Day 7 more spring flowers
Fred Doyle
outside and had another encounter with spring flowers, so this is my
next 14 day entry.
http://www.leafpublishing.com/drebel/14/springflowers1.jpg
http://www.leafpublishing.com/drebel/14/springflowers2.jpg
http://www.leafpublishing.com/drebel/14/springflowers3.jpg
--
Fred Doyle
SpaceGirl
Beautiful photos Fred! Which Rebel do you use?
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
Fred Doyle
"SpaceGirl" <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:5a99adF...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks for looking and for the feedback. I'm still shooting with the 300D.
These were taken with the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens.
I posted these on another forum, and got into a small discussion regarding
the audience expectations and some of the less than usual angles used here.
Your reply gives me a chance to post a little of the discussion and maybe
get some people thinking about the same issues. I really liked the little
bit of give and take that went on with this post in that forum and it
actually fits right in with what I posted elsewhere about being able to set
your own aesthetic in a hobby based environnent.
>> "On your first 3, your angle at the flowers is confusing. Your focus also
>> appears to be at a random part of the flower and your DOF seems to be
>> very shallow resulting in odd looking pictures,...Unless you have a good
>> angle, you need a large DOF with macro shots which means using a tripod
>> and f22."
"I took the more "traditional" shots, i.e. with more obvious angles, greater
DOF, more in line with audience expectations, more representative of the
flower itself. See this shot, as an example of what I mean:
http://www.leafpublishing.com/drebel/14/springflowers6.jpg
http://www.leafpublishing.com/drebel/14/springflowers4.jpg
"What appealed to me about the shots I chose to display was the degree of
abstraction in them. The angles ARE odd; the first three are shot from
below, an angle you almost never see of a flower. The depth of field is
shallow, with the intent of enhancing the abstraction.
"The third shot, in particular, is almost a total abstraction, and that is
what I found appealing in the shot. It is admittedly very hard to identify
the image as a flower, let alone what flower it is. The flower, to my mind
is almost abstracted to the point of being color on color, and I'd say has
many of the qualities of an abstract painting.
"..It may be difficult for people to to react to a picture of a flower that
is hard to recognize as a flower, that was taken from an angle that is not
"natural" or that is unusual; that are, as you say "odd." But that oddness
was why I chose those shots to show. "
Fred
inez
I especially love #2, then 3, then 1. The second shot immediately tells
me, this is a "living" thing. You could easily convince me that it was a
sea creature. Instead of just being a pretty *thing*, a flower, it's a
living thing. I love the third as a line and texture study.
Traditional photos are fine when all you want/need is a flower. Your
chosen photos help me perceive the flower's parts and bring them to
life. But then, I've always liked to examine things in such a way;) I
also love shots I've seen that show the translucency and subtle color
changes in some flowers.
inez
Fred Doyle
>
> I especially love #2, then 3, then 1. The second shot immediately tells
> me, this is a "living" thing. You could easily convince me that it was a
> sea creature. Instead of just being a pretty *thing*, a flower, it's a
> living thing. I love the third as a line and texture study.
>
> Traditional photos are fine when all you want/need is a flower. Your
> chosen photos help me perceive the flower's parts and bring them to
> life. But then, I've always liked to examine things in such a way;) I
> also love shots I've seen that show the translucency and subtle color
> changes in some flowers.
>
> inez
Thanks for the kind words, Inez. A lot of what you are saying is echoes
how I approached the subject. I have a friend on another board who gave
me advice for shooting flowers when I first started using them as a
subject. He told me to start back away from the bloom, shot it in
conjunction with its surroundings and "get to know it." Then move in
closer and closer, getting to know its parts, how they relate to each
other and how its put together and what makes it unique. I've always
valued that advice and and tried to emulate it when shooting flowers.
I agree about the translucency of the blossoms, also. One of my
favorite, and by far most popular photos I've taken is
http://www.leafpublishing.com/drebel/peach_blossom/2.jpg I love the
interaction of the light on the petals.
I took that image and turned it into an on-line card celebrating spring
last year. It is funny how many people have hot-linked to that card
since I posted it. Right now, it is making the rounds in several Persian
blogs. I can't help but be a little flattered.
