Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #448915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-23 14:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-24 15:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 380 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 14:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 14:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 22:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 23:16 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 17:33 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:12 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 14:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:55 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:03 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:11 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:08 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:15 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:19 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:25 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:32 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 17:25 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:02 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:19 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:18 -0700
"Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 07:23 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 06:29 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 07:32 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:15 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:42 +0000
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 13:21 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:59 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:11 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:26 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:37 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:51 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 07:45 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:34 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:51 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 12:38 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:55 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:07 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:33 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:50 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:51 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 14:48 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:54 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:13 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:29 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:47 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:56 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:58 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:54 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 07:34 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:28 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:52 -0700
"Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:12 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:33 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 19:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-25 20:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 16:18 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 19:52 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 20:17 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 03:46 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 20:57 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 04:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 05:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 02:49 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:52 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 08:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:17 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:53 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 10:43 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:40 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 21:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:12 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 23:48 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 23:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 18:00 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 19:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 02:17 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 19:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 02:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 17:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 18:27 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:49 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:29 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 09:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:57 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 17:27 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 10:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 10:02 -0700
Password protected FTP folders would work. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-27 10:09 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 10:18 -0700
Students can "collaborate" ( cheat ) using email. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-27 10:25 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 17:32 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 18:32 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 18:47 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 09:53 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 10:02 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 10:50 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 11:00 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:13 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 01:33 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 17:26 +0000
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 12:31 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:42 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:16 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:00 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 20:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 20:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 01:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 20:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 23:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 08:53 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 09:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 16:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 18:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 10:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 10:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:47 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:35 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 10:54 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 22:55 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-04-29 15:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:46 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-05-01 22:56 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 23:39 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:39 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:28 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 12:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:01 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 16:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:01 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 17:31 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 19:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:54 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 11:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 16:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 17:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:12 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 07:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:46 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 14:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 06:50 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:06 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:21 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 08:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:02 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-05-01 23:15 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 22:32 -0700
60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:21 -0700
Re: 60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:25 -0700
Re: 60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:50 -0700
I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 21:34 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 22:05 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 08:12 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:55 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 08:02 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 07:07 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-30 09:36 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 11:22 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-30 18:24 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:20 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:15 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:22 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:29 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:58 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 00:41 +0000
I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 18:05 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 01:25 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:20 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 12:35 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:31 -0500
I work two jobs. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 08:15 -0700
Re: I work two jobs. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:39 -0400
Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 09:11 -0700
Re: Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 13:59 -0400
Re: Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:29 -0400
Not everyone needs to be a supermodel. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:43 -0700
Re: I work two jobs. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:24 -0400
Re: I work two jobs. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 12:31 -0700
I've been living this way for 30 years. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:31 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 16:15 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:27 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:34 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 17:43 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 17:37 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:42 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 20:46 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:17 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:33 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:02 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:59 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 22:50 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 23:45 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 12:48 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:40 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:06 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:13 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 19:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 19:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:44 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:52 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 21:30 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 22:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 02:25 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 19:26 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 02:56 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 04:06 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:31 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 22:52 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:13 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:30 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:58 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:36 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-01 13:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:16 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:50 -0700
You called ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:10 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:34 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:32 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:48 -0700
I do _not_ eat fast food; I cook. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:37 -0700
I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 19:00 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:27 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:30 +0000
I'm not the only couch potato. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 19:46 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:55 +0000
A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 20:42 -0700
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 04:24 +0000
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 21:42 -0700
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:13 -0400
Rubber Vaginas. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:02 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 20:25 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:05 -0400
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:24 -0500
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:38 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 10:59 -0400
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:08 -0600
No caffine, No alcohol, No women; just a constant "happy". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 08:13 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:28 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:22 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:04 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 08:12 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 16:37 +0000
I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:02 -0700
Re: I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:15 -0700
Re: I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:18 -0700
SearchBar is standard to FireFox but... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:10 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-24 10:49 +0100
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-24 05:36 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 08:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 19:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 19:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 19:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 20:48 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 08:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:38 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:38 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:11 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:32 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 21:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 04:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:55 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 07:07 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 14:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:08 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:21 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:43 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:19 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:35 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:36 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 09:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:02 +0000
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 23:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b0299de-05f4-4b50-918f-34d1f52a06ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449081 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 4/24/18, 8:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> ...
> >> You prefer JS and I prefer AS. We each use what we know (and I cannot
> >> even say I know AS well). No real reason other than habit and comfort
> >> for me... in the long run JS is a better language to know.
> >
> >
> > It is, that why Apple supports it... and you ain't doin' this with AS:
> >
> > <https://streamable.com/qnr7e>
>
> Cool... how about doing the download and naming part? I sincerely think
> you could do it better than I did... and what I did was good enough
> where Owl and Peter thought I had to be faking it.
>
> --
> Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
> cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
> somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
>
> They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
>
> <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
Jessica Lane:
-----
I would love to see the group become that! I would love to see
people, for example, pick tasks they do with Desktop Linux which
they believe are handled better than the competition. I have
encouraged that for a long time. But so far few if any such tasks
have been shown.
-----
Marek Novotny:
-----
Linux is a Server, A Cloud, A service, A mobile Platform, A
developers dream come true, A super cluster, a Main frame and a
DESKTOP. It's not JUST a desktop. You're a two-bit bullshit coward
who refuses to face what Linux actually is. It's too much for you,
obviously.
-----
Jessica Lane (referencing to the above quote):
----
But it is not all of those things. Not even close. It is USED by
those things but it is NOT those things.
-----
Marek Novotny (some time later):
-----
Android isn't Linux. Android makes "use" of the Linux kernel.
Android is indeed open source, but it is not community driven open
source. Those that know the difference likely won't cry over Android
ditching the Linux kernel and adopting their own kernel. It simply
never mattered for all the reasons I stated above. Now the fact that
I have to articulate this in writing so these clueless tards like
DFS and Jessica Lane can gain some insights because they LACK their
own insights is what I find troubling. They both have no business
arguing in here. They are simply too stupid to have a conversation
about that which they just don't fundamentally understand in the
first place.
-----
Notice Marek uses the concepts I taught him (about how Linux is "USED" by the things he listed) then fantasizes about how I did not know the information HE got wrong and I corrected him with (and did so with no name calling or insults).
Paul Riddle:
-----
I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I and if that wasn't enough, I,I,I,I,I,I.
Talk about a narcissistic fool.
-----
Jessica Lane:
-----
You left out his I, I, I, I. AM. BETTER. THAN. Jessica Lane AND DFS!
He is clearly feeling very insecure these days.
-----
Marek Novotny:
-----
Well, if he wants to play this game with me he'll find pictures of
his wife on imgur with dildos all over her and I can cross post
those too. Keep fucking around Jessica Lane. I can play this game too.
