Posting pictures on this group

[Cody Dawg]

Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Cody Dawg" > wrote in message
...
> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
> some pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
> (pre-Lidle)?
>

No it is not acceptable to post photos on a text newsgroup. Most servers
would strip them off anyway. There is a binary newsgroup associated with
this group but I don't have a clue as to what it is.

[mike regish]

try alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

mike

"Cody Dawg" > wrote in message
...
> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
> some pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
> (pre-Lidle)?
>

[John Clear]

In article >,
Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>"Cody Dawg" > wrote in message
...
>> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
>> some pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
>> (pre-Lidle)?
>>
>
>No it is not acceptable to post photos on a text newsgroup. Most servers
>would strip them off anyway. There is a binary newsgroup associated with
>this group but I don't have a clue as to what it is.

The easier way is to just put them on a website, and then just post
the URL. If you don't have your own webspace, Flickr, Photobucket
or one of the others works well enough.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Morgans[_2_]]

> "Cody Dawg" > wrote
>> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
>> pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote
> No it is not acceptable to post photos on a text newsgroup. Most servers would
> strip them off anyway. There is a binary newsgroup associated with this group
> but I don't have a clue as to what it is.

You can use alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

If I were you, and wanted to view the results, I would go to the group - FIRST,
and use some type of "catch up" feature so you don't have to download several
hundred posts. It is a very active group, with many large files.

You could also use RAP first in the subject, so it is easier for others to find
them, when you reference to them in a post.

I trust you do have broadband of some type? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

mike regish wrote:
> try alt.binaries.pictures.aviation


I like the idea of the OP posting a URL instead. That way, we go right to the
content instead of having to find that newsgroup, then wade through it to find
the particular photos.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Marco Leon]

This is considered by most a text-only group. Many folks post to
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation and let people know with a post to this
group.

That said, I wonder if feelings will change with the increasing
popularity of broadband connections. As long as this does not start
filling with SPAM, I personally would not mind a few aviation-related
pics from time to time.

Marco

Cody Dawg wrote:
> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
> pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Marco Leon" > said:
>That said, I wonder if feelings will change with the increasing
>popularity of broadband connections. As long as this does not start
>filling with SPAM, I personally would not mind a few aviation-related
>pics from time to time.

Speaking as a news administrator with 20 years experience, I say broadband
has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's server space, and you let in
one binary and soon the group will be nothing but pictures, and then I'll
have to boot it from my servers.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Q: How did you get into artificial intelligence?
A: Seemed logical -- I didn't have any real intelligence.

[Montblack]

("Marco Leon" wrote)
>> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
>> some pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
>> (pre-Lidle)?
>
> I personally would not mind a few aviation-related pics from time to time.


http://new.photos.yahoo.com/landof10klakes/albums
For the OP, dump them into Yahoo.photo ...like these aviation-related pics.

It's easy to use. It's FREE. It's fast. Best of all ...it's linkable.


Montblack

[Jose[_1_]]

> That said, I wonder if feelings will change with the increasing
> popularity of broadband connections.

No, they won't change. Besides being huge (with consequences beyond
connection speed), classification and segregation of topics is a Good
Thing. It helps readers find what they want, and ignore what they don't
want.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote

> I like the idea of the OP posting a URL instead. That way, we go right to the
> content instead of having to find that newsgroup, then wade through it to find
> the particular photos.

Without a doubt, that is the easy way to do it - If you have that option readily
available to you.
--
Jim in NC

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, "Cody Dawg"
> wrote:
> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
> pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?

The best solution is for you to post them on your own web page... The
next best solution is for you to use http://www.tinypic.com and then
post the links in a message here if you needed to refer to them in a
message on this newsgroup... Some people might not have access to the
alt.* binary newsgroups, so I would say that should be your last
choice unless you're just wanting to post them and you don't care if
anyone actually sees them...

