Why not count?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why not count?

John McWilliams via TB
Now we are engaged in a great civil war. Testing whether. Whatever.

--
john mcwilliams


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

Re: Why not count?

John McWilliams via TB
  *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r.
Whatever.

--
*john mcwilliams *

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

Re: Why not count?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>   *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r.
> Whatever.
>
> --
> *john mcwilliams *
>

Very Readable, easy on the eyes

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why not count?

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
  On 8/29/10   PDT 7:53 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>  *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r.
> Whatever.
>
This shows that a very short message can have relatively large amounts
of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in a short space.

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

Re: Why not count?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>    *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r.
> Whatever.
>

nesting of text items * / _ Don't work in plain Text


see screen shot:

http://screencast.com/t/MWI1N2RlO

Never has

you can highlight individual phrases and word but you can't nest such.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why not count?

G. R. Woodring
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
Date: 8/29/2010 10:56 PM, Author: John McWilliams via TB  Wrote:
>  On 8/29/10   PDT 7:53 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>>  *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r.
>> Whatever.
>>
> This shows that a very short message can have relatively large amounts
> of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in a short space.
>

Try counting characters instead of lines.  Lines shows as 3 times as much (300%).
But, if you count characters, there are only about 32% more bytes to download.


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

Re: Why not count?

John McWilliams via TB
  On 8/29/10   PDT 8:16 PM, G. R. Woodring wrote:

> Date: 8/29/2010 10:56 PM, Author: John McWilliams via TB  Wrote:
>>  On 8/29/10   PDT 7:53 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>>>  *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r.
>>> Whatever.
>>>
>> This shows that a very short message can have relatively large
>> amounts of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in a
>> short space.
>>
>
> Try counting characters instead of lines.  Lines shows as 3 times as
> much (300%). But, if you count characters, there are only about 32%
> more bytes to download.

I have my size set to k, the html one showing 2k, the plain text reply
showing 1k. All spuriously accurate!

I demo'ed this to show there can be a huge difference in a small post-
whether 32% or one, or two, hundred percent...

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

Re: Why not count?

defaria
On 08/29/2010 08:32 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
 On 8/29/10   PDT 8:16 PM, G. R. Woodring wrote:
Date: 8/29/2010 10:56 PM, Author: John McWilliams via TB  Wrote:
 On 8/29/10   PDT 7:53 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
 *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r. Whatever.
This shows that a very short message can have relatively large amounts of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in a short space.

Try counting characters instead of lines.  Lines shows as 3 times as much (300%). But, if you count characters, there are only about 32% more bytes to download.

I have my size set to k, the html one showing 2k, the plain text reply showing 1k. All spuriously accurate!

I demo'ed this to show there can be a huge difference in a small post- whether 32% or one, or two, hundred percent...
Has anybody counted up the megabytes of wasted hot air here arguing about the kilobytes of extra characters?

Thought not...
--
Andrew DeFaria
All I want in life is a warm bed, and unlimited power.

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

Re: Why not count?

Ed Mullen
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

>   On 08/29/2010 08:32 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>> On 8/29/10 PDT 8:16 PM, G. R. Woodring wrote:
>>> Date: 8/29/2010 10:56 PM, Author: John McWilliams via TB Wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/10 PDT 7:53 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>>>>> *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing /whethe/r.
>>>>> Whatever.
>>>> This shows that a very short message can have relatively large
>>>> amounts of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in a
>>>> short space.
>>>
>>> Try counting characters instead of lines. Lines shows as 3 times as
>>> much (300%). But, if you count characters, there are only about 32%
>>> more bytes to download.
>>
>> I have my size set to k, the html one showing 2k, the plain text reply
>> showing 1k. All spuriously accurate!
>>
>> I demo'ed this to show there can be a huge difference in a small post-
>> whether 32% or one, or two, hundred percent...
> Has anybody counted up the megabytes of wasted hot air here arguing
> about the kilobytes of extra characters?
>
> Thought not...
> --
> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
> All I want in life is a warm bed, and unlimited power.

I am sympathetic to those minorities still on dial-up.  However, for
those of us of the majority on broadband, err, what's the issue?  It
hasn't been for me since maybe 2000.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Is there another word for synonym?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why not count?

defaria
On 08/29/2010 09:06 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
I am sympathetic to those minorities still on dial-up.
If a person's on dial up, he's probably using a text only reader. If so, if he hits an HTML message, what stops him from hitting "Next"?