--
Fred Doyle
inez
Love that image, Fred! The lines, textures, colors of nature are so
varied and rich. The intricate connections of parts, or the
relationships that form like a delicate tree fern clinging to strong,
rough bark. I get bored with the photos that just turn them into
singular, 2D objects. Sure, sometimes you need a flower to just be a
flower for importing into a layout or design. But your photos capture
and give expression to the art that nature made.
For me the same thing applies for many things. I mean, you take a
picture of a building, or capture an interesting architectural detail.
>
> I took that image and turned it into an on-line card celebrating spring
> last year. It is funny how many people have hot-linked to that card
> since I posted it. Right now, it is making the rounds in several Persian
> blogs. I can't help but be a little flattered.
Flattering, perhaps, as long as you can stand to give them your bandwidth;)
Fred Doyle
"inez" <nez...@or.fact> wrote in message
news:tT00i.7941$Ut6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Flattering, perhaps, as long as you can stand to give them your
> bandwidth;)
Bandwidth is amazingly cheap right now. Its not really an issue on a site
like this. In fact, it has become so much less of an issue, I see that it is
being left off of many business discussions, probably incorrectly, but maybe
not. As Spacegirl pointed out somewhere else, often the cost of minimizing
bandwidth costs more than paying for the bandwidth.
Fred
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
Only on low end sites that don't get much traffic. Fact is sites like
yours are pretty much nothing to a host because they get so little
traffic. Once your site starts gettin a lot of traffic
though...*whistles*...suddenly that "unlimited" bandwidth claim goes
right out the window and they start sendin you REAL costly bills.
Further, the VAST majority of the Internet is still either on dialup
or overseas (in which case it's slow even on a fast cable connection
cause it's got to cross the trans Atlan lines) and for all of those
users reducing every image by even 10% percent whilst still retaining
the same level of quality can mean the difference between wasting
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of collective hours worldwide. You can try and
claim it doesn't matter, but then, if stuff like that didn't...why
have so many companies switched over to just using ONE space between
sentences? It's just a split second, but millions of split seconds
add up REAL quick and the fact is time is money and time is
productivity, the more of that you waste, the less money you make and
the less you'll accomplish.
Even FURTHER, international bandwidth is even COSTLIER and in a LOT of
cases it becomes necessary to have your servers setup in another
country with less fuckheaded rules and regulations...that comes at a
REAL high price though. Of course, even for completely legitimate
sites, most high end corporations like to keep servers overseas so
that their high speed Euro/Asian/Aussie users don't have to wait
forever for the site to load and, again, overseas bandwidth is a fuck
of a lot more expensive.
Maybe if you ever get to the level of PROFESSIONAL you'll be able to
understand all these SIMPLE concepts, Freddie boi. For a hobbyist
AMATEUR like you though...yeah, bandwidth can be considered
"unlimited".
Oh, also, it would ONLY cost MORE if your web dev team was incompetent
and lacking. If you actually hired people who knew what the fuck they
were doing they would have done it right THE FIRST TIME, during the
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, not as a dribbling after thought.
It's all about quality of work and professionalism. Sure when you're
building a house you can go with the lowest bidder...but chances are
they won't bother to put any tape/coverings down before painting and
you're going to wind up with splatters all over the windows and
everything else, but hey, it's cheap, right? If you don't take any
PRIDE in your sites or what you do then cheap ass paint splatters all
over the floors and windows might not really bother you that much. To
a company that PRIDES itself on its image, its professionalism and
their commitments to their customers...it means EVERYTHING. To say
that you don't care if your dialup customers have to wait an extra 20
seconds for your site to load because you couldn't be bothered to
encode your images correctly REALLY says a lot about you as a company
and how you treat your customers.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> Once your site starts gettin a lot of traffic
> though...*whistles*...suddenly that "unlimited" bandwidth claim goes
> right out the window and they start sendin you REAL costly bills.....etc.
Aha! I see from your resume, you've been involved in those high level
discussions where these issues are discussed. Were you dropping off lunch
from the DQ?
Fred
Diaperboi
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:i8k143l5kvlvumhmg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:32:48 -0400, "Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"inez" <nez...@or.fact> wrote in message
>>news:tT00i.7941$Ut6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> Flattering, perhaps, as long as you can stand to give them your
>>> bandwidth;)
>>
>>Bandwidth is amazingly cheap right now. Its not really an issue on a site
>>like this. In fact, it has become so much less of an issue, I see that it
>>is
>>being left off of many business discussions, probably incorrectly, but
>>maybe
>>not. As Spacegirl pointed out somewhere else, often the cost of minimizing
>>bandwidth costs more than paying for the bandwidth.