-----
-
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know!
http://www.5z8.info/killallimmigrants_j6f7mm_gruesome-gunshot-wounds
Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590addd2-462e-4e0f-9f37-3b36523a01ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449081 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/24/18, 8:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> ...
> >> You prefer JS and I prefer AS. We each use what we know (and I cannot
> >> even say I know AS well). No real reason other than habit and comfort
> >> for me... in the long run JS is a better language to know.
> >
> >
> > It is, that why Apple supports it... and you ain't doin' this with AS:
> >
> > <https://streamable.com/qnr7e>
>
> Cool... how about doing the download and naming part? I sincerely think
> you could do it better than I did... and what I did was good enough
> where Owl and Peter thought I had to be faking it.
I think you have the wrong idea, the purpose was to show you what AS isn't
going to do, not to replicate you and owl's PDF thing. Notice that URL read
'localhost'? That's not an Apache server, it's spun up (in about 10 seconds)
using Node/Express. I just used that recipe site (with hardcoded params)
because we'd been talking about it.
Headed in the direction you were thinking, it'd be fairly easy to grab what
DOM elements you want from whatever because JS is the language of the
browser. Having JS in the terminal, as well, to combine the two, is seriously
powerful. At the beginning you can see how easy it is to create a route,
app.use('/scrape'). In the scrape.js file, on the line that reads...
'res.send(response.text)'
... is where you could display custom output from your source(s). The response,
as you see it there, is the entire web page, but it could be anything... like this,
for example:
<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8" /><title>Untitled</title><style>h1{font-size:1.625rem;font-weight:lighter}h2{font-size:1.125rem;font-weight:lighter}li p{margin:0}.recipe-print__column1{font-family:"Source Sans Pro",Arial;font-weight:lighter;font-size:.9rem;color:#2d2d2d;width:960px;margin:0 auto;line-height:1.25rem;border:1px solid #e6e6e6;padding:1.5rem}.recipe-print__description{margin-top:10px}.recipe-print__title{margin-top:0}.recipe-print__recipe-img{display:inline-block;max-width:140px}.recipe-print__summary{display:inline-block;margin-left:10px;vertical-align:top}.prepTime{list-style-type:none;display:inline-block;padding:0 0 7px}.prepTime__item{float:left;border-left:solid 1px #e6e6e6;width:80px;text-align:center;color:#999}.recipe-print__by{font-style:italic;color:#666;margin-right:.25rem}.recipe-print__copyright{font-size:.8rem;margin-top:1.5rem;color:#999}</style></head><body><div class="recipe-print__column1"><img class="recipe-print__recipe-img" src="https://images.media-allrecipes.com/userphotos/250x250/1415039.jpg" alt="Chef John's Stuffed Peppers" title="Chef John's Stuffed Peppers"><div class="recipe-print__summary"><h1 class="recipe-print__title">Chef John's Stuffed Peppers</h1><div class="rating-stars" data-scroll-to-anchor="reviews" data-ratingstars="4.79177236557007"><img height="20" width="20" src="https://images.media-allrecipes.com/ar-images/icons/rating-stars/full-star-2015.svg" role="presentation"> <img height="20" width="20" src="https://images.media-allrecipes.com/ar-images/icons/rating-stars/full-star-2015.svg" role="presentation"> <img height="20" width="20" src="https://images.media-allrecipes.com/ar-images/icons/rating-stars/full-star-2015.svg" role="presentation"> <img height="20" width="20" src="https://images.media-allrecipes.com/ar-images/icons/rating-stars/full-star-2015.svg" role="presentation"> <img height="20" width="20" src="https://images.media-allrecipes.com/ar-images/icons/rating-stars/full-star-2015.svg" role="presentation"></div><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="62" height="62"><svg xml:space="preserve" height="62" width="62" version="1.1" y="0" x="0" enable-background="new 0 0 42 41.999" id="timer"><path d="m21 0c-11.6 0-21 9.4-21 21s9.4 21 21 21 21-9.4 21-21-9.4-21-21-21zm0 37.5c-9.1 0-16.5-7.4-16.5-16.5s7.4-16.5 16.5-16.5 16.5 7.4 16.5 16.5-7.4 16.5-16.5 16.5z" fill="#b3b3b3" /><path d="m19.8 11.9v-4.2c0-0.6 0.5-1.2 1.2-1.2 0.6 0 1.2 0.5 1.2 1.2v4.2c0 0.6-0.5 1.2-1.2 1.2-0.6-0.1-1.2-0.6-1.2-1.2m0 22.6v-4.2c0-0.6 0.5-1.2 1.2-1.2 0.6 0 1.2 0.5 1.2 1.2v4.2c0 0.6-0.5 1.2-1.2 1.2-0.6-0.1-1.2-0.6-1.2-1.2m15.2-13h-4.2c-0.6 0-1.2-0.5-1.2-1.2 0-0.6 0.5-1.2 1.2-1.2h4.2c0.7 0 1.2 0.5 1.2 1.2 0 0.6-0.5 1.2-1.2 1.2m-23.5 0h-4.2c-0.6 0-1.2-0.5-1.2-1.2 0-0.6 0.5-1.2 1.2-1.2h4.2c0.6 0 1.2 0.5 1.2 1.2-0.1 0.6-0.6 1.2-1.2 1.2m1.8-7.4l-2.1-2.1c-0.3-0.3-0.3-0.9 0-1.2s0.9-0.3 1.2 0l2.1 2.1c0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0 1.2-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.3-0.6 0.3l-0.6-0.3m17.2 17l-2.1-2.1c-0.3-0.3-0.3-0.9 0-1.2s0.9-0.3 1.2 0l2.1 2.1c0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0 1.2-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.3-0.6 0.3s-0.4-0.1-0.6-0.3m-1-17l2.1-2.1c0.3-0.3 0.3-0.9 0-1.2s-0.9-0.3-1.2 0l-2.1 2.1c-0.3 0.3-0.3 0.9 0 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3l0.6-0.3m-17.2 17l2.1-2.1c0.3-0.3 0.3-0.9 0-1.2s-0.9-0.3-1.2 0l-2.1 2.1c-0.3 0.3-0.3 0.9 0 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3s0.5-0.1 0.6-0.3m7.7-5.8c1.9-2.3 9.6-11.8 6.2-9.6-3.9 2.4-9.5 6.6-9.5 6.6-0.5 0.4-0.9 1.1-0.9 1.8 0 1.3 1 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.6 0 1.1-0.2 1.5-0.5l0.1-0.1c0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.5" fill="#b3b3b3" /></svg></svg><!-- cooking stats --><ul class="prepTime"><li class="prepTime__item"><span class="icon--stats-clock"></span></li><li class="prepTime__item"><p class="prepTime__item--type">Prep</p><time itemprop="prepTime" datetime="PT30M"><span class="prepTime__item--time">30</span> m</time></li><li class="prepTime__item"><p class="prepTime__item--type">Cook</p><time itemprop="cookTime" datetime="PT1H20M"><span class="prepTime__item--time">1</span> h <span class="prepTime__item--time">20</span> m</time></li><li class="prepTime__item"><p class="prepTime__item--type">Ready In</p><time itemprop="totalTime" datetime="PT1H50M"><span class="prepTime__item--time">1</span> h <span class="prepTime__item--time">50</span> m</time></li></ul></div><div class="recipe-print__container2"><div><span class="recipe-print__by">Recipe By:</span><span>Chef John</span></div><div class="recipe-print__description">"This recipe's roots can be traced back to the Great Depression, when farmers first began selling the unripe peppers out of necessity. Of course, we did what Americans always do when faced with a new variety of food, we stuffed meat in it."