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> The best solution is for you to post them on your own web page... The
> next best solution is for you to use http://www.tinypic.com and then
> post the links in a message here if you needed to refer to them in a
> message on this newsgroup... Some people might not have access to the
> alt.* binary newsgroups, so I would say that should be your last
> choice unless you're just wanting to post them and you don't care if
> anyone actually sees them...


The problem with tinypic is you don't KNOW where you're going when you click on
their link. I've been mooned too many times in the past to bother with tinypic
URLs ever again. Better to post the whole link if you can. I've got my
wordwrap set to 80 characters and it wordwraps the links intact even if it
stretches out over more than one line.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Peter Dohm]

> >> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
> >> some pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
> >> (pre-Lidle)?
> >>
> >
> >No it is not acceptable to post photos on a text newsgroup. Most servers
> >would strip them off anyway. There is a binary newsgroup associated with
> >this group but I don't have a clue as to what it is.
>
> The easier way is to just put them on a website, and then just post
> the URL. If you don't have your own webspace, Flickr, Photobucket
> or one of the others works well enough.
>
Most ISP accounts include some server space for a personal web page, which
can be as complex as will fit the allocated disk space or as simple as a
list or display of your latest pictures.

The resulting URL tends to be a bit long and convoluted, but TinyURL solves
that problem rather nicely. It has good instructions, is easy and
intuitive, and is located at http://www.TinyURL.com/

Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This is considered by most a text-only group. Many folks post to
> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation and let people know with a post to this
> group.
>
> That said, I wonder if feelings will change with the increasing
> popularity of broadband connections. As long as this does not start
> filling with SPAM, I personally would not mind a few aviation-related
> pics from time to time.
>
> Marco


It's not so much the broadband connection that come into play with this
issue, though it is part of it. The main thing is the news servers desire to
reduce storage on their servers. There are lots of USENET servers that don't
even have the binary newsgroups because of the amount of storage required.

[Marco Leon]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> It's not so much the broadband connection that come into play with this
> issue, though it is part of it. The main thing is the news servers desire to
> reduce storage on their servers. There are lots of USENET servers that don't
> even have the binary newsgroups because of the amount of storage required.

Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
this group gets).

The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
exceed the minimal size a few images take up.

But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
for me.

Marco

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> It's not so much the broadband connection that come into play with this
>> issue, though it is part of it. The main thing is the news servers desire
>> to
>> reduce storage on their servers. There are lots of USENET servers that
>> don't
>> even have the binary newsgroups because of the amount of storage
>> required.
>
> Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
> cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
> newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
> cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
> this group gets).
>
> The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
> exceed the minimal size a few images take up.
>
> But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
> for me.
>
> Marco
>

The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the info.

4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

[Marco Leon]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
> increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
> increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the info.
>
> 4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
> 9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
> 12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
> 26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
> 82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
> 181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
> 257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
> 492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
> 969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
> 1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
> 1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
> 1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
> 1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
> 1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
> 1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
> 1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
> 1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
> 1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
> 2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

Yeah, but you need to qualify "binaries." You know very well the
volume is more due to DVD and music posts rather than pictures. Good
research though.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:16:19 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:
> Most ISP accounts include some server space for a personal web page, which
> can be as complex as will fit the allocated disk space or as simple as a
> list or display of your latest pictures.
>
> The resulting URL tends to be a bit long and convoluted, but TinyURL solves
> that problem rather nicely. It has good instructions, is easy and
> intuitive, and is located at http://www.TinyURL.com/

Or if you have a Gmail account, you can use GooglePages...