I'm sure even people on dial up are hitting Facebook and so many other "bandwidth wasting" sites anyway. Hell I'm sure all the ads on the net waste much more than any HTML in a newsgroup.

People just like to argue - specially curmudgeons....
--
Andrew DeFaria
The gene pool sure could use a little chlorine.

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

Re: Why not count?

John McWilliams via TB
  On 8/29/10   PDT 9:46 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> On 08/29/2010 09:06 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> I am sympathetic to those minorities still on dial-up.
> If a person's on dial up, he's probably using a text only reader. If
> so, if he hits an HTML message, what stops him from hitting "Next"?
>
> I'm sure even people on dial up are hitting Facebook and so many other
> "bandwidth wasting" sites anyway. Hell I'm sure all the ads on the net
> waste much more than any HTML in a newsgroup.
>
> People just like to argue - specially curmudgeons....

PKB once more.... And, per your remark about age, it is a matter of
attitude.

You've wasted more bandwidth with rudeness than the next three posters
combined.

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

Re: Why not count?

Tarkus-3
On 8/29/2010 11:36 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:

>   On 8/29/10   PDT 9:46 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> On 08/29/2010 09:06 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> I am sympathetic to those minorities still on dial-up.
>> If a person's on dial up, he's probably using a text only reader. If
>> so, if he hits an HTML message, what stops him from hitting "Next"?
>>
>> I'm sure even people on dial up are hitting Facebook and so many other
>> "bandwidth wasting" sites anyway. Hell I'm sure all the ads on the net
>> waste much more than any HTML in a newsgroup.
>>
>> People just like to argue - specially curmudgeons....
>
> PKB once more.... And, per your remark about age, it is a matter of
> attitude.

What remark about age?

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

Re: Why not count?

Ken Whiton
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
*-* On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, at 20:32:14 -0700,
*-* In Article <[hidden email]>,
*-* John McWilliams via TB wrote
*-* About Re: Why not count?

>  On 8/29/10   PDT 8:16 PM, G. R. Woodring wrote:
>> Date: 8/29/2010 10:56 PM, Author: John McWilliams via TB  Wrote:
>>>  On 8/29/10   PDT 7:53 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>>>>  *Now we are _/engaged/_ in a great civil war. *Testing
>>>> /whethe/r. Whatever.
>
>>> This shows that a very short message can have relatively large
>>> amounts of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in
>>> a short space.
>
>> Try counting characters instead of lines.  Lines shows as 3 times
>> as much (300%). But, if you count characters, there are only about
>> 32% more bytes to download.
>
> I have my size set to k, the html one showing 2k, the plain text
> reply showing 1k. All spuriously accurate!

     :-D From your two posts' own "Lines:" and "Bytes:" headers:

Plain text:     Lines: 6      Bytes: 1482
HTML:           Lines: 18     Bytes: 1979

> I demo'ed this to show there can be a huge difference in a small
> post- whether 32% or one, or two, hundred percent...

                                        Ken Whiton
--
    FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: [hidden email] (remove the obvious to reply)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why not count?

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by defaria
On 29.08.2010 23:46, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> People just like to argue - specially curmudgeons....

Hey, I resemble those remarks !!! :-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: Why not count?

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3
On 30.08.2010 02:40, Tarkus wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On 8/29/2010 11:36 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>>   On 8/29/10   PDT 9:46 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> On 08/29/2010 09:06 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>> I am sympathetic to those minorities still on dial-up.
>>> If a person's on dial up, he's probably using a text only reader. If
>>> so, if he hits an HTML message, what stops him from hitting "Next"?
>>>
>>> I'm sure even people on dial up are hitting Facebook and so many other
>>> "bandwidth wasting" sites anyway. Hell I'm sure all the ads on the net
>>> waste much more than any HTML in a newsgroup.
>>>
>>> People just like to argue - specially curmudgeons....
>>
>> PKB once more.... And, per your remark about age, it is a matter of
>> attitude.
>
> What remark about age?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/curmudgeon

Crud, I guess that makes me an "old curmudgeon" then .. bah humbug!!


--
*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: Why not count?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
John McWilliams via TB wrote:

> This shows that a very short message can have relatively large amounts
> of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in a short space.