</div><h2 class="recipe-print__h2">Ingredients</h2><ul style="display: inline-block; width: 49%; vertical-align: top"><li>185 g uncooked long grain white rice</li><li>475 ml water</li><li>Sauce:</li><li>1 onion, diced</li><li>15 ml olive oil</li><li>475 ml marinara sauce</li><li>235 ml beef broth</li><li>15 ml balsamic vinegar</li><li>0.8 g crushed red pepper flakes</li></ul><ul style="display: inline-block; width: 49%; vertical-align: top"><li>Peppers:</li><li>455 g lean ground beef</li><li>115 g hot Italian pork sausage, casing removed</li><li>1 (10 ounce) can diced tomatoes</li><li>15 g chopped fresh Italian parsley</li><li>4 cloves garlic, minced</li><li>10 g salt</li><li>2 g freshly ground black pepper</li><li>1 pinch ground cayenne pepper</li><li>4 large green bell peppers, halved lengthwise and seeded</li><li>80 g finely grated Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese, plus more for topping</li></ul><h2 class="recipe-print__h2">Directions</h2><ol class="recipe-print__directions"><li class="item">Preheat the oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C).</li><li class="item">Bring rice and water to a boil in a saucepan over high heat. Reduce heat to medium-low, cover, and simmer until the rice is tender, and the liquid has been absorbed, 20 to 25 minutes. Set the cooked rice aside.</li><li class="item">Cook onion and olive oil over medium heat until onion begins to soften, about 5 minutes. Transfer half of cooked onion to a large bowl and set aside.</li><li class="item">Stir marinara sauce, beef broth, balsamic vinegar, and red pepper flakes into the skillet; cook and stir for 1 minute.</li><li class="item">Pour sauce mixture into a 9x13-inch baking dish and set aside.</li><li class="item">Combine ground beef, Italian sausage, diced tomatoes, Italian parsley, garlic, salt, black pepper, and cayenne pepper into bowl with reserved onions; mix well. Stir in cooked rice and Parmigiano Reggiano. Stuff green bell peppers with beef and sausage mixture.</li><li class="item">Place stuffed green bell pepper halves in the baking dish over tomato sauce; sprinkle with remaining Parmigiano-Reggiano, cover baking dish with aluminum foil, and bake in the preheated oven for 45 minutes.</li><li class="item">Remove aluminum foil and bake until the meat is no longer pink, the green peppers are tender and the cheese is browned on top, an addition 20 to 25 minutes.</li></ol><div class="recipe-print__copyright">ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2018 Allrecipes.com<br>Printed From Allrecipes.com 4/24/2018</div></div></div></body></html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkbmk6Fq3cjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449108 |
On 4/25/18, 8:26 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/24/18, 8:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> ...
>>>> You prefer JS and I prefer AS. We each use what we know (and I cannot
>>>> even say I know AS well). No real reason other than habit and comfort
>>>> for me... in the long run JS is a better language to know.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is, that why Apple supports it... and you ain't doin' this with AS:
>>>
>>> <https://streamable.com/qnr7e>
>>
>> Cool... how about doing the download and naming part? I sincerely think
>> you could do it better than I did... and what I did was good enough
>> where Owl and Peter thought I had to be faking it.
>
> I think you have the wrong idea, the purpose was to show you what AS isn't
> going to do, not to replicate you and owl's PDF thing.
I know that JavaScript does a lot that AppleScript does not, and now
that Apple backs it in its own ScriptEditor it does much of what
AppleScript does (though from what I understand not all).
But I did that task just using the tools I know. Heck, I started with
the self-imposed limitation of not even installing any new software (I
did give that up later in the process).
I do almost nothing with scripting these days (and never did much). I do
even less with web design. Most of what I do now is working for some
colleges / universities making customized training videos... often using
their materials but sometimes my own.
Posting this here I bet I see a bunch of down votes on it, but if you
want to see the type of work I am doing you can do a search on YouTube
for the term "Relational Database" (or you can use the plural or a
number of other variations):
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=relational+database>
I at least generally show up as the top hit for most people... which
shocked me to find out given how common that term is.
> Notice that URL read
> 'localhost'? That's not an Apache server, it's spun up (in about 10 seconds)
> using Node/Express. I just used that recipe site (with hardcoded params)
> because we'd been talking about it.
>
> Headed in the direction you were thinking, it'd be fairly easy to grab what
> DOM elements you want from whatever because JS is the language of the
> browser. Having JS in the terminal, as well, to combine the two, is seriously
> powerful. At the beginning you can see how easy it is to create a route,
> app.use('/scrape'). In the scrape.js file, on the line that reads...
>
> 'res.send(response.text)'
>
> .... is where you could display custom output from your source(s). The response,
> as you see it there, is the entire web page, but it could be anything... like this,
> for example:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"
...
Sure... and then if you wanted to convert those to PDF you could do a
fairly simple HTML to PDF conversion. Seriously, just for kicks would
love to see how you do the task Owl described (collecting a all recipes
on the home page and saving them, named intelligently, as PDFs). If more
work than you want to do to fulfill my idle curiosity I do get it. :)
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8e93885-e9b4-48ed-ad83-09c3ac408700@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449116 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/25/18, 8:26 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 4/24/18, 8:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> You prefer JS and I prefer AS. We each use what we know (and I cannot
> >>>> even say I know AS well). No real reason other than habit and comfort
> >>>> for me... in the long run JS is a better language to know.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It is, that why Apple supports it... and you ain't doin' this with AS:
> >>>
> >>> <https://streamable.com/qnr7e>
> >>
> >> Cool... how about doing the download and naming part? I sincerely think
> >> you could do it better than I did... and what I did was good enough
> >> where Owl and Peter thought I had to be faking it.
> >
> > I think you have the wrong idea, the purpose was to show you what AS isn't
> > going to do, not to replicate you and owl's PDF thing.
