Graphic attachments in a test group

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
442 messages Options
1234567 ... 23
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
On 08/17/2010 08:55 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

On 08/17/2010 06:18 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: 
   So why don't you set your own newsreader Preferences to use a yellow
   background and the font of your choice? Don't like mono-space? Set a
   proportional font of your favorite style and size. Read in Plain Text.
   Don't do what Defaria does, expending a hundred lines of CSS
What's a few '\n' between friends? Can you really sense the pica seconds of time 
wasted in transmitting a few extra '\n'??? Come on!
    in his
   posts to say merely:
     background:  black;
     color:  white;
     font-family:  courier;
   and a small font size. He uses all this HTML/CSS, and never does
   anything beyond the default styling, thus wasting resources.
Oh this is rich. Ya know you can't have it both ways. Trying to do so just shows how 
bankrupt your argument is. You cannot argue that people who post HTML use silly 
little font settings and odd color schemes and then in the next breath say that I 
include this stuff but don't use silly little font stylings and colors!!! Doing that simply 
says that you wish to argue with me and here are not the real reasons why I argue.
   One does not need to use HTML for their *own* viewing pleasure. Keep
   your selections to yourself instead of inflicting them on everyone else
   as well.
And how exactly are you not inflicting your selections on us? It is a two way street 
and I'm sure you'll argue (until you're blue in the face mind you) that your way is 
indeed superior and that's why you inflict it on others but really your's is one way and 
other people have different ways and you are merely intolerant of. And I'm sure you'll 
never admit to or recognize that.
I've left the quoted material unaltered. Do you see the proper depth of
quotemarks in there?  My quoted content should have ">>" but doesn't
because your HTML post didn't insert any.
No I don't see any ">>"'s
I am not inflicting anything on you, as my posts contain only Plain
Text.

You used 157 lines to post in an abnormal manner for News. And 119 lines
for four lines of content to wish me happy birthday!  (But thanks for
that.)

My, my, I hadn't noticed!

(Why to people insist on pointing this out as if I don't already know it...)
--
Andrew DeFaria
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> (Why to people insist on pointing this out as if I don't already know
> it...)

Why do you continue to post only in HTML and annoy everyone else?
<lol!>

Andrew, you are definitely one of ... one.   :-)

--
   -bts
   -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
  On 08/17/2010 09:34 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> (Why to people insist on pointing this out as if I don't already know
>> it...)
> Why do you continue to post only in HTML and annoy everyone else?
Why does this annoy people to the point of brimming anger? If you don't
like what i say nor how I said it then use your kill file. I don't tell
you to post my way - why do you insist I post yours?
> <lol!>
>
> Andrew, you are definitely one of ... one.   :-)
>
Whatever that means...

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Larry Gusaas-4
In reply to this post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty

On 2010/08/17 9:55 AM  Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> You used 157 lines to post in an abnormal manner for News.

His 157 line post was only 6Kb. Your 44 line post is 4Kb. There is no direct correlation between the
number of lines and the actual message size. So, what is your point?

--

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
On 17.08.2010 11:34, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> (Why to people insist on pointing this out as if I don't already know
>> it...)
>
> Why do you continue to post only in HTML and annoy everyone else?
> <lol!>
>
> Andrew, you are definitely one of ... one.   :-)
>

Don't go there, you will not come out in one piece. :-D

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
Larry Gusaas wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> You used 157 lines to post in an abnormal manner for News.
>
> His 157 line post was only 6Kb. Your 44 line post is 4Kb. There is no
> direct correlation between the number of lines and the actual message
> size. So, what is your point?

One important point is that if y'all are going to argue about the
efficiency and inefficiency of plaintext vs html, that you should not be
using 'lines' as the criterion for comparison.

It would be better to use the number of characters in the body excluding
the header.

I'm quite sure that if you do that, you will find a very significant
difference between two similar messages, much more extreme than 157/44
or 6/4.

That would be my point. That BTS assessment that html is inefficient
compared to plaintext (very, IMO) as opposed to LG's allusion that html
is not very inefficient because he chose to compare 6 to 4 for some
fuzzy reason.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Larry Gusaas-4

On 2010/08/17 1:28 PM  Mike Easter wrote:
> That would be my point. That BTS assessment that html is inefficient compared to plaintext (very, IMO)
> as opposed to LG's allusion that html is not very inefficient because he chose to compare 6 to 4 for
> some fuzzy reason.

No fuzzy reason why I choose the actual message size in Kb, a valid quantitative measurement. That is the
actual size of the message. That is no illusion. Your opinion that HTML is very inefficient, without data
to back it up is an illusion. Without facts to back it up, an opinion is worthless.


