it with CSS you could also set the font-face. Here, I just added this
to my CSS file:
* {
font-family: "Comic Sans MS";
font-style: bold;
font-size: 30px;
text-shadow: 2px 2px 0px rgba(126,255,59,0.75);
color: #EE0EF2;
}
And to me your page looks like this:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/AmazingFont.png>
I am now going to put it back to how it was before my eyes burn out of my
head.
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 16:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. |
| Message-ID | <8261180e-34d5-4958-9c8c-0220518269c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #269393 |
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 11:47:19 PM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 11/27/14, 3:53 PM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.27{2.53P.Seattle.2014},
> "Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote:
>
> >
> > @snit, I watched:
> >
> > * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
> > * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
> > * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
> > * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
> >
> > I was impressed with the quality and effort you put into it;
> > but I don't use Desktop Linux, so I have no further comment.
>
> Fair enough. Many of the bugs I show there I have reported... though the
> COLA "advocates" still deny them.
Your first and biggest bug report was just a big list of bitching by you. Where you could have done some good you could not help but turn yourself into a complete ass and make put yourself in a position to never be taken seriously.
All it took was one post from you for the KDE team to realize you were a troll.
> > I think you're -very- well educated, very literate.
>
> Thank you. I do use screencasting quite a bit with the classes I teach, so I
> have a fair amount of experience with doing so. Those videos were made, in
> part, to get me back into the swing of things before I went into a "real"
> project.
Prove you teach classes.
Prove you use screencasting.
Prove you have a real product.
> > While I appreciate that, still, we're quite different, you and I;
> > I'm more into programming, you're more into "general education".
>
> Fair enough. I have taken some programming classes years ago and do basic
> scripting - enough to do thing like my recent script to allow me to go up a
> directory in Safari by hitting Command+Up Arrow, but I am by no means a
> programmer.
That you even considered mentioning a stupid Apple Script is all the proof anyone needs that you are not a real programmer.
> The whole script is maybe 20-30 lines long and, I am sure, could
> be made shorter (and more clear) by someone who really knew what they were
> doing.
Which is not you.
> That is true of most of my "programs". I have a few exceptions, but I
> think my biggest program (script, really) was 2000-3000 lines long of
> AppleScript (hardly a "real" language) and was designed as a AIM room bot.
The one you wrote to try to impress Elizabot. Your biggest project of your life was to get her attention. Then you accused her of harassing you.
> It worked pretty darn well as a psuedo-Turing machine... people in chat
> rooms would think it was human (if a bit odd) for hours at a time.
It could not be worse than you are.
> > You told me:
> >> For text and images PNGs will serve you best.
> >
> > Right, I agree, thanks for helping me realize that.
> > We agree on something ! ! Imagine that.
>
> I will try harder in the future. :)
Ha ha. Shut the fuck up.
> > You replied to me:
> >>> 27 people ? Are you sure ?
> >>> I -never- get numbers like that, never.
> >>> I'm lucky if one person sees it, much less 5.
> >>
> >> I am often surprised by how many people actually read COLA and click my
> >> links. There are lurkers apparently. I rarely check the actual file hits
> >> with my host (though they are available), I mostly use the StatCounter stuff
> >> that relies on JavaScript. If people have a blocker I do not see them. So be
> >> it.
> >
> > StatCounter doesn't work, sorry.
>
> It has its flaws... as I said, anyone using a blocker will not be counted. I
> use it for basic stats such as what browsers are common and the like -
> mostly to see the low end people use. People using the low end in terms of
> screen resolution and browsers are not likely to use blockers so it serves
> my needs well.
You use it to track down when I visit the links you post so you can bitch. Jeff saw you do that today.
> > I take the raw logs, filter out the bots, and look at that.
> > For me, bots outnumber humans 5 to 1, or some such.
>
> Wow... I do not get that, though I do get a fair number of bots.
How would you even know?
> > And the bots are hard to filter out.
> > Bots pretend to be humans, and people hide their identities.
> >
> > When a visitor is obviously human, well identified,
> > with a resonable IP address ( I check )...
> > then, and only then, do I count it as "a hit".
> >
> > It's a fine art, and it requires much manual effort;
>
> I do not worry too much about hits... even with my real sites, there are
> other things I care about more (which pages are being viewed, how many calls
> I get, how much work I get, etc.).
Your work is trolling newsgroups.