>
> I know that JavaScript does a lot that AppleScript does not, and now
> that Apple backs it in its own ScriptEditor it does much of what
> AppleScript does (though from what I understand not all).
Not all, and that's a bummer IMO. I think there would have been a lot
better support for JS if they hadn't gotten rid of Sal S. As it is, the
editor is the only way to create a clickable, stand alone app. The
problem is, as an editor, it's not very good, relatively speaking. At
least you can debug in Safari's console if you want. There's even
a JS to Objective C bridge so you can have at Cocoa APIs.
> But I did that task just using the tools I know.
My point has always been that you build websites... even if they're
billboard sites they're still using the same tools, mainly, JS. AS is
fine to control the Mac, it puts a *lot* of power into the hands of
people who may not program otherwise. But it's locked in... and
Apple seems to be abandoning it. The advantage of JS is that it's
on your website, in your browser, can be in your terminal and it's
part of the IOT future (and present).
> Heck, I started with
> the self-imposed limitation of not even installing any new software (I
> did give that up later in the process).
>
> I do almost nothing with scripting these days (and never did much). I do
> even less with web design. Most of what I do now is working for some
> colleges / universities making customized training videos... often using
> their materials but sometimes my own.
>
> Posting this here I bet I see a bunch of down votes on it, but if you
> want to see the type of work I am doing you can do a search on YouTube
> for the term "Relational Database" (or you can use the plural or a
> number of other variations):
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=relational+database>
>
> I at least generally show up as the top hit for most people... which
> shocked me to find out given how common that term is.
>
> > Notice that URL read
> > 'localhost'? That's not an Apache server, it's spun up (in about 10 seconds)
> > using Node/Express. I just used that recipe site (with hardcoded params)
> > because we'd been talking about it.
> >
> > Headed in the direction you were thinking, it'd be fairly easy to grab what
> > DOM elements you want from whatever because JS is the language of the
> > browser. Having JS in the terminal, as well, to combine the two, is seriously
> > powerful. At the beginning you can see how easy it is to create a route,
> > app.use('/scrape'). In the scrape.js file, on the line that reads...
> >
> > 'res.send(response.text)'
> >
> > .... is where you could display custom output from your source(s). The response,
> > as you see it there, is the entire web page, but it could be anything... like this,
> > for example:
> >
> > <!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"
> ...
>
> Sure... and then if you wanted to convert those to PDF you could do a
> fairly simple HTML to PDF conversion.
I've only used wkhtmltopdf for that and the experience had some quirkiness
to it. But why convert it when you can store a boatload of them at 8KB a crack
on a searchable medium? It'd be cheaper, in the long run, to have a tablet in
the kitchen, an inexpensive one, that would pay for itself in no time (as
compared to ink and paper). You can even make them responsive (I didn't with
the provided example) so you can view it on a phone, and they're small enough
that you could store tons of them on one, too.
> Seriously, just for kicks would
> love to see how you do the task Owl described (collecting a all recipes
> on the home page and saving them, named intelligently, as PDFs). If more
> work than you want to do to fulfill my idle curiosity I do get it. :)
I'm not that interested in stuff like this but, as I said, I'd do it the way I
just demonstrated. To get exactly what I just showed, with the clock,
you'd have to append that structure into the proper place. I've already
shown you how easy it was to generate a list of print pages, from them
you could yank out the node you want, append that clock, and pop it
into your template. The names of the files could be obtained from the
h1 titles or whatever. Being that once you're in Node you can have
access to your comp's file system, you're good to go. You could then
add the outputting of them to PDF as an option. Probably the best
part of the Node ecosystem is that you can find support, tuts, vids,
etc. all over the place. Ex:
<https://ourcodeworld.com/articles/read/338/how-to-create-a-pdf-using-wkhtmltopdf-in-node-js>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkbpj5Fqov6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449122 |
On 4/25/18, 9:39 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/25/18, 8:26 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:58:13 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/18, 8:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> You prefer JS and I prefer AS. We each use what we know (and I cannot
>>>>>> even say I know AS well). No real reason other than habit and comfort
>>>>>> for me... in the long run JS is a better language to know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, that why Apple supports it... and you ain't doin' this with AS:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://streamable.com/qnr7e>
>>>>
>>>> Cool... how about doing the download and naming part? I sincerely think
>>>> you could do it better than I did... and what I did was good enough
>>>> where Owl and Peter thought I had to be faking it.
>>>
>>> I think you have the wrong idea, the purpose was to show you what AS isn't
>>> going to do, not to replicate you and owl's PDF thing.
>>
>> I know that JavaScript does a lot that AppleScript does not, and now
>> that Apple backs it in its own ScriptEditor it does much of what
>> AppleScript does (though from what I understand not all).
>
> Not all, and that's a bummer IMO. I think there would have been a lot
> better support for JS if they hadn't gotten rid of Sal S. As it is, the
> editor is the only way to create a clickable, stand alone app. The
> problem is, as an editor, it's not very good, relatively speaking. At
> least you can debug in Safari's console if you want. There's even
> a JS to Objective C bridge so you can have at Cocoa APIs.
>
>> But I did that task just using the tools I know.
>
> My point has always been that you build websites... even if they're
> billboard sites they're still using the same tools, mainly, JS. AS is
> fine to control the Mac, it puts a *lot* of power into the hands of
> people who may not program otherwise. But it's locked in... and
> Apple seems to be abandoning it. The advantage of JS is that it's
> on your website, in your browser, can be in your terminal and it's
> part of the IOT future (and present).
Sure... it is a great tool. You seem to want to convince me of that when
I already agree. :)
>> Heck, I started with
>> the self-imposed limitation of not even installing any new software (I
>> did give that up later in the process).
>>
>> I do almost nothing with scripting these days (and never did much). I do
>> even less with web design. Most of what I do now is working for some
>> colleges / universities making customized training videos... often using
>> their materials but sometimes my own.
>>
>> Posting this here I bet I see a bunch of down votes on it, but if you
>> want to see the type of work I am doing you can do a search on YouTube
>> for the term "Relational Database" (or you can use the plural or a
>> number of other variations):
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=relational+database>
>>
>> I at least generally show up as the top hit for most people... which
>> shocked me to find out given how common that term is.
>>
>>> Notice that URL read
>>> 'localhost'? That's not an Apache server, it's spun up (in about 10 seconds)
>>> using Node/Express. I just used that recipe site (with hardcoded params)
>>> because we'd been talking about it.
>>>
>>> Headed in the direction you were thinking, it'd be fairly easy to grab what
>>> DOM elements you want from whatever because JS is the language of the
>>> browser. Having JS in the terminal, as well, to combine the two, is seriously
>>> powerful. At the beginning you can see how easy it is to create a route,
>>> app.use('/scrape'). In the scrape.js file, on the line that reads...