>
> Only on low end sites that don't get much traffic. Fact is sites like
> yours are pretty much nothing to a host because they get so little
> traffic. Once your site starts gettin a lot of traffic
> though...*whistles*...suddenly that "unlimited" bandwidth claim goes
> right out the window and they start sendin you REAL costly bills.
>
It just kills you that you're widely recognized as a web designing
hobbyist/hack. Maybe if your register stops coming up short Dairy Queen may
let you volunteer your pitiful skills to maybe updating their *about us*
page.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>
No, but your mom was deliverin me a blow job the other day, tell her I
said, "Thanks".
SpaceGirl
productions.net> wrote:
> Even FURTHER, international bandwidth is even COSTLIER and in a LOT of
> cases it becomes necessary to have your servers setup in another
> country with less fuckheaded rules and regulations...that comes at a
> REAL high price though. Of course, even for completely legitimate
> sites, most high end corporations like to keep servers overseas so
> that their high speed Euro/Asian/Aussie users don't have to wait
> forever for the site to load and, again, overseas bandwidth is a fuck
> of a lot more expensive.
We pay $10 per terabyte of outbound traffic from our main pool of
servers. We generate 5-15Tb a month, over two dedicated 100mbit links.
That's $50-$150. We have around 1.5 million requests a day (in total).
We serve sites mostly in Europe and the US, but our servers are East
Coast US. Response time is around 60ms from the UK to Florida
(transatlatic pipe).
Bandwidth IS cheap. It's the least important part of the costing of
our server farm, that's for sure.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
And comparatively speaking, your sites are on the LOW end of the
spectrum as far as server usage. I mean, take binary Usenet servers,
they handle terabytes of traffic DAILY. And can you even begin to
imagine the bandwidth requirements of sites like YouTube? Also I
*HIGHLY* doubt that your response time from the UK to Florida is
around 60ms...maybe under the absolute IDEAL conditions, directly from
one major host to another with minimal routing, but on the USER side
of things...I don't think so. I've NEVER encountered a Euro site that
could even dream of loading THAT fast and I've got a freakin uncapped
cable connection. Post teh linky to this site that you say loads in
60ms, let me check it on my line, we'll so how fast it is under END
USER circumstances.
Fred Doyle
> On 9 May 2007 01:43:23 -0700, SpaceGirl
> <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bandwidth IS cheap. It's the least important part of the costing of
>> our server farm, that's for sure.
>
> And comparatively speaking, your sites are on the LOW end ....
No, her sites' bandwidth usage is not on the "low" end. You can say it
is to try and make a point, but its just not true, Matt. Quote some
facts, please, not an uniformed personal opinion.
I can see this is a scary reality for you. The aesthetic that you've
based your entire image of yourself around is a relatively low level
consideration, currently.
BTW, my knowledge about the importance of bandwidth in the business
considerations of buying, housing and maintaining servers comes from
being in the room where these issues are discussed for a site that gets
300,000 page views/day, 100,000,000 page views/year (page views, not
requests for individual files). It's not YouTube, Amazon, or Ebay, mind
you, but certainly a mid-range site in terms of traffic. It also comes
from continual interaction with industry personnel who are involved in
similar and larger sizes.
Please, tell us where it is that your knowledge of the importance of
this issue comes from. Do you have facts, not your opinion?
--
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
>> On 9 May 2007 01:43:23 -0700, SpaceGirl
>> <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bandwidth IS cheap. It's the least important part of the costing of
>>> our server farm, that's for sure.
>>
>> And comparatively speaking, your sites are on the LOW end ....
>
>No, her sites' bandwidth usage is not on the "low" end. You can say it
>is to try and make a point, but its just not true, Matt. Quote some
>facts, please, not an uniformed personal opinion.
Okay, tell her to post her Alexia rating. LOL, you're done.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
SpaceGirl
productions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 07:11:51 -0400, Fred Doyle <fdoy...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
> >> On 9 May 2007 01:43:23 -0700, SpaceGirl
>
> >>> Bandwidth IS cheap. It's the least important part of the costing of
> >>> our server farm, that's for sure.
>
> >> And comparatively speaking, your sites are on the LOW end ....
>
> >No, her sites' bandwidth usage is not on the "low" end. You can say it
> >is to try and make a point, but its just not true, Matt. Quote some
> >facts, please, not an uniformed personal opinion.
