On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:24:07 -0500 (CDT)
"Michael Martinell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, July 8, 2005 8:45 pm, Cybe R. Wizard said:
> >>
> > Yes, that makes perfect sense and reiterates what I have said; that
> > if a thing has dropped in price 2000-fold /someone/ should now be
> > pa
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:43:32 -0400
Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many people do you think have 1.4-gig email
> archives? Gmail's original 1-gig archive was supposed to be
> enough for a lifetime.
Mine's about 500 megs, for what that's worth. Much of that is from
various mailin
On 2005-07-08, michael wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:59 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:43:32 -0400
>> Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Earlier in our lives, it was a big deal when hard-disk
>> > prices fell below $1 per megabyte. I recently bought a
>>
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 10:33:12PM -0400, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
> However, the poster above could be correct that someone should be paying
> him if a price drops by 2000-fold. We are not dealing with Zeno's
> paradox because of the order of operations and that "fold" can mean
> multiply
Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0500, Michael Martinell wrote:
On Fri, July 8, 2005 8:45 pm, Cybe R. Wizard said:
Yes, that makes perfect sense and reiterates what I have said; that if a
thing has dropped in price 2000-fold /someone/ should now be paying me
to use
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0500, Michael Martinell wrote:
>
> On Fri, July 8, 2005 8:45 pm, Cybe R. Wizard said:
> >>
> > Yes, that makes perfect sense and reiterates what I have said; that if a
> > thing has dropped in price 2000-fold /someone/ should now be paying me
> > to use their ha
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:45:56PM -0400, Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:47:48PM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> > Ugh... and I thought HTML e-mail took a ton of disk space compared to
> > plain text. An inline reply would make the e-mail more than double in
> > size!
>
> XML is chat
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:46:35PM -0500, Michael Martinell wrote:
>
> On Fri, July 8, 2005 10:25 pm, Carl Fink said:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0500, Michael Martinell wrote:
> >
> >> Following these statements and math, one is always dividing, not
> >> subtracting. No matter how ma
On Fri, July 8, 2005 10:25 pm, Carl Fink said:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0500, Michael Martinell wrote:
>
>> Following these statements and math, one is always dividing, not
>> subtracting. No matter how many times you divide you are still left
>> with
>> parts. If you then call each
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0500, Michael Martinell wrote:
> Following these statements and math, one is always dividing, not
> subtracting. No matter how many times you divide you are still left with
> parts. If you then call each of the new parts a whole and divide it you
> never end
On Fri, July 8, 2005 8:45 pm, Cybe R. Wizard said:
>>
> Yes, that makes perfect sense and reiterates what I have said; that if a
> thing has dropped in price 2000-fold /someone/ should now be paying me
> to use their hardware. Isn't it similar to the problem in saying that
> something costs, say,
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:40:11 +0100
michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:59 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:43:32 -0400
> > Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Earlier in our lives, it was a big deal when hard-disk
> > > prices fe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm not sure how the = signs got into my message. I don't use MS products, and
in fact, refuse to use Windows, and I am using a plain-text editor to compose my
mail. The = signs almost look like some kind of margin bell or something turned
on either
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:59 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:43:32 -0400
> Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Earlier in our lives, it was a big deal when hard-disk
> > prices fell below $1 per megabyte. I recently bought a
> > 200-gig drive for $100. Assume the
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:43:32 -0400
Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Earlier in our lives, it was a big deal when hard-disk
> prices fell below $1 per megabyte. I recently bought a
> 200-gig drive for $100. Assume the $1-per-meg limit
> was hit 15 years ago (I think it was less than tha
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:56:29 -0400
Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 06:31:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Which is marketing talking, not technical realities. How many
> > people do I
> > think have 1.4Gb archives? It's easier to ask me how many I th
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:43:32 -0400
Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:31:01AM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> > the extras such as font size and color. This means my mail archive
> > would be at least 4.2GB and easily more, instead of 1.4GB. Sorry,
> > but that's not j
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> I get a few hundred messages a day, and I never delete any
> mail other than spam. My archives over the last *four years*
> total about 900 megs.
Happy for ya. My dad hasn't upgraded his email client in 5 years and has
mail going back 5 years beyond that. Just becau
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> Speaking of netiquette (since the topic is top-posting,
> which is supposedly a violation of some norm or other),
> being a screamy dick in email is a violation. I'll only
> respond to the un-angry folks.