> >>> X.EXE needs that final slash; to wit:
> >>>
> >>> tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OSXZoom/
> >>> [ Not: tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OSXZoom ]
> >>
> >> Hmmm, I did not think any would care about the final slash. Odd.
> >
> > FireFox just redirects; X.EXE should too, I suppose.
> >
> > If it's a folder, and not a file, you need the slash.
> > "OSXZoom" is not a file.
>
> By default the server should show the index.html file but no doubt
> technically, yes, I should include the /.
You have been screwing up on purpose. Sure, Snit.
> >>> "command-+" seems more awkward than Ctrl·Wheeling.
> >>
> >> If Ctrl+wheel was not already set up for zooming the full screen I might set
> >> mine to that. As I noted elsewhere, though, the wheeling does not give you
> >> smaller increments.
> >>
> >> I rarely zoom but, to see if I like it,
> >> I might [ set Ctrl+wheel to ] zoom in and out in Safari.
> >
> > Suppose you want larger text everywhere, all the time,
> > whenever you reboot... how do you do that ?
>
> I can set Safari to not show text smaller than a size I select (that is
> available in its preferences) but that would not make fonts bigger than that
> increase.
Captain Obvious strikes again!
> If I wanted all text to be bigger I could do that with a CSS file.
> As it is I have one now that I add the right scroll bar to all pages (I have
> a pet peeve about centered sites jumping back and forth when they are or are
> not taller than the browser window - this fixes that) and it overrides
> Google News's stupid behavior to *not* show you visited links.
Ever think they have it set that way for a reason? The data on those links changes be as new things happen. That is why they call it news, genius.
> I could, of course, also set the resolution to be lower making everything on
> the screen bigger (I have done that for sight impaired people).
Another comment by Captain Obvious.
> > In Win8, you change the "eb,ff,ff,ff" ( 0xffeb, -21 pixels high ), below,
> > merge it with the registry, and then reboot.
> > It's more fucked up than Desktop Linux... oh well.
>
> I think just about any browser lets you define a user style sheet... and
> doing it that way seems to give more control and to my mind is more straight
> forward.
You think they do? Why not check at least the main ones? Don't you claim to be a web developer?
> > From: "Jeff-Relf.Me/Win_8_.REG.TXT":
> >
> > [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics]
> > ; This sets font sizes but, sadly, not the font faces.
> > ; "DejaVu LGC Sans Mono", -25 px, 96 (185) dpi ( 2160 x 3840, 24 Inch,
> > scaled 150% ).
> > ; Defined in "struct tagLOGFONT".
> > ;
> >
> "CaptionFont"=hex:e7,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,>
> \
> >
> >
> >
> "CaptionFont"=hex:eb,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,90,01,00,00,>
> \
> >
> Doing it with CSS you could also set the font-face. Here, I just added this
> to my CSS file:
>
> * {
You set it to *! That is the least efficient way to do it and if you used percentages it would be screw you up as you have child elements.
> font-family: "Comic Sans MS";
This is the font you pick as an example! I would love to see the websites you "design".
> font-style: bold;
> font-size: 30px;
> text-shadow: 2px 2px 0px rgba(126,255,59,0.75);
> color: #EE0EF2;
> }
>
> And to me your page looks like this:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/AmazingFont.png>
A look at the choices the Prescott Computer Guy makes in design.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 17:14 -0800 |
| Subject | The font size that OSX uses. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.27{5.14P.Seattle.2014}> |
| In reply to | #269393 |
<PRE><big><big>
I was telling you (snit) how to change the font size that Win8 uses;
I was -not- talking about browsers.
How would you do this yourself, as an OSX user ?
If you think "tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/AmazingFont.png" is funny,
Check out ＜<A hRef='http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Snit.PNG'
target=_blank>This screenshot of "prescottcomputerguy.com"</A>＞.
I'm using the following FireFox settings:
Jeff-Relf.Me/userContent.CSS.TXT
Jeff-Relf.Me/userChrome.CSS.TXT
( remove the ".TXT" and put it in your profile's "Chrome" folder )
Normally, I use this Win8 Theme ( to run it, remove the ".TXT" ):
Jeff-Relf.Me/_Best_.Theme.TXT
[ For the Control Panel, I use this Theme:
Jeff-Relf.Me/_Control_Panel_.Theme.TXT ]
You said your AIM bot:
> [...] worked pretty darn well as a psuedo-Turing machine... people
> in chat rooms would think it was human (if a bit odd) for hours at a time.
I couldn't do that... I don't like fooling people.