>>>
>>> 'res.send(response.text)'
>>>
>>> .... is where you could display custom output from your source(s). The response,
>>> as you see it there, is the entire web page, but it could be anything... like this,
>>> for example:
>>>
>>> <!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"
>> ...
>>
>> Sure... and then if you wanted to convert those to PDF you could do a
>> fairly simple HTML to PDF conversion.
>
> I've only used wkhtmltopdf for that and the experience had some quirkiness
> to it. But why convert it when you can store a boatload of them at 8KB a crack
> on a searchable medium?
That is without the images... you still are pointing back to their site
to reference those. And PDFs are searchable and I can send one file to
someone, and I can easily add annotations if I want.
> It'd be cheaper, in the long run, to have a tablet in
> the kitchen, an inexpensive one, that would pay for itself in no time (as
> compared to ink and paper). You can even make them responsive (I didn't with
> the provided example) so you can view it on a phone, and they're small enough
> that you could store tons of them on one, too.
>
>> Seriously, just for kicks would
>> love to see how you do the task Owl described (collecting a all recipes
>> on the home page and saving them, named intelligently, as PDFs). If more
>> work than you want to do to fulfill my idle curiosity I do get it. :)
>
> I'm not that interested in stuff like this but, as I said, I'd do it the way I
> just demonstrated. To get exactly what I just showed, with the clock,
> you'd have to append that structure into the proper place. I've already
> shown you how easy it was to generate a list of print pages, from them
> you could yank out the node you want, append that clock, and pop it
> into your template. The names of the files could be obtained from the
> h1 titles or whatever. Being that once you're in Node you can have
> access to your comp's file system, you're good to go. You could then
> add the outputting of them to PDF as an option. Probably the best
> part of the Node ecosystem is that you can find support, tuts, vids,
> etc. all over the place. Ex:
>
> <https://ourcodeworld.com/articles/read/338/how-to-create-a-pdf-using-wkhtmltopdf-in-node-js>
I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You
seem to have no desire, and that is fine.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <820c80f4-3171-453f-9e9e-625bd9bf58c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449125 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: (snip) > I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You > seem to have no desire, and that is fine. Yeah... I don't, but for the most part the action would just be looping and some processing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkcgtfF1bidU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449140 |
On 4/25/18, 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > (snip) > >> I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You >> seem to have no desire, and that is fine. > > Yeah... I don't, but for the most part the action would just be looping and some > processing. Right: once you have the HTML file you would just need to convert to PDF with the name (we used the one in the title tag, as you figured) and then rinse and repeat. If you look at my videos you can see there were times my script failed to get the name from the title tag. Never figured out why and if I ran it again it generally worked (or if it did fail it was not with the same files). It was pretty rare but I never did understand it. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d1cc25d-dbc2-4831-99e6-04c9af6818e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449151 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/25/18, 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >> I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You
> >> seem to have no desire, and that is fine.
> >
> > Yeah... I don't, but for the most part the action would just be looping and some
> > processing.
>
> Right: once you have the HTML file you would just need to convert to PDF
LOL! Are you under contract to turn things into PDFs?
> with the name (we used the one in the title tag, as you figured) and
> then rinse and repeat.
About an hour ago I posted this to Feeb 'cuz I knew it'd turn his stomach
(basically the thing I showed you yesterday with a couple tweaks):
<https://streamable.com/9a2qk>
To do the thing I was talking about, grabbing the pertinent section so you
can make a new HTML file out of it, you can do...
const divWeWant = $('div.recipe-print__container ').html();
... during the processing. Then append that svg clock icon, punch the
whole structure into a template that includes an internal stylesheet,
create a var to be looped from grabbing whatever for the filename and:
const tempFile = fs.createWriteStream('./temp-file.html');
With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the
screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a
lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how
**BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS,
that was in real time (milliseconds of time).
> If you look at my videos you can see there were times my script failed
> to get the name from the title tag. Never figured out why and if I ran
> it again it generally worked (or if it did fail it was not with the same
> files). It was pretty rare but I never did understand it.
Weird.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 18:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkcn6jF2j4dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449152 |
On 4/25/18, 5:05 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/25/18, 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You
>>>> seem to have no desire, and that is fine.
>>>
>>> Yeah... I don't, but for the most part the action would just be looping and some
>>> processing.
>>
>> Right: once you have the HTML file you would just need to convert to PDF
>
> LOL! Are you under contract to turn things into PDFs?
>
>> with the name (we used the one in the title tag, as you figured) and
>> then rinse and repeat.
>
> About an hour ago I posted this to Feeb 'cuz I knew it'd turn his stomach
> (basically the thing I showed you yesterday with a couple tweaks):
>
> <https://streamable.com/9a2qk>
>
> To do the thing I was talking about, grabbing the pertinent section so you
> can make a new HTML file out of it, you can do...
>
> const divWeWant = $('div.recipe-print__container ').html();
>
> .... during the processing. Then append that svg clock icon, punch the
> whole structure into a template that includes an internal stylesheet,
> create a var to be looped from grabbing whatever for the filename and:
>
> const tempFile = fs.createWriteStream('./temp-file.html');
>
> With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the
> screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a
> lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how
> **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS,
> that was in real time (milliseconds of time).
I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be
a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style
sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool.
>> If you look at my videos you can see there were times my script failed
>> to get the name from the title tag. Never figured out why and if I ran
>> it again it generally worked (or if it did fail it was not with the same
>> files). It was pretty rare but I never did understand it.
>
> Weird.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f585b604-c28c-48c3-be89-87b2014ba2ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449153 |
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:09:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/25/18, 5:05 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 4/25/18, 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (snip)
> >>>
> >>>> I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You
> >>>> seem to have no desire, and that is fine.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah... I don't, but for the most part the action would just be looping and some
> >>> processing.
> >>
> >> Right: once you have the HTML file you would just need to convert to PDF
> >
> > LOL! Are you under contract to turn things into PDFs?
> >
> >> with the name (we used the one in the title tag, as you figured) and
> >> then rinse and repeat.
> >
> > About an hour ago I posted this to Feeb 'cuz I knew it'd turn his stomach
> > (basically the thing I showed you yesterday with a couple tweaks):
> >
> > <https://streamable.com/9a2qk>
> >
> > To do the thing I was talking about, grabbing the pertinent section so you
> > can make a new HTML file out of it, you can do...
> >
> > const divWeWant = $('div.recipe-print__container ').html();
> >
> > .... during the processing. Then append that svg clock icon, punch the
> > whole structure into a template that includes an internal stylesheet,
> > create a var to be looped from grabbing whatever for the filename and:
> >
> > const tempFile = fs.createWriteStream('./temp-file.html');
> >
> > With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the
> > screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a
> > lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how
> > **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS,
> > that was in real time (milliseconds of time).