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/gators-gotta-eat-too

I don't necessarily like the fact that GooglePages does not have the
concept of subdirectories (aka folders) and instead basically uses a
flat file system, but it's possible to at least somewhat get used to
those limitations...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
>> increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
>> increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the
>> info.
>>
>> 4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
>> 9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
>> 12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
>> 26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
>> 82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
>> 181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
>> 257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
>> 492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
>> 969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
>> 1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
>> 1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
>> 1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
>> 1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
>> 1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
>> 1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
>> 1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
>> 1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
>> 1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
>> 2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources
>
> Yeah, but you need to qualify "binaries." You know very well the
> volume is more due to DVD and music posts rather than pictures. Good
> research though.
>

Of cause it is that doesn't change the fact that the newsgroup server
providers still have to more space to have binaries and virtually all of
them have decided against allowing binary data in the "text" newsgroups. DO
you expect them to check each file and see if it a picture of my airplane or
a copy of "Top Gun"?

Plus with the number of free website and photo upload places it just doesn't
make since to have to have the photo of my airplane stored on each and every
news server when I can upload it to a web site and post a link.

[Marco Leon]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Of cause it is that doesn't change the fact that the newsgroup server
> providers still have to more space to have binaries and virtually all of
> them have decided against allowing binary data in the "text" newsgroups. DO
> you expect them to check each file and see if it a picture of my airplane or
> a copy of "Top Gun"?
>
> Plus with the number of free website and photo upload places it just doesn't
> make since to have to have the photo of my airplane stored on each and every
> news server when I can upload it to a web site and post a link.

Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

[Peter Duniho]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
> cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
> newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
> cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
> this group gets).

In addition to what else has already been pointed out, keep in mind that a
given newsgroup may be subject to a fixed storage quota. In a text
newsgroup, a single binary could easily be equivalent to hundreds of regular
messages, and allowing that single binary would cause hundreds of regular
messages to be discarded earlier than they otherwise would have been.

Text and binaries just aren't compatible in a single newsgroup. If the
newsgroup is not a binary newsgroup in the first place, allowing binaries
can have serious ramifications on the normal use of the newsgroup
(obviously, the converse of posting text messages to a binary newsgroup
isn't a problem).

> The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
> exceed the minimal size a few images take up.

Depends on the size of the images. However, today a *small* image file is
between 500K and 1MB. With text messages running around 2K to 5K, maybe 20K
for a really really large one that hasn't had the quoted trimmed properly,
just ONE image file represents hundreds of text messages. Even a few
quickly overtake any undesirable text messages, and there's no reason to
expect that image files will be restricted in size to what passes for a
small one today.

And all of that is before considering the inflation in data size: text
encoding of binaries is incredibly wasteful (depending on the encoding being
used, it could inflate the size of the data by 30-50%).

Of course, there's also the issue that when posted to a newsgroup, a message
(binary or not) gets transmitted to each and every news server carrying that
newsgroup, whether or not any user using that news server will ever even
bother to download the message. That is also wasteful

Furthermore, many users have their news readers configured to download every
message, without a limit on size, even though they may have no interest in
looking at the binary file. So not only are news servers forced to receive,
store, and retransmit data that they never actually use, so too are users
(and many users today are still subject either to bandwidth quotas or
bandwidth charges). This is wasteful as well.

In fact, there's very little about binaries in newsgroups (whether in a
newsgroup for binaries or not) that is not wasteful.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that ISPs still bother to carry *any* binary
newsgroups. Even in the old days, when binary file transmission was pretty
much restricted to FTP or text encoding, it would have been much better to
use FTP. But at least then, one could point out that there weren't that
many freely available FTP sites where users could store binary data for
redistribution. Today, free web server space is easy to come by, and using
it solves a variety of issues, including not having to use an inefficient
encoding mechanism as well as avoiding transmitting the data to users who
don't actually need or want it.

If this discussion is to be had, what it really ought to be about is the
complete abolishment of binary newsgroups in the first place. That debate
seems to still have valid open arguments for both sides, even as clearly the
world should be moving away from them. But IMHO, the question of binaries
in a text newsgroup is obvious: they don't belong. Usenet should be moving
*forward* with the progress elsewhere in the computer industry, not
backwards.

> But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
> for me.