When Jay Leno, or someone, does that ( on the street, for laughs ),
I fast-forward through it... because I can't stand to watch it.
> > StatCounter doesn't work, sorry.
>
> It has its flaws... as I said, anyone using a blocker will not be counted.
> I use it for basic stats such as what browsers are common and the like -
> mostly to see the low end people use. People using the low end in terms of
> screen resolution and browsers are not likely to use blockers so it serves
> my needs well.
Bots use fake "User-Agent:" strings,
with many variations... including the low-end stuff.
StatCounter ( and the like ) really suck, I think.
I know, because I've looked -very- closely at the raw logs.
> > FireFox just redirects; X.EXE should too, I suppose.
> >
> > If it's a folder, and not a file, you need the slash.
> > "OSXZoom" is not a file.
>
> By default the server should show the index.html file but no doubt
> technically, yes, I should include the /.
Most servers return the "index.html" page when you omit the /.
Your server is different; it does a re-direct. It fooled me
because, at first, I didn't notice that that last slash was missing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 18:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The font size that OSX uses. |
| Message-ID | <D09D1DFF.41ED4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #269398 |
On 11/27/14, 6:14 PM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.27{5.14P.Seattle.2014},
"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote:
> ?
> I was telling you (snit) how to change the font size that Win8 uses;
> I was -not- talking about browsers.
Ah, I thought you still meant the browser... did not really pay attention to
your registry hacks - don't do those much myself.
> How would you do this yourself, as an OSX user ?
I could edit a plist to do that - or easier use TinkerTool to do it for me.
<http://www.bresink.com/osx/0TinkerTool/Images-en/6Fonts.png>
I tend not to mess with stuff like that though. No real need or desire to do
so.
> If you think "tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/AmazingFont.png" is funny,
> Check out ＜This screenshot of "prescottcomputerguy.com"
> <http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Snit.PNG> ＞.
>
> I'm using the following FireFox settings:
>
> Jeff-Relf.Me/userContent.CSS.TXT
> Jeff-Relf.Me/userChrome.CSS.TXT
> ( remove the ".TXT" and put it in your profile's "Chrome" folder )
>
> Normally, I use this Win8 Theme ( to run it, remove the ".TXT" ):
>
> Jeff-Relf.Me/_Best_.Theme.TXT
> [ For the Control Panel, I use this Theme:
> Jeff-Relf.Me/_Control_Panel_.Theme.TXT ]
Use what you like - and you should still get the primary content but you
lose a lot of formatting with what you do. So be it.
> You said your AIM bot:
>> [...] worked pretty darn well as a psuedo-Turing machine... people
>> in chat rooms would think it was human (if a bit odd) for hours at a time.
>
> I couldn't do that... I don't like fooling people.
Eventually I did let people in on the joke - those who did not figure it out
on their own.
> When Jay Leno, or someone, does that ( on the street, for laughs ),
> I fast-forward through it... because I can't stand to watch it.
>
>>> StatCounter doesn't work, sorry.
>>
>> It has its flaws... as I said, anyone using a blocker will not be counted.
>> I use it for basic stats such as what browsers are common and the like -
>> mostly to see the low end people use. People using the low end in terms of
>> screen resolution and browsers are not likely to use blockers so it serves
>> my needs well.
>
> Bots use fake "User-Agent:" strings,
> with many variations... including the low-end stuff.
>
> StatCounter ( and the like ) really suck, I think.
> I know, because I've looked -very- closely at the raw logs.
Well, if the info is faked to look like real data that is what it will look
like. For now it gives me what I need... though I do sometimes look at the
data from my web host. Not often though. No real need or desire.
>>> FireFox just redirects; X.EXE should too, I suppose.
>>>
>>> If it's a folder, and not a file, you need the slash.
>>> "OSXZoom" is not a file.
>>
>> By default the server should show the index.html file but no doubt
>> technically, yes, I should include the /.
>
> Most servers return the "index.html" page when you omit the /.
>
> Your server is different; it does a re-direct. It fooled me
> because, at first, I didn't notice that that last slash was missing.