>
> I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be
> a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style
> sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool.
You don't have too know a lot of JS to finish it up yourself. Seems to me
if you were really that "curious" about it you'd ask me to put it on github
so you could play with it. "You seem to have no desire, and that is fine." ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkedokFeerdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449183 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:09:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/25/18, 5:05 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/18, 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You
>>>>>> seem to have no desire, and that is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah... I don't, but for the most part the action would just be looping and some
>>>>> processing.
>>>>
>>>> Right: once you have the HTML file you would just need to convert to PDF
>>>
>>> LOL! Are you under contract to turn things into PDFs?
>>>
>>>> with the name (we used the one in the title tag, as you figured) and
>>>> then rinse and repeat.
>>>
>>> About an hour ago I posted this to Feeb 'cuz I knew it'd turn his stomach
>>> (basically the thing I showed you yesterday with a couple tweaks):
>>>
>>> <https://streamable.com/9a2qk>
>>>
>>> To do the thing I was talking about, grabbing the pertinent section so you
>>> can make a new HTML file out of it, you can do...
>>>
>>> const divWeWant = $('div.recipe-print__container ').html();
>>>
>>> .... during the processing. Then append that svg clock icon, punch the
>>> whole structure into a template that includes an internal stylesheet,
>>> create a var to be looped from grabbing whatever for the filename and:
>>>
>>> const tempFile = fs.createWriteStream('./temp-file.html');
>>>
>>> With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the
>>> screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a
>>> lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how
>>> **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS,
>>> that was in real time (milliseconds of time).
>>
>> I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be
>> a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style
>> sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool.
>
>
> You don't have too know a lot of JS to finish it up yourself. Seems to me
> if you were really that "curious" about it you'd ask me to put it on github
> so you could play with it. "You seem to have no desire, and that is fine." ;)
>
>
>
Curious what you could do with it but, sure, not looking to do it myself
nor putting you down for not.
And not looking to argue for the sake of arguing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e6dff94-1053-4f80-8e49-eaa70d8f70ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449184 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:40:57 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:09:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 4/25/18, 5:05 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 4/25/18, 2:04 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:44:26 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I get that it could be done... was just curious to see it in action. You
> >>>>>> seem to have no desire, and that is fine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah... I don't, but for the most part the action would just be looping and some
> >>>>> processing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right: once you have the HTML file you would just need to convert to PDF
> >>>
> >>> LOL! Are you under contract to turn things into PDFs?
> >>>
> >>>> with the name (we used the one in the title tag, as you figured) and
> >>>> then rinse and repeat.
> >>>
> >>> About an hour ago I posted this to Feeb 'cuz I knew it'd turn his stomach
> >>> (basically the thing I showed you yesterday with a couple tweaks):
> >>>
> >>> <https://streamable.com/9a2qk>
> >>>
> >>> To do the thing I was talking about, grabbing the pertinent section so you
> >>> can make a new HTML file out of it, you can do...
> >>>
> >>> const divWeWant = $('div.recipe-print__container ').html();
> >>>
> >>> .... during the processing. Then append that svg clock icon, punch the
> >>> whole structure into a template that includes an internal stylesheet,
> >>> create a var to be looped from grabbing whatever for the filename and:
> >>>
> >>> const tempFile = fs.createWriteStream('./temp-file.html');
> >>>
> >>> With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the
> >>> screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a
> >>> lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how
> >>> **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS,
> >>> that was in real time (milliseconds of time).
> >>
> >> I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be
> >> a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style
> >> sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool.
> >
> >
> > You don't have too know a lot of JS to finish it up yourself. Seems to me
> > if you were really that "curious" about it you'd ask me to put it on github
> > so you could play with it. "You seem to have no desire, and that is fine." ;)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Curious what you could do with it
Even without doing it completely, I believe I've already demonstrated that I
could pretty much do whatever I wanted with it. Once you have the HTML
(which you guys also have), the flexibility is there, my way just preserves it
until the very last step, converting it to the (Gollum's voice) "precious", if
you will... the life giving PDF ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkehjdFfar1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449189 |
On 4/26/18, 10:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> > >>> With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the >>>>> > >>> screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a >>>>> > >>> lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how >>>>> > >>> **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS, >>>>> > >>> that was in real time (milliseconds of time). >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be >>>> > >> a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style >>>> > >> sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool. >>> > > >>> > > You don't have too know a lot of JS to finish it up yourself. Seems to me >>> > > if you were really that "curious" about it you'd ask me to put it on github >>> > > so you could play with it. "You seem to have no desire, and that is fine." ;) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> > Curious what you could do with it > > Even without doing it completely, I believe I've already demonstrated that I > could pretty much do whatever I wanted with it. Agreed (and I note my confidence in that above). What you are doing there simply is a better solution than what I did... faster and more flexible. > Once you have the HTML > (which you guys also have), the flexibility is there, my way just preserves it > until the very last step, converting it to the (Gollum's voice) "precious", if > you will... the life giving PDF ;) The speed factor is not a huge deal here unless you had TONS of such recipes (or whatever), but the fact you could set your own stylesheet is pretty cool. I might be able to do that with some of the tools I used, but your way is, well, more "streamlined". :) Seriously, I know you and I have a long history of disagreement but I respect your work and knowledge. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <923ed191-26e2-4578-b98a-e7e58d121107@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449192 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/26/18, 10:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> > >>> With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the > >>>>> > >>> screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a > >>>>> > >>> lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how > >>>>> > >>> **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS, > >>>>> > >>> that was in real time (milliseconds of time). > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be > >>>> > >> a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style > >>>> > >> sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool. > >>> > > > >>> > > You don't have too know a lot of JS to finish it up yourself. Seems to me > >>> > > if you were really that "curious" about it you'd ask me to put it on github > >>> > > so you could play with it. "You seem to have no desire, and that is fine." ;) > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >> > Curious what you could do with it > > > > Even without doing it completely, I believe I've already demonstrated that I > > could pretty much do whatever I wanted with it. > > Agreed (and I note my confidence in that above). What you are doing > there simply is a better solution than what I did... faster and more > flexible. > > > Once you have the HTML > > (which you guys also have), the flexibility is there, my way just preserves it > > until the very last step, converting it to the (Gollum's voice) "precious", if > > you will... the life giving PDF ;) > > The speed factor is not a huge deal here unless you had TONS of such > recipes (or whatever), but the fact you could set your own stylesheet is > pretty cool. To me cool stems from the recognition that, as crappy as JS might be (so everyone says), you only need 1 language. You write a front end for handing off variables on your back end to node using that language. You could write a little app that searches on whatever search params they allow (earlier screencast showed using superagent's query params object) and there'd be no need for Php, Ruby or any other language for the back end... there's but "One ring to rule them all".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkeom6Fgt4mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449197 |