>
> Okay, tell her to post her Alexia rating. LOL, you're done.
How relevant is alexia? Surely that's just a snapshot of people who
have their plugin installed... which is not that many people. Anyway,
I'm not sure how their thing works, I checked one of our most popular
sites and it came up with:
16,815
*shrug*
The site is at the top of google, msn and yahoo, and has 15,000 paying
members.
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>
> Okay, tell her to post her Alexia rating. >
I can see this is a scary reality for you. The aesthetic that you've based
your entire image of yourself around is a relatively low level
consideration, currently.I'll ask again. Maybe you'll answer this time and
not run away. Please, tell us where it is that your knowledge of the
importance of the issue of optimizing for bandwidth in high traffic sites
comes from. Do you have facts, not your opinion?
I work on a site that requires bandwidth for 300,000 page views/day,
100,000,000 page views/year. (Actually, that is only one of several URLs,
there are others but they don't generate traffic that one does). I've been
in meetings where server and bandwidth requirements are discussed and
decided for that site. I'm in daily contact discussing related issues with
individuals who work on similar size and larger sites. That's where my
knowledge comes from.
Sapcegirl told us she works on a site that requires support for 5-15 Tb per
month of traffic. That's where her knowledge comes from.
Where does your experience and knowledge in this area come from? On what do
you base your opinions? Anything? If you have an informed opinion and can
detail where it comes from, I WANT to hear it. If not, I'd be glad
tocontinue pointing out that it is an uninformed opinion.
Fred
Drew
> Where does your experience and knowledge in this area come from? On what do
> you base your opinions? Anything? If you have an informed opinion and can
> detail where it comes from, I WANT to hear it. If not, I'd be glad
> tocontinue pointing out that it is an uninformed opinion.
Fred, you must have forgotten that he's "God like". God knows everything.
But he'll run away anyway. He ALWAYS does when cornered. And he's been
cornered a lot in here lately.
Drew
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>
> Okay, tell her to post her Alexia rating.
>
"Alexa is also apparently quite easy to manipulate.
"Here's a step by step trick from Sitepoint Forums member KLB:
"1) install the Alexa toolbar into your browser.
"2) Create a special webpage that contains a JavaScript array of webpage
addresses from your site. Then create a JavaScript function that loops
through the array and opens each address into a separate browser window
(make sure they all use the same window). Between cycles through the
function, cause the function to "sleep" using the "timer()" function for a
random interval of time between say 5 and 45 seconds. Make sure that when
the function reaches the end of the array of addresses it loops back to the
beginning.
"3) Periodically set the script to action in your browser with the Alexa
toolbar installed and let it churn away overnight. To save bandwidth you can
always disable the loading of images. If you want it to be really effective,
have a few friends run the same script from their browsers with the Alexa
toolbar installed.
"That is all there is to it. I did this about a half dozen times to one of
my sites over a period of one month and it jumped up to the 80,000 mark in
Alexa. I'm sure if I ran it more often it would have done even better."
Fred Doyle
"SpaceGirl" <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote
> How relevant is alexia? Surely that's just a snapshot of people who
> have their plugin installed... which is not that many people. Anyway,
> I'm not sure how their thing works, I checked one of our most popular
> sites and it came up with:
>
> 16,815
>
I checked ours, as a result of this post.Although the numbers posted in the
results seem a little funny, as near as I can figure its 27,947 for a 3
month period.. I also did a check of http://www.backwater-productions.net.
Its 1,046,849.
Not sure what it means, or why anyone would care. Its an odd little measure
that seems to be easily manipulated. Doesn't speak in any way to the
business goals of a web site. It certainly doesn't speak in any way to where
Matt's knowledge about the importance given to optimization by larger
traffic sites on the web due to bandwidth considerations, but hey, it was
kind of fun to see.
An I'm still waiting for an answer to the question about where his
self-professed expertise about the issue of the importance given to
bandwidth optimazation by large traffic sites, comes from, and why he holds
it as such a high aesthetic. I think he ran away from that.
Fred
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>
>"SpaceGirl" <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote
>
>> How relevant is alexia? Surely that's just a snapshot of people who
>> have their plugin installed... which is not that many people. Anyway,
>> I'm not sure how their thing works, I checked one of our most popular
>> sites and it came up with:
>>
>> 16,815
>>
>
>I checked ours, as a result of this post.Although the numbers posted in the
>results seem a little funny, as near as I can figure its 27,947 for a 3
>month period.. I also did a check of http://www.backwater-productions.net.