--

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
On 8/17/2010 9:34 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> >  (Why to people insist on pointing this out as if I don't already know
>> >  it...)
> Why do you continue to post only in HTML and annoy everyone else?

Speak for yourself, because you don't speak for me.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
Larry Gusaas wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> LG's allusion that
>> html is not very inefficient because he chose to compare 6 to 4 for
>> some fuzzy reason.
>
> No fuzzy reason why I choose the actual message size in Kb, a valid
> quantitative measurement.

The 'message size' is not a measurement of the message body's content in
bits, bytes, or characters.

> That is the actual size of the message.

No. Many usenet 'messages' are almost entirely headers.  Comparing one
message's mostly headers plus a small amount of body with a different
message's mostly headers plus a larger amount of body is not a good way
to assess how efficiently the body content management is done.

The header overhead is one part of the message.

The body content is another separate part of the message. We are
discussing here the 'overhead' related to html-izing the body, not the
overhead of html-ing smushed into the overhead of the headers to obscure
its inefficiency.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Larry Gusaas-4

On 2010/08/17 2:27 PM  Mike Easter wrote:
> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> LG's allusion that html is not very inefficient because he chose to compare 6 to 4 for some fuzzy
>>> reason.
>>
>> No fuzzy reason why I choose the actual message size in Kb, a valid quantitative measurement.
>
> The 'message size' is not a measurement of the message body's content in bits, bytes, or characters.

It is a measurement of the total message size in Kb.

>> That is the actual size of the message.
>
> No. Many usenet 'messages' are almost entirely headers.  Comparing one message's mostly headers plus a
> small amount of body with a different message's mostly headers plus a larger amount of body is not a
> good way to assess how efficiently the body content management is done.

What is your point? The difference between 4Kb and 6Kb is small and takes very little bandwidth.
>
> The header overhead is one part of the message.
>
> The body content is another separate part of the message. We are discussing here the 'overhead' related
> to html-izing the body, not the overhead of html-ing smushed into the overhead of the headers to
> obscure its inefficiency.

No. We are talking about the total size of the message. The headers you refer to often have only a small
number of characters per line and do not take a lot of actual size.

Quit changing the criteria for the discussion. It is about total message size.

--

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
Larry Gusaas wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> Many usenet 'messages' are almost entirely headers.  Comparing one
>> message's mostly headers plus a small amount of body with a different
>> message's mostly headers plus a larger amount of body is not a good
>> way to assess how efficiently the body content management is done.
>
> What is your point? The difference between 4Kb and 6Kb is small and
> takes very little bandwidth.
>>
>> The header overhead is one part of the message.
>>
>> The body content is another separate part of the message. We are
>> discussing here the 'overhead' related to html-izing the body, not the
>> overhead of html-ing smushed into the overhead of the headers to
>> obscure its inefficiency.
>
> No. We are talking about the total size of the message. The headers you
> refer to often have only a small number of characters per line and do
> not take a lot of actual size.
>
> Quit changing the criteria for the discussion. It is about total message
> size.

You can use the word 'changing' - but I use the word 'discussing' or
'establishing' (for purposes of discussion).

We are 'debating' the inefficiency of html vs plaintext news messages,
maybe email as well. IMO that means that we have to compare apples with
apples and oranges with oranges.

The html-ization is a form of overhead for the *content* of the message
body.

So, we would/could divide otherwise identical messages (except for
plaintext vs html) into 2 parts, perhaps subdividing the 2nd.

-1- the headers which would be the same on otherwise identical messages
except for some small differences in the header line which described the
content and if necessary some additional characters to define such as
boundary delimiters if it were multipart html.

These would also be compared in the 2-3 column comparison. Thus we could
compare the 'overhead' of the message header for an html message with
the overhead of the message header of a plaintext message - which would
be very very similar. Not much overhead tax for the headers of an html
message.

-2- the message body content - which for plaintext would simply be the
text of the message, but for html would be all of the markup plus any
additional multiparts in addition to the text content.

We could further subdivide the message body content into how many
characters were necessary to carry the body's actual message content
(also include any necessary attribution and citations) for the plaintext
versus how many *more* characters were necessary for all of the markup
for the html plus any additional baggage such as multiparts.