I'm not so sure it's about arguing about it. It's not like you have in your
power to change the way this newsgroup handles binaries. None of us do.
It's not a designated binary newsgroup, and so most ISPs simply don't allow
binaries in it.

To me, the question is more about education. That is, there are very real
reasons that binaries aren't allowed here, and it seems to me that a person
who believes that binaries *should* be allowed could use more information.
Rather than trying to debate with them (that is, you :) ) the merits of
allowing binaries, it's more about educating them about why binaries
shouldn't be allowed.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
> then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
> a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
> all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup policy.
In fact, they would probably simply flag the text newsgroup where binaries
are allowed as a binary newsgroup (there's no restriction on text messages
within a binary newsgroup).

The real issue is that there are genuine reasons for not allowing binaries
in a text-only newsgroup. It's much more wasteful than you seem to realize.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" > said:
>"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
>> then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
>> a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
>> all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.
>
>An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup policy.

And hire about 8 more full time news admins to keep these per-newsgroup
policy flags up to date.

>In fact, they would probably simply flag the text newsgroup where binaries
>are allowed as a binary newsgroup (there's no restriction on text messages
>within a binary newsgroup).

Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.



--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
chown -R us /yourbase
- Simon Slavin

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, "Cody Dawg"
> wrote in >:

>Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
>pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?
>

If you are unfamiliar with how Usenet works, consider studying the
information available here:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html
http://www.usenet.com/articles/newsgroup_netiquette.htm
http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1
http://www.imagescape.com/helpweb/news/newsnet.html
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/
http://www.ibiblio.org/usenet-i/usenet-help.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
> i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
> feeds with one configuration.
>
> Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Circa 1996 there was a guy running a cancelbot on "large" binaries
in non-binary groups (Richard somethingorother). Is that still
happening or did he give that up?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>> Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
>> i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
>> feeds with one configuration.
>>
>> Oh wait, that's what we already do.
>
> Circa 1996 there was a guy running a cancelbot on "large" binaries
> in non-binary groups (Richard somethingorother). Is that still
> happening or did he give that up?
>

He probably gave up because most servers stopped accepting cancel messages.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
> cheaper storage.

Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.

The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
were on Usenet.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
> newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
> cause an issue...

Once it's tolerated, it's a short hop to advertising video.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>In article >,
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>> Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
>> i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
>> feeds with one configuration.
>>
>> Oh wait, that's what we already do.
>
>Circa 1996 there was a guy running a cancelbot on "large" binaries
>in non-binary groups (Richard somethingorother). Is that still
>happening or did he give that up?

I run cleanfeed to delete binaries in non-binary groups. However it
hasn't been updated in a while, so I don't think it woks on yenc.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller
that could have been prevented by a good teacher. -- Flannery O'Connor

[gatt]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> As long as this does not start filling with SPAM,

Therein lies the problem.




-c

[gatt]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

> Speaking as a news administrator with 20 years experience, I say broadband
> has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's server space, and you let in
> one binary and soon the group will be nothing but pictures, and then I'll
> have to boot it from my servers.

You too, eh?

The network provider I worked for had to outsource its newsfeed in about
1999 because it couldn't keep up with the server load associated with binary
usenet posts. Most of it was porn, (which, strangely, almost all sourced
from Salt Lake City.)

-c

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup
>>policy.
>
> And hire about 8 more full time news admins to keep these per-newsgroup
> policy flags up to date.

Well, I *did* say "committed to the idea". I'm not saying it'd be a *good*
idea, just that there's no reason it can't be done.

> [...]
> Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
> i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
> feeds with one configuration.

Not if they want to implement a per-newsgroup policy, they couldn't.

> Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Then you obviously don't implement a per-newsgroup policy. So?

Pete

[Marco Leon]

Jose wrote:
>
> Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
> copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
> over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
> still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
> bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
> much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.
>
> The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
> when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
> server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
> were on Usenet.
>
Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
small relatively speaking.

