pics loading slow

DMW

pUreHkcoL said:

@DMW don’t send messages. If you feel I’m a troll that’s great. You acted in this thread like the arrogant asś that you are so I flagged you. No need to send messages. 

I didn't send any messages. You must have your wall vs your inbox confused, as have many others. Your intelligence (lack thereof) is showing. 

pUreHkcoL

Who’s intelligence is showing? It’s quite possible you have the definition of “sent me messages” confused. You sent me a message. It happen to be on my wall. That is a message to me. Stop always trying so hard to make people think you are smart, it. Ames you look dumb. If you are so smart they will know without you always having to be so arrogant. 

DMW

pUreHkcoL said:

Who’s intelligence is showing? It’s quite possible you have the definition of “sent me messages” confused. You sent me a message. It happen to be on my wall. That is a message to me. Stop always trying so hard to make people think you are smart, it. Ames you look dumb. If you are so smart they will know without you always having to be so arrogant. 

You can't even spell "And".

DMW

DMW said:

pUreHkcoL said:

Who’s intelligence is showing? It’s quite possible you have the definition of “sent me messages” confused. You sent me a message. It happen to be on my wall. That is a message to me. Stop always trying so hard to make people think you are smart, it. Ames you look dumb. If you are so smart they will know without you always having to be so arrogant. 

You can't even spell "And".

And yes, I'm arrogant. I think you are an idiot.

pUreHkcoL

Idiot, that’s funny. Most would say that’s a gross understatement. 

DMW

pUreHkcoL said:

Idiot, that’s funny. Most would say that’s a gross understatement. 

And yet, you can't actually stand up and say who you actually are. Stick with it slim...

lkapigian

@DWFII you can go to settings and disable email notifications 

pUreHkcoL

Can’t stand up and say who I am? Unless you have been in prison 20 of the past 42 years you would’t know who I am anyway. I would highly suggest you not send another vulgar private message to me. 

pUreHkcoL

@DWFII I apologize for the previous. I didn’t appreciate him being a jerk to you so I flagged his posts for what they were. Again I am sorry sir. I won’t post anything else here. 

DMW

pUreHkcoL said:

Can’t stand up and say who I am? Unless you have been in prison 20 of the past 42 years you would’t know who I am anyway. I would highly suggest you not send another vulgar private message to me. 

DWFII

lkapigian said:

@DWFII you can go to settings and disable email notifications 

I understand that but I don't want to disable all email notifications. Just in specified topics.

And beyond that it would be nice to understand how this forum works (re bookmarks and subscriptions, etc.

It's not admin's nor the mod's fault (i suspect it is in the software)  but I heard how "strange" this forum was before I ever came on board.

Now I've gotten used to it, I guess, and it's not totally  a kludge, and I like many many of the people I encountered here and their willing generosity . But it's not very intuitive, esp. coming from other more conventionally structured forums.

DWFII

Theophan said:

Most of the time, I'm not trying to make a point, I'm not looking for specks of lint, and I don't even need a photograph AT ALL to communicate the maker of a bottle of whiskey.  Once in a while, as in the photo you posted, yes, I'm interested to see someone's setup, how he did it, and I don't need a huge photo for that.

But most of the time it's more like looking at a magazine and seeing a photo of some really gorgeous food.  Looking at a small inset photo just isn't as pleasant as looking at a full-page photo of something really pretty.  There's a reason people talk about "food porn."  Do you really not understand why they used to make centerfold photos in (ahem) certain magazines?  

It also may make a difference what someone's looking at a photo on.  Here's a photo I took as displayed on my own iMac desktop at 800 and at 1200.  (I've made this very much smaller for this forum -- if you want to see it at its original size, it's here.)

On my desktop, the smaller image (800) is fine, and sure, you can see the shrimp.  But the larger image (1200) is just better, more pleasant to look at, more luxurious, you might say, more like a (cough) centerfold.  

I understand your point and agree to some extent. The software that we use on my forum (my Guild's forum) allows the initial display of an image at a smaller size  (even a thumb, IIRC) and when you click on that image it will expand to it's true size. Seems like a good solution to me. *

That said, I'm not as enamored of food porn as some here. I like seeing the results esp. of problematic cooks, but I don't want to get my juices flowing with no way to satisfy my craving (I don't eat at the computer). Kind of feel the same about that other kind of porn you mentioned.

*On edit...I just noticed that Vanilla will also sometimes allow you to click on the photo and get a larger version...like my photo above. But not always. I think the problem is as you describe--too many unedited smartphone photos.

DWFII

pUreHkcoL said:

@DWFII I apologize for the previous. I didn’t appreciate him being a jerk to you so I flagged his posts for what they were. Again I am sorry sir. I won’t post anything else here. 

No worries. I'm a tough old cob and don't pay much attention to that kind of posturing.

I appreciate the apology, however...but again, it's not necessary.