My argument is that comparing the #2 part of a plaintext vs the #2 part
of a html message shows a great disparity in terms of ratio of bits or
bytes or characters including printing and non-printing.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Tarkus-3
On 8/17/2010 2:15 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> Many usenet 'messages' are almost entirely headers.  Comparing one
>>> message's mostly headers plus a small amount of body with a different
>>> message's mostly headers plus a larger amount of body is not a good
>>> way to assess how efficiently the body content management is done.
>>
>> What is your point? The difference between 4Kb and 6Kb is small and
>> takes very little bandwidth.
>>>
>>> The header overhead is one part of the message.
>>>
>>> The body content is another separate part of the message. We are
>>> discussing here the 'overhead' related to html-izing the body, not
>>> the overhead of html-ing smushed into the overhead of the headers to
>>> obscure its inefficiency.
>>
>> No. We are talking about the total size of the message. The headers
>> you refer to often have only a small number of characters per line and
>> do not take a lot of actual size.
>>
>> Quit changing the criteria for the discussion. It is about total
>> message size.
>
> You can use the word 'changing' - but I use the word 'discussing' or
> 'establishing' (for purposes of discussion).
>
> We are 'debating' the inefficiency of html vs plaintext news messages,
> maybe email as well. IMO that means that we have to compare apples with
> apples and oranges with oranges.
>
> The html-ization is a form of overhead for the *content* of the message
> body.
>
> So, we would/could divide otherwise identical messages (except for
> plaintext vs html) into 2 parts, perhaps subdividing the 2nd.
>
> -1- the headers which would be the same on otherwise identical messages
> except for some small differences in the header line which described the
> content and if necessary some additional characters to define such as
> boundary delimiters if it were multipart html.
>
> These would also be compared in the 2-3 column comparison. Thus we could
> compare the 'overhead' of the message header for an html message with
> the overhead of the message header of a plaintext message - which would
> be very very similar. Not much overhead tax for the headers of an html
> message.
>
> -2- the message body content - which for plaintext would simply be the
> text of the message, but for html would be all of the markup plus any
> additional multiparts in addition to the text content.
>
> We could further subdivide the message body content into how many
> characters were necessary to carry the body's actual message content
> (also include any necessary attribution and citations) for the plaintext
> versus how many *more* characters were necessary for all of the markup
> for the html plus any additional baggage such as multiparts.
>
> My argument is that comparing the #2 part of a plaintext vs the #2 part
> of a html message shows a great disparity in terms of ratio of bits or
> bytes or characters including printing and non-printing.

Wow, I'm impressed that you went to such great lengths to avoid
admitting that the difference between 4K and 6K is negligible.  Well done!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
Tarkus wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> My argument is that comparing the #2 part of a plaintext vs the #2 part
>> of a html message shows a great disparity in terms of ratio of bits or
>> bytes or characters including printing and non-printing.
>
> Wow, I'm impressed that you went to such great lengths to avoid
> admitting that the difference between 4K and 6K is negligible.  Well done!

Why would we include the header overhead when we are actually discussing
only the body's content and markup? (That is, I think we should only be
discussing the body's content and markup - not something else.)

We aren't debating the fact that the header of an html message is a tiny
bit larger or smaller than the header of a plaintext message -- we are
only debating the problem - or rather condition - of the html overhead -
not the header overhead.

Html/ers want to mask the markup overhead problem/condition under the
mathematics of -1- in the great scheme of all of the massive internet
traffic, plaintext or marked-up messages - whether they be email or
newsgroup - are an infinitesimal part of the internet traffic.

If we compare one slightly pudgier infinitesimal with another slighly
slimmer infinitesimal, who cares?

However, sometimes 'scientific' discussions turn to the closest estimate
of how large or how small one particular infinitesimal is - which it
seems to me that we are discussing in this html vs plaintext business.

The newest estimate of the mass of the Higgs particle was deemed to be
important, even tho' its mass wouldn't be considered to be much of
anything in the great scheme of things.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Larry Gusaas-4
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3

On 2010/08/17 3:32 PM  Tarkus wrote:
> Wow, I'm impressed that you went to such great lengths to avoid admitting that the difference between
> 4K and 6K is negligible.  Well done!

Yes. He likes to pontificate making verbose arguments without any facts. I don't think he has ever heard
of being succinct or concise.