>Its 1,046,849.
>
>Not sure what it means, or why anyone would care. Its an odd little measure
>that seems to be easily manipulated. Doesn't speak in any way to the
>business goals of a web site. It certainly doesn't speak in any way to where
>Matt's knowledge about the importance given to optimization by larger
>traffic sites on the web due to bandwidth considerations, but hey, it was
>kind of fun to see.
It's not really useful to sites like mine. It's generally only useful
to high profile sites like Fox News, Google, Ebay, Amazon, etc since
only a portion of the net.populous has the Alexia toolbar installed.
Generally speaking though unless you're in the top 1,000...yeah, yer
not dealing with any kind of high level bandwidth.
>An I'm still waiting for an answer to the question about where his
>self-professed expertise about the issue of the importance given to
>bandwidth optimazation by large traffic sites, comes from, and why he holds
>it as such a high aesthetic. I think he ran away from that.
Uh, hello, maybe because the subject has already been discussed in
OTHER groups and talked about AT LENGTH by NUMEROUS people who
ACTUALLY work with high end traffic. Jeremy Nixon from Supernews
contributed a lot as far as the bandwidth usages of high end Usenet
servers. You know there ARE other froups outside of ADG,
Kiddo...really, check it out sometime.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>"Alexa is also apparently quite easy to manipulate.
Um, that only applies to fumbling nobody sites and those types of
sites aren't really what Alexia is for. That little "trick" is NOT
going to get your site up in the top 1,000 and really, the ONLY sites
that actually matter on Alexia ARE the sites in the top 1,000, you
dipshit.
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>
> It's not really useful to sites like mine. It's generally only useful
> to high profile sites like Fox News, Google, Ebay, Amazon, etc since
> only a portion of the net.populous has the Alexia toolbar installed.
So then why do you quote your Alexa rating all the time as if it is some
kind of number of importance? Why did you write, "Okay, tell her to post her
Alexia rating. LOL, you're done." She did, I did, and until it was far
higher than anything you ever deal with it was extremely important. Now that
you come in with far distant Alexa rankings, its not important. Geez, do you
see how stupid and circular you thinking looks?
> Generally speaking though unless you're in the top 1,000...yeah, yer
> not dealing with any kind of high level bandwidth.
And your expertise that allows you to make this assessment
is...............?
>>An I'm still waiting for an answer to the question about where his
>>self-professed expertise about the issue of the importance given to
>>bandwidth optimazation by large traffic sites, comes from, and why he
>>holds
>>it as such a high aesthetic. I think he ran away from that.
>
> ..because the subject has already been discussed in
> OTHER groups and talked about AT LENGTH by NUMEROUS people who
> ACTUALLY work with high end traffic. Jeremy Nixon from Supernews
> contributed a lot as far as the bandwidth usages of high end Usenet
> servers. You know there ARE other froups outside of ADG,
> Kiddo...really, check it out sometime.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to the question about where your
self-professed expertise about the issue of the importance given to
bandwidth optimazation by large traffic sites, comes from, and why you hold
it as such a high aesthetic. You're still running away from that.
Or are you saying it came from some post you can't find but that was
published sometime, somewhere, who knows when, by some guy who you say was
Jeremy Nixon on a Usenet group? You're saying its been discussed on Usenet
AT LENGTH by NUMEROUS (those caps do give your staements so much more force)
people who have all the depth of knowledge you've been demonstrating here,
and that's how you "know" this? You can't find those posts to quote them,
and give those posters equivalent credentials to those demonstrated here,
but they are your "sources."
Wow! What an expert opinion you've developed. Great sources. What wonderful
in-depth knowledge you demonstrate. Now I'm sure you've convinced everyone
you really know what you are talking about.
You are a silly little guy. I hope you can see that and it is just that you
can't admit it to yourself. But this is getting fun now. Keep posting like
this to try and defend your lack of knowledge, please. You're looking
absolutely brilliant!
Fred
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> the ONLY sites
> that actually matter on Alexia ARE the sites in the top 1,000, you
> dipshit.