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 19:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: The font size that OSX uses. |
| Message-ID | <a2a3be62-035f-48b2-82ce-02efedae16e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #269398 |
On Friday, November 28, 2014 1:14:20 AM UTC, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > I was telling you (snit) how to change the font size that Win8 uses; > I was -not- talking about browsers. You mean Snit's reading comprehension problems bit him in the ass again. Say it ain't so! > How would you do this yourself, as an OSX user ? He would post to a Linux group asking how to do it then insist he was not trolling. > If you think "tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/AmazingFont.png" is funny, > Check out ＜This screenshot of "prescottcomputerguy.com"＞. Try it from a mobile device. > I'm using the following FireFox settings: > > Jeff-Relf.Me/userContent.CSS.TXT > Jeff-Relf.Me/userChrome.CSS.TXT > ( remove the ".TXT" and put it in your profile's "Chrome" folder ) > > Normally, I use this Win8 Theme ( to run it, remove the ".TXT" ): > > Jeff-Relf.Me/_Best_.Theme.TXT > [ For the Control Panel, I use this Theme: > Jeff-Relf.Me/_Control_Panel_.Theme.TXT ] > > You said your AIM bot: > > [...] worked pretty darn well as a psuedo-Turing machine... people > > in chat rooms would think it was human (if a bit odd) for hours at a time. > > I couldn't do that... I don't like fooling people. It is likely nobody was fooled. Snit thinks people are stupid and that he fools them in COLA but when was the last time that happened. Other than with his socks and shills that is. > When Jay Leno, or someone, does that ( on the street, for laughs ), > I fast-forward through it... because I can't stand to watch it. > > > > StatCounter doesn't work, sorry. > > > > It has its flaws... as I said, anyone using a blocker will not be counted. > > I use it for basic stats such as what browsers are common and the like - > > mostly to see the low end people use. People using the low end in terms of > > screen resolution and browsers are not likely to use blockers so it serves > > my needs well. > > Bots use fake "User-Agent:" strings, > with many variations... including the low-end stuff. Snit could use pointers on how to forge such things. He screwed up trying to do it to Sandman. > StatCounter ( and the like ) really suck, I think. > I know, because I've looked -very- closely at the raw logs. > > > > FireFox just redirects; X.EXE should too, I suppose. > > > > > > If it's a folder, and not a file, you need the slash. > > > "OSXZoom" is not a file. > > > > By default the server should show the index.html file but no doubt > > technically, yes, I should include the /. > > Most servers return the "index.html" page when you omit the /. > > Your server is different; it does a re-direct. It fooled me > because, at first, I didn't notice that that last slash was missing. Sounds like Snit screwed up his settings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 08:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <70b899ab-42f6-4a82-b805-06b54281d615@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #269277 |
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 12:49:10 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > After watching you (snit) zoom my screenshot, > I realize that I should post -only- .PNG screenshots; > .JPG files are waaay too "lossy". > > Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Super.Fast.Monopoly.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG > > Sadly, some are 4 megs, instead of 1½ megs. > > You replied to me: > > > Checking my web logs, I notice that only you, > > > Slimer, Scott, Ezekiel and a Kalispell Montana guy[*] > > > checked the screenshot. > > > > I just checked mine... 27 people have already looked at this page... most > > just once but Carroll (67.172.149.244) has looked at it 4 times - three > > times with Chrome and once with Safari. Why? Whatever. > > Oops, I mistook Carroll's IP address for Ezekiel's. I accessed yours but I didn't access Snit's so he's just doing what he does. He likes to play 'victim'... point to a link in public and, when it's actually accessed, whine about it in public. I've never understood the mindset of such a person. > 27 people ? Are you sure ? > I -never- get numbers like that, never. > I'm lucky if one person sees it, much less 5. > > I accessed your link -several- times, using three different browsers, > including X.EXE -- X.EXE needs that final slash; to wit: Yeah, note that Snit didn't whine about that... he only whined about his 'boogieman' (me), who never went near his stuff. > Who is this Montana guy, I wonder. Possibly GreyCloud but they don't have a lot to do in MT so it could be anyone ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 11:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2ee11890f140a4649896a1@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #269308 |