--

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 8/17/2010 2:57 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Tarkus wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> My argument is that comparing the #2 part of a plaintext vs the #2 part
>>> of a html message shows a great disparity in terms of ratio of bits or
>>> bytes or characters including printing and non-printing.
>>
>> Wow, I'm impressed that you went to such great lengths to avoid
>> admitting that the difference between 4K and 6K is negligible.  Well
>> done!
>
> Why would we include the header overhead when we are actually discussing
> only the body's content and markup? (That is, I think we should only be
> discussing the body's content and markup - not something else.)
>
> We aren't debating the fact that the header of an html message is a tiny
> bit larger or smaller than the header of a plaintext message -- we are
> only debating the problem - or rather condition - of the html overhead -
> not the header overhead.
>
> Html/ers want to mask the markup overhead problem/condition under the
> mathematics of -1- in the great scheme of all of the massive internet
> traffic, plaintext or marked-up messages - whether they be email or
> newsgroup - are an infinitesimal part of the internet traffic.
>
> If we compare one slightly pudgier infinitesimal with another slighly
> slimmer infinitesimal, who cares?
>
> However, sometimes 'scientific' discussions turn to the closest estimate
> of how large or how small one particular infinitesimal is - which it
> seems to me that we are discussing in this html vs plaintext business.
>
> The newest estimate of the mass of the Higgs particle was deemed to be
> important, even tho' its mass wouldn't be considered to be much of
> anything in the great scheme of things.

I already gave you props.  You're trying way too hard!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
On 8/17/2010 3:14 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> On 2010/08/17 3:32 PM  Tarkus wrote:
>> Wow, I'm impressed that you went to such great lengths to avoid
>> admitting that the difference between 4K and 6K is negligible.  Well
>> done!
>
> Yes. He likes to pontificate making verbose arguments without any facts.
> I don't think he has ever heard of being succinct or concise.

Those who were around during the early days of CD-Rs probably have a
little further insight...
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
Larry Gusaas wrote:
> Tarkus wrote:
>> Wow, I'm impressed that you went to such great lengths to avoid
>> admitting that the difference between 4K and 6K is negligible.  Well
>> done!
>
> Yes. He likes to pontificate making verbose arguments without any facts.
> I don't think he has ever heard of being succinct or concise.
>

It is quicker for me to say what I want to say verbosely. If I have to
compress it into a much more terse form, it takes me about 10x as long
in terms of time and effort.

What is more annoying to me (than verbosity) is when people say things
in just a few words which are quite inaccurate.

Such as 4K vs 6K which has nothing to do with what we were actually
discussing, but instead it is a number which applies to some other
discussion which we weren't having.

In that sense, the short answer is 'inaccurate' because it is
misdirected and inappropriate.

We were discussing some plaintext content vs some markup content.

BTS was 'misguided' in choosing to state a line report. LG was misguided
in choosing to compare some other report he chose to make which involved
K without properly defining it or controlling it for other extremely
important variables.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Larry Gusaas-4

On 2010/08/17 4:48 PM  Mike Easter wrote:

> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> Tarkus wrote:
>>> Wow, I'm impressed that you went to such great lengths to avoid admitting that the difference between
>>> 4K and 6K is negligible.  Well done!
>>
>> Yes. He likes to pontificate making verbose arguments without any facts. I don't think he has ever
>> heard of being succinct or concise.
>>
>
> It is quicker for me to say what I want to say verbosely. If I have to compress it into a much more
> terse form, it takes me about 10x as long in terms of time and effort.

Perhaps if you took more time what you write would be understandable.

> What is more annoying to me (than verbosity) is when people say things in just a few words which are
> quite inaccurate.
>
> Such as 4K vs 6K which has nothing to do with what we were actually discussing, but instead it is a
> number which applies to some other discussion which we weren't having.

It was precisely to the point I was making. Your unclear writing is what isn't to the point.

> In that sense, the short answer is 'inaccurate' because it is misdirected and inappropriate.

No, it was not.

> We were discussing some plaintext content vs some markup content.

The discussion was about message size. You are changing it into something different.

> BTS was 'misguided' in choosing to state a line report. LG was misguided in choosing to compare some
> other report he chose to make which involved K without properly defining it or controlling it for other
> extremely important variables.

What K are you referring to. I used Kb is is a precise term for the size of a message. I have yet to see
you give a precise size or any facts to back up your prolixity.

I've wasted too much time on this pointless discussion, so goodbye.

--

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

Larry Gusaas-4

On 2010/08/17 7:01 PM  Larry Gusaas wrote:
> I used Kb is is a precise term for the size of a message

My apologies. I mistyped. I intended kB, the abbreviation for kilobyte. Everything else I said stands.


--

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Graphic attachments in a test group

defaria
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
  On 08/17/2010 03:48 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> It is quicker for me to say what I want to say verbosely. If I have to
> compress it into a much more terse form, it takes me about 10x as long
> in terms of time and effort.
Anybody else see the irony in the "HTML wastes space" argument and Mike
insistence to be much more verbose than required?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1234567 ... 23