On 4/26/18, 11:23 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/26/18, 10:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the >>>>>>>> >>> screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a >>>>>>>> >>> lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how >>>>>>>> >>> **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS, >>>>>>>> >>> that was in real time (milliseconds of time). >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be >>>>>>> >> a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style >>>>>>> >> sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > You don't have too know a lot of JS to finish it up yourself. Seems to me >>>>>> > if you were really that "curious" about it you'd ask me to put it on github >>>>>> > so you could play with it. "You seem to have no desire, and that is fine." ;) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Curious what you could do with it >> > >>> Even without doing it completely, I believe I've already demonstrated that I >>> could pretty much do whatever I wanted with it. >> >> Agreed (and I note my confidence in that above). What you are doing >> there simply is a better solution than what I did... faster and more >> flexible. >> >>> Once you have the HTML >>> (which you guys also have), the flexibility is there, my way just preserves it >>> until the very last step, converting it to the (Gollum's voice) "precious", if >>> you will... the life giving PDF ;) >> >> The speed factor is not a huge deal here unless you had TONS of such >> recipes (or whatever), but the fact you could set your own stylesheet is >> pretty cool. > > To me cool stems from the recognition that, as crappy as JS might be > (so everyone says), you only need 1 language. You write a front end for > handing off variables on your back end to node using that language. > You could write a little app that searches on whatever search params > they allow (earlier screencast showed using superagent's query params > object) and there'd be no need for Php, Ruby or any other language for > the back end... there's but "One ring to rule them all". I have no issue with people using other languages they think would serve them better in other situations... but do not claim to know enough about the different languages / environments to have any real opinion one way or the other. I have worked with JS some and find, *for me*, the references to be unintuitive but I am sure I could get used to it if I wanted. Remember, while I am hardly an expert in AppleSscript it is what I am used to and it works quite differently. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e2fd05a-2d10-4e91-813d-0f452ade0978@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449211 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:47:21 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/26/18, 11:23 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/26/18, 10:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>> With what I just showed in this post and the code I show in the > >>>>>>>> >>> screencast, you're basically 99% of the way, there's really not a > >>>>>>>> >>> lot of code involved. To me, the most amazing part is, watch how > >>>>>>>> >>> **BLAZINGLY** fast those pages came in! I was stunned, no BS, > >>>>>>>> >>> that was in real time (milliseconds of time). > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> I am confident if you did redo what Owl and I did your solution would be > >>>>>>> >> a lot faster than mine. More than that, you could apply your own style > >>>>>>> >> sheet if you wanted, say, a bigger font for ingredients. Pretty cool. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > You don't have too know a lot of JS to finish it up yourself. Seems to me > >>>>>> > if you were really that "curious" about it you'd ask me to put it on github > >>>>>> > so you could play with it. "You seem to have no desire, and that is fine." ;) > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> Curious what you could do with it > >> > > >>> Even without doing it completely, I believe I've already demonstrated that I > >>> could pretty much do whatever I wanted with it. > >> > >> Agreed (and I note my confidence in that above). What you are doing > >> there simply is a better solution than what I did... faster and more > >> flexible. > >> > >>> Once you have the HTML > >>> (which you guys also have), the flexibility is there, my way just preserves it > >>> until the very last step, converting it to the (Gollum's voice) "precious", if > >>> you will... the life giving PDF ;) > >> > >> The speed factor is not a huge deal here unless you had TONS of such > >> recipes (or whatever), but the fact you could set your own stylesheet is > >> pretty cool. > > > > To me cool stems from the recognition that, as crappy as JS might be > > (so everyone says), you only need 1 language. You write a front end for > > handing off variables on your back end to node using that language. > > You could write a little app that searches on whatever search params > > they allow (earlier screencast showed using superagent's query params > > object) and there'd be no need for Php, Ruby or any other language for > > the back end... there's but "One ring to rule them all". > > I have no issue with people using other languages they think would serve > them better in other situations... but do not claim to know enough about > the different languages / environments to have any real opinion one way > or the other. > > I have worked with JS some and find, *for me*, the references to be > unintuitive but I am sure I could get used to it if I wanted. Remember, > while I am hardly an expert in AppleSscript it is what I am used to and > it works quite differently. It's a good bet that many references which bothered you were DOM related (which really has nothing to do with JS itself). Frankly, I don't see the AS APIs being way better anyway, and all that extra language just makes it a total pain to read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkerivFhifeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449220 |
On 4/26/18, 1:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> To me cool stems from the recognition that, as crappy as JS might be >>> > > (so everyone says), you only need 1 language. You write a front end for >>> > > handing off variables on your back end to node using that language. >>> > > You could write a little app that searches on whatever search params >>> > > they allow (earlier screencast showed using superagent's query params >>> > > object) and there'd be no need for Php, Ruby or any other language for >>> > > the back end... there's but "One ring to rule them all". >> > >> > I have no issue with people using other languages they think would serve >> > them better in other situations... but do not claim to know enough about >> > the different languages / environments to have any real opinion one way >> > or the other. >> > >> > I have worked with JS some and find,*for me*, the references to be >> > unintuitive but I am sure I could get used to it if I wanted. Remember, >> > while I am hardly an expert in AppleSscript it is what I am used to and >> > it works quite differently. > > It's a good bet that many references which bothered you were DOM > related (which really has nothing to do with JS itself). Fair enough. > Frankly, I don't > see the AS APIs being way better anyway, and all that extra language > just makes it a total pain to read. If I got used to more "real" languages I would likely agree... and it has made me sloppy. Heck, I actually sometimes type out "is less than" when I am "coding" instead of "<". :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f20911a0-06c7-420c-a441-47e2f092ff44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449221 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:36:50 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/26/18, 1:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> To me cool stems from the recognition that, as crappy as JS might be > >>> > > (so everyone says), you only need 1 language. You write a front end for > >>> > > handing off variables on your back end to node using that language. > >>> > > You could write a little app that searches on whatever search params > >>> > > they allow (earlier screencast showed using superagent's query