In article <70b899ab-42f6-4a82-b805-06b54281d615 @googlegroups.com>, fretwizzer@gmail.com says... > > On Thursday, November 27, 2014 12:49:10 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > After watching you (snit) zoom my screenshot, > > I realize that I should post -only- .PNG screenshots; > > .JPG files are waaay too "lossy". > > > > Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG > > Jeff-Relf.Me/Super.Fast.Monopoly.PNG > > Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG > > > > Sadly, some are 4 megs, instead of 1? megs. > > > > You replied to me: > > > > Checking my web logs, I notice that only you, > > > > Slimer, Scott, Ezekiel and a Kalispell Montana guy[*] > > > > checked the screenshot. > > > > > > I just checked mine... 27 people have already looked at this page... most > > > just once but Carroll (67.172.149.244) has looked at it 4 times - three > > > times with Chrome and once with Safari. Why? Whatever. > > > > Oops, I mistook Carroll's IP address for Ezekiel's. > > I accessed yours but I didn't access Snit's so he's just doing what he does. He likes to play 'victim'... point to a link in public and, when it's actually accessed, whine about it in public. I've never understood the mindset of such a person. > > > 27 people ? Are you sure ? > > I -never- get numbers like that, never. > > I'm lucky if one person sees it, much less 5. > > > > I accessed your link -several- times, using three different browsers, > > including X.EXE -- X.EXE needs that final slash; to wit: > > Yeah, note that Snit didn't whine about that... he only whined about his 'boogieman' (me), who never went near his stuff. > > > Who is this Montana guy, I wonder. > > Possibly GreyCloud but they don't have a lot to do in MT so it could be anyone ;) This is a snit forgery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 10:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <c94c28dc-96b4-4479-a4dd-f8ab77a5e297@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #269308 |
On Thursday, 27 November 2014 16:14:37 UTC, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > I just checked mine... 27 people have already looked at this page... most > > > just once but Carroll (67.172.149.244) has looked at it 4 times - three > > > times with Chrome and once with Safari. Why? Whatever. > > > > Oops, I mistook Carroll's IP address for Ezekiel's. > > I accessed yours but I didn't access Snit's so he's just doing what he does. You followed the conversation enough to follow other links but not Snit's even though you clearly are obsessed with him. This is as believable as Santa going to 11072 W 67th Way, Arvada, CO 80004 and eating the microwavable turkey dinner you will be stuck with tonight because nobody cares enough about you to invite you to a real dinner. Not even your live in landlord, Karen, is going to allow you to eat with her. > He likes to play 'victim'... point to a link in public and, when it's actually accessed, whine about it in public. I've never understood the mindset of such a person. Snit noted your odd behavior and said "Whatever". Wow, he is playing such the victim. Call the cops! Clearly that "Whatever" shows deep offense and anger on his part, right? Good God you are a fucking moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 14:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <D09CE192.41EA0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #269345 |
On 11/27/14, 11:29 AM, in article c94c28dc-96b4-4479-a4dd-f8ab77a5e297@googlegroups.com, "tmelmosfire" <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 27 November 2014 16:14:37 UTC, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> I just checked mine... 27 people have already looked at this page... most >>>> just once but Carroll (67.172.149.244) has looked at it 4 times - three >>>> times with Chrome and once with Safari. Why? Whatever. >>> >>> Oops, I mistook Carroll's IP address for Ezekiel's. >> >> I accessed yours but I didn't access Snit's so he's just doing what he does. > > You followed the conversation enough to follow other links but not Snit's even > though you clearly are obsessed with him. Right. Carroll's story makes no sense. As is his norm. ... >> He likes to play 'victim'... point to a link in public and, when it's >> actually accessed, whine about it in public. I've never understood the >> mindset of such a person. > > Snit noted your odd behavior and said "Whatever". Wow, he is playing such the > victim. Call the cops! Clearly that "Whatever" shows deep offense and anger on > his part, right? > > Good God you are a fucking moron. I said "Why? Whatever." and Carroll assumed, based on his guilty conscience, that this must mean *this* act of his, of looking at a link I posted to COLA, was somehow victimizing me. Meanwhile he runs around whining about how he is my "victim" because he has been busted using multiple Google accounts and multiple socks... too many for him to even list. He shows no sign of having any clue what names he has used. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-27 14:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: I should post -only- .PNG screenshots. |
| Message-ID | <728f4809-a5ea-4e07-8995-8c305d76f259@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #269365 |