The html body contained 735 chars including spaces ie 735 bytes, the
plain text was 78 char/bytes for a ratio of 94:1 or one could say the
html message body was bloated 94x, but the overall message including
header was just bloated Bytes: 1979 to Bytes: 1482 or about 34% (a ratio
of 1.34).

Or, we could try to help that 94x a little bit by saying that not all of
the 735 bytes was bloat, but only 657 of it. The plain text needed 78
bytes, while the html needed 84x as much /more/ in the body.

The plain text also 'wasted' 8 of its characters on superfluous * / _
markings, almost 10%, but the html can be marked up much more
'effectively' than the plain text can as the author attempted to mark up
the plain text nested.

But the 94x or 94 'fold' isn't a real world demonstration, because the
marking was made intentionally excessive, just like the 10% markup in
the plain text isn't real world.


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

Re: Why not count?

Ron Hunter
On 8/30/2010 8:24 AM, Mike Easter wrote:

> John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>
>> This shows that a very short message can have relatively large amounts
>> of overhead due to html, as a lot of changes were made in a short space.
>
> The html body contained 735 chars including spaces ie 735 bytes, the
> plain text was 78 char/bytes for a ratio of 94:1 or one could say the
> html message body was bloated 94x, but the overall message including
> header was just bloated Bytes: 1979 to Bytes: 1482 or about 34% (a ratio
> of 1.34).
>
> Or, we could try to help that 94x a little bit by saying that not all of
> the 735 bytes was bloat, but only 657 of it. The plain text needed 78
> bytes, while the html needed 84x as much /more/ in the body.
>
> The plain text also 'wasted' 8 of its characters on superfluous * / _
> markings, almost 10%, but the html can be marked up much more
> 'effectively' than the plain text can as the author attempted to mark up
> the plain text nested.
>
> But the 94x or 94 'fold' isn't a real world demonstration, because the
> marking was made intentionally excessive, just like the 10% markup in
> the plain text isn't real world.
>
>
Mike,
    I take it math wasn't your best subject.  735 bytes is only 10 times
(approx.) 78 bytes, NOT 94 TIMES.  Otherwise, the point is well made.
I think we all understand that in point of bytes sent, HTML is not very
efficient.


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

Re: Why not count?

Mike Easter-2
Ron Hunter wrote:

>    I take it math wasn't your best subject.  735 bytes is only 10 times
> (approx.) 78 bytes, NOT 94 TIMES.  Otherwise, the point is well made.
> I think we all understand that in point of bytes sent, HTML is not very
> efficient.

What's a silly little decimal point between friends :-)


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

Re: Why not count?

defaria
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
On 08/29/2010 11:36 PM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
 On 8/29/10   PDT 9:46 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
On 08/29/2010 09:06 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
I am sympathetic to those minorities still on dial-up.
If a person's on dial up, he's probably using a text only reader. If so, if he hits an HTML message, what stops him from hitting "Next"?

I'm sure even people on dial up are hitting Facebook and so many other "bandwidth wasting" sites anyway. Hell I'm sure all the ads on the net waste much more than any HTML in a newsgroup.

People just like to argue - specially curmudgeons....

PKB once more.... And, per your remark about age, it is a matter of attitude.

You've wasted more bandwidth with rudeness than the next three posters combined.
I see, so you think it rude to tell people they have a choice to skip over that which they don't like or find wasteful???

And it's rude to point out that people may be wasting a lot of bandwidth by visiting places on the net with lots of ads that take time and resources to download????

And heaven forbid you recognize and actually say that people like to argue. I mean that's never demonstrated like even here with this groups of fine gentlemen. We never argue! Nobody here's stubborn.

Finally I guess the common perception of old people is totally wrong and they are constantly changing their lives and ways...

You have a real odd sense of what's rude, and, IMHO, an odd sense of reality.
--
Andrew DeFaria
No one ever teaches well who wants to teach, or governs well who wants to govern.

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

Re: Why not count?

defaria
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
On 08/30/2010 05:38 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
On 29.08.2010 23:46, Andrew DeFaria wrote: --- Original Message ---
People just like to argue - specially curmudgeons....
Hey, I resemble those remarks !!! :-D
You may, but you're still a gentleman and a fair person. I respect that.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Think "honk" if you're telepathic.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12