>
So then why do you quote your Alexa rating all the time as if it is some
kind of number of importance? Why did you write, "Okay, tell her to post her
Alexia rating. LOL, you're done." She did, I did, and until it was far
higher than anything you ever deal with it was extremely important. Now that
you come in with far distant Alexa rankings, its not important. Geez, do you
see how stupid and circular you thinking looks?
Fred
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>> It's not really useful to sites like mine. It's generally only useful
>> to high profile sites like Fox News, Google, Ebay, Amazon, etc since
>> only a portion of the net.populous has the Alexia toolbar installed.
>So then why do you quote your Alexa rating all the time as if it is some
>kind of number of importance? Why did you write, "Okay, tell her to post her
>Alexia rating. LOL, you're done." She did, I did, and until it was far
>higher than anything you ever deal with it was extremely important. Now that
>you come in with far distant Alexa rankings, its not important. Geez, do you
>see how stupid and circular you thinking looks?
There's your reading STUPID problem again. As I said in the last
post, unless you're in the top 1,000 your site is NOT a high bandwidth
site. I never claimed that any of my sites were high bandwidth sites,
although I have worked on systems that operate on that level and I
know many others that do. Again, my knowledge is based of RESEARCH
(you might try that sometime) and past threads in various web
development froups.
>> Generally speaking though unless you're in the top 1,000...yeah, yer
>> not dealing with any kind of high level bandwidth.
>And your expertise that allows you to make this assessment
>is...............?
Uh, it's common fuckin sense, you doorknob. The higher (well,
technically lower) your Alexia rating the more traffic your site is
dealing with, so obviously if only a PORTION of the Inet is clockin
your site in the top 1,000 you're dealing with an absolute incredible
level of bandwidth.
>> ..because the subject has already been discussed in
>> OTHER groups and talked about AT LENGTH by NUMEROUS people who
>> ACTUALLY work with high end traffic. Jeremy Nixon from Supernews
>> contributed a lot as far as the bandwidth usages of high end Usenet
>> servers. You know there ARE other froups outside of ADG,
>> Kiddo...really, check it out sometime.
>And I'm still waiting for an answer to the question about where your
>self-professed expertise about the issue of the importance given to
>bandwidth optimazation by large traffic sites, comes from, and why you hold
>it as such a high aesthetic. You're still running away from that.
And there's that reading STUPID problem yet AGAIN. Here, I'll just
repost what I posted above since it directly answers your idiot
question:
..because the subject has already been discussed in
OTHER groups and talked about AT LENGTH by NUMEROUS people who
ACTUALLY work with high end traffic. Jeremy Nixon from Supernews
contributed a lot as far as the bandwidth usages of high end Usenet
servers. You know there ARE other froups outside of ADG,
Kiddo...really, check it out sometime.
Think slow now, Freddy Boi, don't hurt yourself.
>Or are you saying it came from some post you can't find but that was
>published sometime, somewhere, who knows when, by some guy who you say was
>Jeremy Nixon on a Usenet group? You're saying its been discussed on Usenet
>AT LENGTH by NUMEROUS (those caps do give your staements so much more force)
>people who have all the depth of knowledge you've been demonstrating here,
>and that's how you "know" this? You can't find those posts to quote them,
>and give those posters equivalent credentials to those demonstrated here,
>but they are your "sources."
...why would I do research FOR YOU? Quite frankly, from a business
perspective you represent potential competition, so really having you
believe a line of idiocy like bandwidth isn't important is beneficial
to me. *I* have put in the research so *I* know how important it is,
from a variety of perspectives. *I* also know that it doesn't cost
anything extra *IF* you have the level of expertise needed to properly
encode your images.
>Wow! What an expert opinion you've developed. Great sources. What wonderful
>in-depth knowledge you demonstrate. Now I'm sure you've convinced everyone
>you really know what you are talking about.
...at what point did you fuck up and think I was ever trying to
convince anyone here of anything? I mean, yer pretty damn thick
headed, Freddy Boi, so it's not like anything I say is gonna penetrate
that thick skull of yers. There are however a lot of other people,
mostly lurkers and Webbies who pick up sidelined posts who can and
will benefit from the things I say as they are NOT as thick headed as
you are.
>You are a silly little guy. I hope you can see that and it is just that you
>can't admit it to yourself. But this is getting fun now. Keep posting like
>this to try and defend your lack of knowledge, please. You're looking
>absolutely brilliant!