PS...I flag gratuitous insults, ad hominem attacks,  and abusive behaviour, too.

Cornholio

Whoops, I’m probably guilty since I upload from my phone and only use that and my iPad to browse the forum so I don’t see the pics being huge like people probably do on a regular computer.  I’ll start resizing pics before uploading them, thanks for the heads up.  

DMW

DWFII said:

pUreHkcoL said:

@DWFII I apologize for the previous. I didn’t appreciate him being a jerk to you so I flagged his posts for what they were. Again I am sorry sir. I won’t post anything else here. 

No worries. I'm a tough old cob and don't pay much attention to that kind of posturing.

I appreciate the apology, however...but again, it's not necessary.

PS...I flag gratuitous insults, ad hominem attacks,  and abusive behaviour, too.

You are both a bunch of incredulous idiots.
 

The_Stache

I'm not sure where this thread got so off track!  @DMW, who I have met, is a vastly intelligent person and very skilled in the "craft" of IT (I mention this as having just retired from being involved in IT and IT Global Management for just over 30 years.)

Whatever the causality of the flagging and subsequent comments, I didn't find anything insulting or more than informative in what @DMW initially said.

Best of luck to all... let's get back to complaining about Vanilla!

SonVolt

Personally I think the problem is with the quoting system... when a post with an image is quoted it displays the full resolution image, over and over.. and over. 

HeavyG

SonVolt said:

Personally I think the problem is with the quoting system... when a post with an image is quoted it displays the full resolution image, over and over.. and over. 

True, but the browser isn't actually downloading that image from the server more than once.

Botch

HeavyG said:

SonVolt said:

Personally I think the problem is with the quoting system... when a post with an image is quoted it displays the full resolution image, over and over.. and over. 

True, but the browser isn't actually downloading that image from the server more than once.

Actually, I think it is.  I don't mind waiting for a first set of photos to load, but then when I scroll down and someone's quoted that post, the photos again take the same amount of time to load.  And likewise on the third quote, and by then I've gone back to the main page.  This is the only forum I am on where I've seen that.  

SonVolt

HeavyG said:

SonVolt said:

Personally I think the problem is with the quoting system... when a post with an image is quoted it displays the full resolution image, over and over.. and over. 

True, but the browser isn't actually downloading that image from the server more than once.

That's what I'd think too, but this forum works in mysterious ways and has a weird way of slowly loading every single quoted image one at time as if it was the first time it was posted... 

DMW

DWFII said:

DMW said:

The internet was never known as FidoNet. FidoNet was a network of BBSs. ARPANET was the packet switched network that was the predecessor to what we now know as the internet.

That's true. The Internet was never known as Fidonet and Fidonet was never known as the Internet. In fact, Arpanet was never known as the Internet and the Internet as we know it was never known as Arpanet.

More to the point, Arpanet was not a public utility the way Fidonet was. In fact, it was illegal to use Arpanet for anything but military and scientific purposes/communications.

The network that was Arpanet may have been the technical foundation for the Internet as we know it today but philosophically it was worlds apart. And when those networks became available to the public through Fidonet and other BBS's, the military began looking for and creating a different and more secure network.

In the way it was used, and intended to be used, Arpanet was not the forerunner of the Internet. Fidonet came closest and for the ordinary person Fidonet was nearly the only option.  (there were other similar protocols but Fidonet was the largest).

FWIW, I was there. How about you? 

I have no idea why I am going back and quoting this, but I am. Fidonet was a public utility? OK, explain...

HeavyG

DMW said:

DWFII said:

DMW said:

The internet was never known as FidoNet. FidoNet was a network of BBSs. ARPANET was the packet switched network that was the predecessor to what we now know as the internet.

That's true. The Internet was never known as Fidonet and Fidonet was never known as the Internet. In fact, Arpanet was never known as the Internet and the Internet as we know it was never known as Arpanet.

More to the point, Arpanet was not a public utility the way Fidonet was. In fact, it was illegal to use Arpanet for anything but military and scientific purposes/communications.

The network that was Arpanet may have been the technical foundation for the Internet as we know it today but philosophically it was worlds apart. And when those networks became available to the public through Fidonet and other BBS's, the military began looking for and creating a different and more secure network.

In the way it was used, and intended to be used, Arpanet was not the forerunner of the Internet. Fidonet came closest and for the ordinary person Fidonet was nearly the only option.  (there were other similar protocols but Fidonet was the largest).

FWIW, I was there. How about you? 

I have no idea why I am going back and quoting this, but I am. Fidonet was a public utility? OK, explain...

If you take the broad definition of a public utility being an organization that provides and maintains an infrastructure to provide a public service I can see where Fidonet could be considered a public utility.

Fidonet created/maintains the software that allowed BBS's to tie in to each other and sets up the the hierarchy/folks to manage/oversee the connections in various areas/regions.

I guess one could also consider Usenet a public utility.

Dunno, semantics man; they can be tricky.