OT Posting pictures
Tony Vella
together with text without any problems. It would be so easy to post a scan
and under it say: can anyone help me id this stamp? instead of going to
cjoint, creating a link, and providing a url. Someone in a classical music
group objected to posting pictures because, according to him, some posters
do not have the technology to handle html. Well, my monitor does not allow
me to view three pages at the same time side by side like the new Sony
XM-something monitor does, but that's too bad for me, isn't it? So I ask
the same question on this group: why go through cjoint if we can so easily
post a picture with our text? Thanks in advance.
--
Tony Vella
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
http://amedialuz.shorturl.com
Stan Fairchild
news:yb2dnQC4Fan3VrHV...@giganews.com...
Tony--I am going to let the technololgically competent discuss the
technology involved. When the rec.collecting.stamps charter was re-written
to split the group into rcsd and rcsm, the new charters continued the
prohibition against posting pictures. So for answer #1, the charter
prohibits the posting of pictures.
For answer #2, at least part of the reason for the prohibition was that
almost all of the users in the re-write days (mid- to late-1990s) had a
dial-up connection and slow down-load speeds, and some paid for the duration
of their connection time. They did not want to find themselves paying for
downloads of what could be large picture files. The way to prevent that was
to ban posting of images.
For answer #3, there was, and perhaps still is, concern about downloading
files from unknown sources. If pictures are banned, then there are no
picture files to contain viruses or other malicious programs.
Stan
John Mycroft
But there are still a fair number. There does come a point where you have to say "tough luck" to anyone using 20 year old technology - try
renting a beta movie. There are also a number of twits out there who would get pleasure from posting pictures that are hugely
inappropriate. So, sad though it may be, I favour the continuation of the "no pictures" rule unless the group becomes moderated to the
point where someone can take inappropriate messages off. Is it possible to allow pictures up to a certain size - say 2" square - that would
give a thumbnail of the real picture which can then be used as a link to cjoint for anyone who is interested?
Cheers - John Mycroft
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
Well said... We "should" adhere to non-binary status quo.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
<jo...@csi-international.com> wrote:
>I'll agree that it is inconvenient to have to go somewhere else to see a picture and that there are less and less dial-up users out there.
>But there are still a fair number. There does come a point where you have to say "tough luck" to anyone using 20 year old technology - try
>renting a beta movie. There are also a number of twits out there who would get pleasure from posting pictures that are hugely
>inappropriate. So, sad though it may be, I favour the continuation of the "no pictures" rule unless the group becomes moderated to the
>point where someone can take inappropriate messages off. Is it possible to allow pictures up to a certain size - say 2" square - that would
>give a thumbnail of the real picture which can then be used as a link to cjoint for anyone who is interested?
That still opens the door for potential twits that want to post porn.
Although we don't always keep the standard around PG or less, at least
we're not displaying stuff that may be objectionable to some.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
<jaS...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:27:17 -0400, John Mycroft
>><jo...@csi-international.com> wrote:
>>
>>>There does come a point where you have to say "tough luck" to anyone using 20 year old technology - try
>>>renting a beta movie.
>
>Please convince Central Telephone of this 'fact'!
>
>There's NO cable TV or Internet within 15 miles.
>DSL is waiting for a 'general line upgrade'.
>
>Sometimes, it is -=NOT=- the fault of the user, but of whatever monopoly
>serves the area of residence!
>
>BTW, it's more like 10 years since DU began to be supersceded.
My DSL provider has doubled the speed - without telling us! Sheesh...
what's nice is that they also maintain the dial up connections in case
the DSL poops out.
I wonder if conditions of DSL have changed in the past 10 years or so
- used to be the service would encompass about a mile distance from
the hub or repeater or whatever it is.
You must live pretty far back in the woods not to have this
capability.
However, that said, I had a client that must have been only 2,000
yards from the nearest lines. No company providing service thought it
would be a good idea to string a line to the building. Yep, they had
to use dial up.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
wrote:
Ooops - make that 3 miles from the hub / etc...
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
<jaS...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>Tracy_...@frontiernet.net found these unused words:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:21:28 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
>><jaS...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:27:17 -0400, John Mycroft
>>>><jo...@csi-international.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There does come a point where you have to say "tough luck" to anyone using 20 year old technology - try
>>>>>renting a beta movie.
>>>
>>>Please convince Central Telephone of this 'fact'!
>>>
>>>There's NO cable TV or Internet within 15 miles.
>>>DSL is waiting for a 'general line upgrade'.
>>>
>>>Sometimes, it is -=NOT=- the fault of the user, but of whatever monopoly
>>>serves the area of residence!
>>>
>>>BTW, it's more like 10 years since DU began to be supersceded.
>>
>>My DSL provider has doubled the speed - without telling us! Sheesh...
>>what's nice is that they also maintain the dial up connections in case
>>the DSL poops out.
>>
>>I wonder if conditions of DSL have changed in the past 10 years or so
>>- used to be the service would encompass about a mile distance from
>>the hub or repeater or whatever it is.
>
>Currently it's 2.5 miles then speed drops so fast by ~3 miles, you have
>'dial-up'.
>
>>You must live pretty far back in the woods not to have this
>>capability.
>
>15 miles from South Bend, WA and 3 miles from a small fishing enclave. DSL
>ends 1/2 mile north of me. There are NO lines available in the current cable
>for 'new customers'! Two houses away had waited two years for a 'land line',
>they used cell phones! Got their phone a month ago!
>
>>However, that said, I had a client that must have been only 2,000
>>yards from the nearest lines. No company providing service thought it
>>would be a good idea to string a line to the building. Yep, they had
>>to use dial up.
>
>DSL doesn't require special lines! That's its beauty and fault. Possibly the
>additional mile put them beyond the effective range from the hub.
Yep. At that time, they were looking into cable.