If anyone, besides Drew and Freddy, who want links to the actual
posts/threads pertaining to the research and discussions involving
bandwidth you can email me and I'll point ya to em.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>> the ONLY sites
>> that actually matter on Alexia ARE the sites in the top 1,000, you
>> dipshit.
>So then why do you quote your Alexa rating all the time as if it is some
>kind of number of importance?
Well it's a good way for me to track the general popularity of my
sites as they're mentioned/linked on sites that are within the top
25,000. But then, I'm not "cheating" and creating bots to try and
push up my Alexia ratings. If you did that, you're just a fuckin
doorknob whose tryin to claim you got a great big e-penis. To sites
that aren't within the top 1,000 Alexia can be used as a PERSONAL
tool, but not really something by which you would be judging your
sites against others. For example I'm able to use Alexia to track the
potential bandwidth impact of posting links to my sites through, say,
POE. It's not useful as a comparative tool for a site like mine, but
it's useful in OTHER ways, again, of the personal type.
>Why did you write, "Okay, tell her to post her
>Alexia rating. LOL, you're done."
Fuckin DUH. She CLAIMED that her sites were HIGH BANDWIDTH sites, but
unless she's in the top 1,000 on Alexia...yeah, there's NO WAY her
sites would actually be dealing with HIGH BANDWIDTH. Context Freddy
boi, it's all about CONTEXT...of course you've got that real nasty
reading STUPID problem and all, so I guess that's kind of hard for
you, innt?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> As I said in the last
> post, unless you're in the top 1,000 your site is NOT a high bandwidth
> site.
So you say it. So what, you haven't been able to back up your expertise yet.
You ran away from that.
> Again, my knowledge is based of RESEARCH
> (and past threads in various web
> development froups.
Research you say you've done, but can't demonstrate in any way shape or or
form or give it any level of credibility. So what?
Fred
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> If you did that, you're just a fuckin
> doorknob whose tryin to claim you got a great big e-penis.
Ok, so we know would fit your posting history, so then its likely you did
that.
Fred
Brian Mays
> Ok, so we know would fit your posting history, so then its likely you did
> that.
>
> Fred
Now Fred...you're going to drive him to do another Numa Numa video.
I actually think that's the best thing he's ever done...probably
because it didn't require any graphics.
kah...@gmail.com
productions.net> wrote:
> ...at what point did you fuck up and think I was ever trying to
> convince anyone here of anything? I mean, yer pretty damn thick
> headed, Freddy Boi, so it's not like anything I say is gonna penetrate
> that thick skull of yers. There are however a lot of other people,
> mostly lurkers and Webbies who pick up sidelined posts who can and
> will benefit from the things I say as they are NOT as thick headed as
> you are.
I'm one of those said lurkers... backwater productions, you say?
The name alone insults your self-perceived business and experience.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to look towards backwater
areas for the latest news in anything related to technology? Then, to
look at the 'aesthetics' of your site (popular term these days) would
be the definitive factor in any lurker's realization that you've
absolutely nothing to contribute to the -graphics- community because
what you DO contribute is hidden amongst your spam-bullshit and your
spam-signature which makes it hard for us lurkers to actually find
real information.
Look, the first few posts in this thread dealt with relevant
information pertaining to what we lurkers come searching for. Slowly
it turned to shit and the first sight of feces was your annoyingly
long signature.
I only say this because you apparently wanted to pull even us lurkers
in on your dramatic displays of attention and I figured a heads up was
due. Yeah, here's a clue... these are the sidelined posts we're
picking up.
Kahlan
productions.net> wrote:
> ...at what point did you fuck up and think I was ever trying to
> convince anyone here of anything? I mean, yer pretty damn thick
> headed, Freddy Boi, so it's not like anything I say is gonna penetrate
> that thick skull of yers. There are however a lot of other people,
> mostly lurkers and Webbies who pick up sidelined posts who can and
> will benefit from the things I say as they are NOT as thick headed as
> you are.
I'm one of those said lurkers... backwater productions, you say?
Shank
> I agree about the translucency of the blossoms, also. One of my
> favorite, and by far most popular photos I've taken is http://www.leafpublishing.com/drebel/peach_blossom/2.jpgI love the
> interaction of the light on the petals.
Fred,
I loooove the shot! It is so rich! The colors are amazing. Do you
have any other gallery of your photography?