params > >>> > > object) and there'd be no need for Php, Ruby or any other language for > >>> > > the back end... there's but "One ring to rule them all". > >> > > >> > I have no issue with people using other languages they think would serve > >> > them better in other situations... but do not claim to know enough about > >> > the different languages / environments to have any real opinion one way > >> > or the other. > >> > > >> > I have worked with JS some and find,*for me*, the references to be > >> > unintuitive but I am sure I could get used to it if I wanted. Remember, > >> > while I am hardly an expert in AppleSscript it is what I am used to and > >> > it works quite differently. > > > > It's a good bet that many references which bothered you were DOM > > related (which really has nothing to do with JS itself). > > Fair enough. It's to the point where you essentially don't need jQuery for that now. Plus, the methods work on modern browsers so the 'bad ol' days' really are gone. > > Frankly, I don't > > see the AS APIs being way better anyway, and all that extra language > > just makes it a total pain to read. > > If I got used to more "real" languages I would likely agree... and it > has made me sloppy. Heck, I actually sometimes type out "is less than" > when I am "coding" instead of "<". :) Some, like Feeb, don't consider JS to be a "real" language. Given that it put him out of work I'd say it's real enough. It's hilarious to watch him call owl 'bird brain' when owl shows things Feeb will probably never be able to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkf1hlFir6uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449223 |
On 4/26/18, 2:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:36:50 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/26/18, 1:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> To me cool stems from the recognition that, as crappy as JS might be >>>>>> > (so everyone says), you only need 1 language. You write a front end for >>>>>> > handing off variables on your back end to node using that language. >>>>>> > You could write a little app that searches on whatever search params >>>>>> > they allow (earlier screencast showed using superagent's query params >>>>>> > object) and there'd be no need for Php, Ruby or any other language for >>>>>> > the back end... there's but "One ring to rule them all". >>>>> >>>>> I have no issue with people using other languages they think would serve >>>>> them better in other situations... but do not claim to know enough about >>>>> the different languages / environments to have any real opinion one way >>>>> or the other. >>>>> >>>>> I have worked with JS some and find,*for me*, the references to be >>>>> unintuitive but I am sure I could get used to it if I wanted. Remember, >>>>> while I am hardly an expert in AppleSscript it is what I am used to and >>>>> it works quite differently. >> > >>> It's a good bet that many references which bothered you were DOM >>> related (which really has nothing to do with JS itself). >> >> Fair enough. > > It's to the point where you essentially don't need jQuery for that now. Plus, > the methods work on modern browsers so the 'bad ol' days' really are gone. > >> > Frankly, I don't >>> see the AS APIs being way better anyway, and all that extra language >>> just makes it a total pain to read. >> >> If I got used to more "real" languages I would likely agree... and it >> has made me sloppy. Heck, I actually sometimes type out "is less than" >> when I am "coding" instead of "<". :) > > Some, like Feeb, don't consider JS to be a "real" language. Given that it put > him out of work I'd say it's real enough. It's hilarious to watch him call owl > 'bird brain' when owl shows things Feeb will probably never be able to do. You and Owl both blow me away when it comes to scripting. I have worked with users at many levels and been involved with usability studies, and been a teacher, and that gives me insights I think you guys sometimes miss, but in just straight scripting capabilities I know I am NOWHERE close and never will be. You will not see me arguing that. Does give me some joy when Owl comes up with what is essentially a programming challenge and I manage to pull it off, but I know I am using crappy tools and, more than that, am using crappy scripting / programming practices. Heck, sometimes I do it just to see how bad I / AppleScipt will be. Owl was working on a spreadsheet task where he wanted a bunch of "sections" or logical tables (all on one spreadsheet table) with some basic calculations. He automated his and was able to get FAR more data in SC in a tiny fraction of what I was able to do with AppleScript and Numbers. I am sure my crappy coding abilities added to the time, but, really, even someone who knew what they were doing could not get the tools I used to come even close to what he did. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb30e34b-e7e9-4b90-8777-b9ba5a9b0641@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449226 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/26/18, 2:35 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:36:50 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/26/18, 1:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> To me cool stems from the recognition that, as crappy as JS might be > >>>>>> > (so everyone says), you only need 1 language. You write a front end for > >>>>>> > handing off variables on your back end to node using that language. > >>>>>> > You could write a little app that searches on whatever search params > >>>>>> > they allow (earlier screencast showed using superagent's query params > >>>>>> > object) and there'd be no need for Php, Ruby or any other language for > >>>>>> > the back end... there's but "One ring to rule them all". > >>>>> > >>>>> I have no issue with people using other languages they think would serve > >>>>> them better in other situations... but do not claim to know enough about > >>>>> the different languages / environments to have any real opinion one way > >>>>> or the other. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have worked with JS some and find,*for me*, the references to be > >>>>> unintuitive but I am sure I could get used to it if I wanted. Remember, > >>>>> while I am hardly an expert in AppleSscript it is what I am used to and > >>>>> it works quite differently. > >> > > >>> It's a good bet that many references which bothered you were DOM > >>> related (which really has nothing to do with JS itself). > >> > >> Fair enough. > > > > It's to the point where you essentially don't need jQuery for that now. Plus, > > the methods work on modern browsers so the 'bad ol' days' really are gone. > > > >> > Frankly, I don't > >>> see the AS APIs being way better anyway, and all that extra language > >>> just makes it a total pain to read. > >> > >> If I got used to more "real" languages I would likely agree... and it > >> has made me sloppy. Heck, I actually sometimes type out "is less than" > >> when I am "coding" instead of "<". :) > > > > Some, like Feeb, don't consider JS to be a "real" language. Given that it put > > him out of work I'd say it's real enough. It's hilarious to watch him call owl > > 'bird brain' when owl shows things Feeb will probably never be able to do. > > You and Owl both blow me away when it comes to scripting. I have worked > with users at many levels and been involved with usability studies, and > been a teacher, and that gives me insights I think you guys sometimes > miss, but in just straight scripting capabilities I know I am NOWHERE > close and never will be. You will not see me arguing that. > > Does give me some joy when Owl comes up with what is essentially a > programming challenge and I manage to pull it off, but I know I am using > crappy tools and, more than that, am using crappy scripting / > programming practices. > > Heck, sometimes I do it just to see how bad I / AppleScipt will be. Owl > was working on a spreadsheet task where he wanted a bunch of "sections" > or logical tables (all on one spreadsheet table) with some basic > calculations. He automated his and was able to get FAR more data in SC > in a tiny fraction of what I was able to do with AppleScript and > Numbers. I am sure my crappy coding abilities added to the time, but, > really, even someone who knew what they were doing could not get the > tools I used to come even close to what he did. Numbers isn't for serious work, in fact, that I've seen, a lot of GUI based stuff falls apart when you give it a lot of data. Remember this little app? <https://streamable.com/r9hro> That slider is mapped to an array of coded numbers that came from a file owl pointed me to. I had to process it and every time I tried in a GUI based editor it hung. Only when I did it in the terminal (using sed and awk) was I able to get anything done... and it f*cking flew* there. Prior to this, every time the app hit a slider number for which a date wasn't available I had this annoying 'Sorry, no data available on this date' message... and there were a *lot* of misses relative to the default slider range I needed. So I decided to remedy that... with no help from any GUI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web