Nope, not screaming. As I prefaced, since you clearly missed t
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 06:31:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Which is marketing talking, not technical realities. How many people do I
> think have 1.4Gb archives? It's easier to ask me how many I think don't have
> such large archives. Webmail users. People who use local clients often hav
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 06:27:09AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> So now we're passing around a kabillion attachments? This also does not
> address the other portion which is, again caps since you missed it... WHEN
> INTERSPERSING THE RESPONSE OFTEN ONLY MAKES SENSE WHEN TAKEN IN CONTEXT WITH
> T
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> How many people do you think have 1.4-gig email
> archives? Gmail's original 1-gig archive was supposed to be
> enough for a lifetime.
Which is marketing talking, not technical realities. How many people do I
think have 1.4Gb archives? It's easier to ask me how many
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> This XML format would be no more of a burden on sysadmins
> than HTML email or large attachments. Less, in fact.
Point being that any increase of message size cannot be blithely dismissed
at one level without looking at the impact on other levels.
> The word 'impossi
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:31:01AM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> the extras such as font size and color. This means my mail archive would
> be at least 4.2GB and easily more, instead of 1.4GB. Sorry, but that's
> not just a difference of a "few hundred extra megabytes".
How many people do you think hav
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 20:34:32 -0700
Andy Streich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 07 July 2005 07:45 pm, Stephen R Laniel wrote:
>
> > XML is chatty. But please: a few hundred extra megabytes
> >won't kill you. Not on hard disks that *start* at 40 gigs.
> >
> > The trouble is that everybody
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:44:08AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Now apply that to the providers that have to transport and store several
> hundred thousand in a day.
Oh, the overworked sysadmin with limited disk space. I read
about him and his overloaded servers just the other day in
the pages o
On 7/8/05, Haines Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Until then, markups are a pain. The passages I've quoted above are
> an example. I had the impression the "=" to mark a carriage return was
> a peculiar effect of Windows editors, and my emacs re-fill command
> treats them as an ordinary characte
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:22:23PM -0400, Lorenzo Taylor wrote:
> > Wow! I really like the XML approach. But how are you going to get all t=
> he
> > email programs in the world to use it? It seems too late to make such a =
> smart
> > new approach to email a standard now as old as email is.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:30:52 -0400
Lorenzo Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is why it's called "extensible markup language". We could all be
> doing things with email that until today no one even thought possible.
> But since
> there is currently no XML standard, a few like-minded people
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> XML is chatty. But please: a few hundred extra megabytes
> won't kill you. Not on hard disks that *start* at 40 gigs.
Now apply that to the providers that have to transport and store several
hundred thousand in a day.
> The trouble is that everybody has different sta
Jacob S wrote:
> What happened to humans being smart enough to make things look neat and
> clean?
It went away around the time when humans stopped taking responsibility for
their own actions.
> When I first came to this list, I observed how others posted, received a
> few tips when I messed u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen R Laniel's comments on Re: OT (and Flamebait): Top-Posting were as
follows:
# I've had similar ideas recently about using XML for conf
# files in /etc, but that would take a bit of elaboration.
# I'll save that for another time
On Thursday 07 July 2005 07:45 pm, Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> The trouble is that everybody has different standards: some
> like inline quotes, some like top-posting, and some like
> bottom-posting. Rather than get exercised about others'
> aesthetic choices, we should let our programs format our
>
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:22:23PM -0400, Lorenzo Taylor wrote:
> Wow! I really like the XML approach. But how are you going to get all the
> email programs in the world to use it? It seems too late to make such a smart
> new approach to email a standard now as old as email is. Then again, if H
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:47:48PM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> Ugh... and I thought HTML e-mail took a ton of disk space compared to
> plain text. An inline reply would make the e-mail more than double in
> size!
XML is chatty. But please: a few hundred extra megabytes
won't kill you. Not on hard disk
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:22:23 -0400
Lorenzo Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stephen R Laniel's comments on Re: OT (and Flamebait): Top-Posting
> were as follows: # On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 02:52:41P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen R Laniel's comments on Re: OT (and Flamebait): Top-Posting were as
follows:
# On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 02:52:41PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
#
#
# This is some stuff that a guy wrote
#
#
#
#
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> I wonder if I may be so bold as to suggest the final word
> about top- or bottom-posting. Here it is:
Nope. Here's the final word.
> Your email program should be smart enough to customize to
> your preference.
Pipe dream.
> Email messages should look like so:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 02:52:41PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> At the risk of starting yet another war about top-posting, I just came
> across this (year-old) blog by what appears to be the guy who wrote
> (with a couple of others) the IMAP support in Microsoft's Entourage
> ("Outlook for the Mac") p
At the risk of starting yet another war about top-posting, I just came
across this (year-old) blog by what appears to be the guy who wrote
(with a couple of others) the IMAP support in Microsoft's Entourage
("Outlook for the Mac") product.
Two things he said that caught my attention:
1) He says h
40 matches
Mail list logo