[Marco Leon]

Jose wrote:
>
> Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
> copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
> over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
> still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
> bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
> much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.
>
> The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
> when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
> server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
> were on Usenet.
>
Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
small relatively speaking.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Jose wrote:
>>
>> Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
>> copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
>> over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
>> still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
>> bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
>> much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.
>>
>> The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
>> when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
>> server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
>> were on Usenet.
>>
> Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
> that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
> images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
> small relatively speaking.
>

Compared to a 4GB DVD yes but compared to this 3KB text message even the
smallest photos are huge.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Of course they are bigger than text

Right, and that is the issue. In a text newsgroup, things are optimized
for text. Anything that is not "text sized" gets in the way, whether on
the server, in the software required to view, or in the time people have
to wait for the unwanted image to be presented to them. "Things that
don't fit" should be segregated. This includes binaries (post to a
binaries group). It also includes topic drift (change the subject, use
prefixes) and HTML (put that anywhere else but Usenet).

Doing this makes the experience better for all.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> Right, and that is the issue. In a text newsgroup, things are optimized for
> text. Anything that is not "text sized" gets in the way, whether on the
> server, in the software required to view, or in the time people have to wait
> for the unwanted image to be presented to them. "Things that don't fit"
> should be segregated.

For once, I totally agree!

It is all in what you expect to get.

I set my reader to download all of the headers and message bodies in a text only
group. It doesn't take long, with broadband.

Not so, with the binaries picture group, for example. Can you imagine how long
that would take, to download all of the message bodies (pictures), if you missed
a few days? <g>

A line has been drawn in the sand. No binaries in a text only group. It is
what you expect. If you let one or two pictures in, where do you draw the line,
now? It becomes significantly <g> less clear, then.
--
Jim in NC

[Dallas]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, Cody Dawg wrote:

> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
> pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?

I've used quite a few free web based photo sites and still haven't found
one I like better than http://photobucket.com/

It's the only one I've found that will let you upload high res photos
without reducing the size of them.

Example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Dallas52/Dallas/787FlightDeckPoster.jpg


--
Dallas

[ManhattanMan]

Dallas wrote:
>
> It's the only one I've found that will let you upload high res photos
> without reducing the size of them.
>
> Example:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Dallas52/Dallas/787FlightDeckPoster.jpg


Dreamer........ :)

[Andrew Gideon]

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, Cody Dawg wrote:
>
>> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
>> some pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
>> (pre-Lidle)?

That was the football player that had the accident near the East River?
That has nothing to do with the Hudson, which happily supports an
exclusion zone through the class B.

- Andrew

[Dallas]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:52 -0500, ManhattanMan wrote:

>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Dallas52/Dallas/787FlightDeckPoster.jpg
>
> Dreamer........ :)

Na... that's a button pusher's office. I like the smell of motor oil in my
face. :-)


--
Dallas

[Panic]

You can post pictures in binary groups. Try alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, Cody Dawg wrote:
>
>> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
>> some
>> pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
>> (pre-Lidle)?
>
> I've used quite a few free web based photo sites and still haven't found
> one I like better than http://photobucket.com/
>
> It's the only one I've found that will let you upload high res photos
> without reducing the size of them.
>
> Example:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Dallas52/Dallas/787FlightDeckPoster.jpg
>
>
> --
> Dallas

[H. Adam Stevens]

You can place photos on photobucket and post links.


"Panic" > wrote in message
...
> You can post pictures in binary groups. Try
> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, Cody Dawg wrote:
>>
>>> Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post
>>> some
>>> pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor
>>> (pre-Lidle)?
>>
>> I've used quite a few free web based photo sites and still haven't found
>> one I like better than http://photobucket.com/
>>
>> It's the only one I've found that will let you upload high res photos
>> without reducing the size of them.
>>
>> Example:
>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Dallas52/Dallas/787FlightDeckPoster.jpg
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dallas
>
>