What really strikes my fancy with this is the colors of the shot
itself. I prefer the subtlety sometimes rather than a pop off the
page color. Of which, I love the texturing in your other flower
images, they seem so pillowy and inviting. You really captured some
great shots.
I almost wanna run out and grab a nice camera...
Keep it up :)
Fred Doyle
"Shank" <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> Fred,
> I loooove the shot! It is so rich! The colors are amazing. Do you
> have any other gallery of your photography?
>
> What really strikes my fancy with this is the colors of the shot
> itself. I prefer the subtlety sometimes rather than a pop off the
> page color. Of which, I love the texturing in your other flower
> images, they seem so pillowy and inviting. You really captured some
> great shots.
>
> I almost wanna run out and grab a nice camera...
>
> Keep it up :)
>
Thanks, it is one of my favorite. Every artist I know has a few pieces in
thier portfolio that strike a note that seems to resonate well with everyone
(to use a mataphor from another art). They don't need an explanation or
"sell" they just seem to work for most people. This seems to be he case with
this image.
I think it would be fun to see everyone else's "resonating images." Anyone
else have images or other work that just seems to work for most people? I'd
love to see
Fred
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>
So I guess you keep reading and replying to my posts in order to try
and prove how much respect you have for me, Freddie Boi.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>
I'm sorry, I don't speak Retardese, would someone please translate
Fred's idiot speak into English for me?
Diaperboi
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:r2t6435ivjvf8fd9o...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:43:54 -0400, "Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>>
>>> If you did that, you're just a fuckin
>>> doorknob whose tryin to claim you got a great big e-penis.
>>
>>Ok, so we know would fit your posting history, so then its likely you did
>>that.
>
> I'm sorry
You sure are
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>On May 9, 4:19 pm, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
>productions.net> wrote:
>> ...at what point did you fuck up and think I was ever trying to
>> convince anyone here of anything? I mean, yer pretty damn thick
>> headed, Freddy Boi, so it's not like anything I say is gonna penetrate
>> that thick skull of yers. There are however a lot of other people,
>> mostly lurkers and Webbies who pick up sidelined posts who can and
>> will benefit from the things I say as they are NOT as thick headed as
>> you are.
>I'm one of those said lurkers...
Um, no you're not, you dipshit. If you were a lurker, you wouldn't be
posting, Einstein. Hurr, hurr, what's a lurker? *rolls eyes*
>backwater productions, you say?
>
>The name alone insults your self-perceived business and experience.
>Why would anyone in their right mind want to look towards backwater
>areas for the latest news in anything related to technology?
Hurr, hurr, words have more than one meaning?! Holy shit, look what I
founded:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backwater
3. an isolated, peaceful place.
Duh, uh, reading is teh HARD for you, innt? DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM
>Then, to
>look at the 'aesthetics' of your site
The entire look of the site conveys a serene, peaceful, BACKWATER
place, you fuckin doorknob.
>(popular term these days) would
>be the definitive factor in any lurker's realization that you've
>absolutely nothing to contribute to the -graphics- community because
>what you DO contribute is hidden amongst your spam-bullshit and your
>spam-signature which makes it hard for us lurkers to actually find
>real information.
Sorry child, there's no spam in anything I post, learn to deal with
it, or retard the fuck back to whatever idiot based Webbie board it
was that shit you out, cause you obviously don't comprehend how this
great big complicated "Usenet" thing works.
>Look, the first few posts in this thread dealt with relevant
>information pertaining to what we lurkers come searching for.
I like how you keep trying to speak for, not just everyone, but a
countless number of UNKNOWN everybodies. Seriously, who the fuck
stuck a bag pipe up yer fat ass, blew real hard and then made you
queen of the lurkers?
>Slowly it turned to shit and the first sight of feces was your annoyingly
>long signature.
Well perhaps it wouldn't be so much of a problem if you could figure
out how to run a REAL news server instead of teething over on Google
Froups, the WEBTV interface of Usenet.
>I only say this because you apparently wanted to pull even us lurkers
>in on your dramatic displays of attention and I figured a heads up was
>due. Yeah, here's a clue... these are the sidelined posts we're
>picking up.
Sorry dipshit, but when I said lurkers and sidelined post I DID NOT
mean that fuckwitted ass rape of a Usenet interface over on Google.
Do try and see and if you can't muster up a free cl00 for yourself,
Kiddo. In the mean time why don't you just retard on back to Webbie
Land with all the other halfwits and deficients like yourself.