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:11:36 PM UTC, Snit wrote: > On 11/27/14, 11:29 AM, in article > c94c28dc-96b4-4479-a4dd-f8ab77a5e297@googlegroups.com, "tmelmosfire" > <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday, 27 November 2014 16:14:37 UTC, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > >>>> I just checked mine... 27 people have already looked at this page... most > >>>> just once but Carroll (67.172.149.244) has looked at it 4 times - three > >>>> times with Chrome and once with Safari. Why? Whatever. > >>> > >>> Oops, I mistook Carroll's IP address for Ezekiel's. > >> > >> I accessed yours but I didn't access Snit's so he's just doing what he does. > > > > You followed the conversation enough to follow other links but not Snit's even > > though you clearly are obsessed with him. > > Right. Carroll's story makes no sense. As is his norm. I clicked on the link to the image but I do not click your links because I do not want you tracking me. > ... > > >> He likes to play 'victim'... point to a link in public and, when it's > >> actually accessed, whine about it in public. I've never understood the > >> mindset of such a person. > > > > Snit noted your odd behavior and said "Whatever". Wow, he is playing such the > > victim. Call the cops! Clearly that "Whatever" shows deep offense and anger on > > his part, right? > > > > Good God you are a fucking moron. > > I said "Why? Whatever." and Carroll assumed, based on his guilty conscience, > that this must mean *this* act of his, of looking at a link I posted to > COLA, was somehow victimizing me. You repeatedly play victim when people look at your links. > Meanwhile he runs around whining about how he is my "victim" because he has > been busted using multiple Google accounts and multiple socks... too many > for him to even list. He shows no sign of having any clue what names he has > used. Bullshit. I post with one Google Groups account and you know it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 15:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. |
| Message-ID | <54765ee9$0$55968$b1db1813$46decd27@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #269248 |
On 11/26/2014 02:44 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > You ( Scott ) told me: >> I used to use the image link, but I've had it happen that >> chrome opens image links with a 1:1 zoom from imgur >> -- and no options for scaling. Kind of annoying. >> >> So I figured I'd avoid the annoyance for others by just using the page link. > > Zooming is supper easy... > > -- just hold down the Ctrl Key while wheeling the mouse. Yep, I'm a bonehead. Works fine in chrome. Tested with... http://i.imgur.com/OCkCKsd.png :) -- "I will continue to troll and spam my videos that show nothing more but the failings of Apple's virtual machine, so there." -It (paraphrased) -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 15:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. |
| Message-ID | <f6d4038d-0ff6-428c-a1c2-c8910a14ff57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #269253 |
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 4:14:52 PM UTC-7, vallor wrote: > On 11/26/2014 02:44 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > You ( Scott ) told me: > >> I used to use the image link, but I've had it happen that > >> chrome opens image links with a 1:1 zoom from imgur > >> -- and no options for scaling. Kind of annoying. > >> > >> So I figured I'd avoid the annoyance for others by just using the page link. > > > > Zooming is supper easy... > > > > -- just hold down the Ctrl Key while wheeling the mouse. > > Yep, I'm a bonehead. Works fine in chrome. > > Tested with... > > http://i.imgur.com/OCkCKsd.png > > :) I don't get it. What's the big deal with this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 15:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. |
| Message-ID | <547665bf$0$54655$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #269256 |
On 11/26/2014 03:36 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 4:14:52 PM UTC-7, vallor wrote: >> On 11/26/2014 02:44 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>> >>> You ( Scott ) told me: >>>> I used to use the image link, but I've had it happen that >>>> chrome opens image links with a 1:1 zoom from imgur >>>> -- and no options for scaling. Kind of annoying. >>>> >>>> So I figured I'd avoid the annoyance for others by just using the page link. >>> >>> Zooming is supper easy... >>> >>> -- just hold down the Ctrl Key while wheeling the mouse. >> >> Yep, I'm a bonehead. Works fine in chrome. >> >> Tested with... >> >> http://i.imgur.com/OCkCKsd.png >> >> :) > > I don't get it. What's the big deal with this? > When I share media, I like to be polite. :) (Well...except to the trolls. They can take a long walk off a short pier.) -- "I will continue to troll and spam my videos that show nothing more but the failings of Apple's virtual machine, so there." -It (paraphrased) -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-26 16:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: I just want the image, not tons of HTML crap. |
| Message-ID | <D09BB6FD.41DEB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #269257 |
On 11/26/14, 4:43 PM, in article 547665bf$0$54655$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>>> So I figured I'd avoid the annoyance for others by just using the page >>>>> link. >>>> >>>> Zooming is supper easy... >>>> >>>> -- just hold down the Ctrl Key while wheeling the mouse. >>> >>> Yep, I'm a bonehead. Works fine in chrome. >>> >>> Tested with... >>> >>> http://i.imgur.com/OCkCKsd.png >>> >>> :) >> >> I don't get it. What's the big deal with this? >> > > When I share media, I like to be polite. :) > > (Well...except to the trolls. They can take a long walk off a short pier.) Even though this is not a particularly technical group I figure most in COLA should know how to zoom in and out with their browser. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web