|
|
A few more from Yosemite
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqfsozxu086j53/DSF4553-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/or7cq6um4psithj/DSF4573-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/byvhxa4iqicdw03/DSF4685-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/uonqwq86ierx5ug/DSF4758-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3lpskk7dcay8ql/DSF4763.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
On 05/17/2017 10:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqfsozxu086j53/DSF4553-E.jpg Beautiful. The sky is awesome. Russell |
A few more from Yosemite
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2017051721002020171-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... | https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqfsozxu086j53/DSF4553-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/or7cq6um4psithj/DSF4573-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/byvhxa4iqicdw03/DSF4685-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/uonqwq86ierx5ug/DSF4758-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3lpskk7dcay8ql/DSF4763.jpg An interesting effect that I don't understand: The images seem a bit hazy. (In Pale Moon [Firefox].) I then downloaded E and viewed it in IrfanView. It's noticeably sharper with deeper colors! I don't think I've ever noticed such an effect before. It must be nice to live within driving distance of such jaw-dropping landscapes. Technical note: I see the images but need to set "No Style". I also wonder about the and . Maybe some kind of software is inserting those? They serve no purpose and make it harder to copy the link. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-18 10:17:49 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 05:00:28 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqfsozxu086j53/DSF4553-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/or7cq6um4psithj/DSF4573-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/byvhxa4iqicdw03/DSF4685-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/uonqwq86ierx5ug/DSF4758-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3lpskk7dcay8ql/DSF4763.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck Does the -E have any meaning, obviously you've added it, I do the same with temp images for upload I usually use a small s img_1234s for a small ve rsion of img_1234 typically for easy webpage loading, it;s not realy meant to mean anything to anyone eles, so was just curious. E = Edit. Sometimes you might see E2, or E3. It is just my notation. You'll be intrested to know (probably not actually) that the google imaging team (one person) has just come to image our lab, like the do with google street views. Should be up somewhere in 3 weeks where I don't know as yet. Well at least it's still photography of some sort. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-18 12:18:52 +0000, "Mayayana" said:
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2017051721002020171-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... | https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqfsozxu086j53/DSF4553-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/or7cq6um4psithj/DSF4573-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/byvhxa4iqicdw03/DSF4685-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/uonqwq86ierx5ug/DSF4758-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3lpskk7dcay8ql/DSF4763.jpg An interesting effect that I don't understand: The images seem a bit hazy. (In Pale Moon [Firefox].) I then downloaded E and viewed it in IrfanView. It's noticeably sharper with deeper colors! I don't think I've ever noticed such an effect before. I have know idea of what effect "Pale Moon" might have on your viewing experience, as I am not using Firefox, but it is odd. It must be nice to live within driving distance of such jaw-dropping landscapes. It is a 3 hour drive. Technical note: I see the images but need to set "No Style". I also wonder about the and . Maybe some kind of software is inserting those? They serve no purpose and make it harder to copy the link. The "No Style" is a Fujifilm EXIF header group in the RAW (RAF) files, which with the SOOC JPEGs will usually refer to Fujifilm film simulations. Usually these will be listed as "Film Simulation", "Monochrome", "Pict Style Color Space", "Picture Style"(exposure setting), "Saturation" (Typically, Normal, 0,0), and "Sharpness" (in-camera applied JPEG sharpness level). The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just do what I can to prevent that. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
"Savageduck" wrote
| It must be nice to live within driving distance of | such jaw-dropping landscapes. | | It is a 3 hour drive. | Very nice. The best I can do is to reach the Kancamagus Highway in that time. Which is beautiful, but not on the same scale. | Technical note: I see the images but need to set | "No Style". I also wonder about the and . Maybe | some kind of software is inserting those? They serve | no purpose and make it harder to copy the link. | | The "No Style" is a Fujifilm EXIF header group in the RAW (RAF) files, I meant No Style in the browser. Dropbox is doing something that hides the images from me, but if I go to View - Style - No Style to drop out the CSS then I can see it. I just mentioned that in case others have trouble. | The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use | them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet | clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just | do what I can to prevent that. Not a big deal. I just find it easier to click-select the line to paste in a browser, while the brackets require a more careful drag-select. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/18/2017 10:30 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-18 12:18:52 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2017051721002020171-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... | https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqfsozxu086j53/DSF4553-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/or7cq6um4psithj/DSF4573-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/byvhxa4iqicdw03/DSF4685-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/uonqwq86ierx5ug/DSF4758-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3lpskk7dcay8ql/DSF4763.jpg An interesting effect that I don't understand: The images seem a bit hazy. (In Pale Moon [Firefox].) I then downloaded E and viewed it in IrfanView. It's noticeably sharper with deeper colors! I don't think I've ever noticed such an effect before. I have know idea of what effect "Pale Moon" might have on your viewing experience, as I am not using Firefox, but it is odd. It must be nice to live within driving distance of such jaw-dropping landscapes. It is a 3 hour drive. Hah, it can take me that long to travel the 55 miles to Manhattan :) Technical note: I see the images but need to set "No Style". I also wonder about the and . Maybe some kind of software is inserting those? They serve no purpose and make it harder to copy the link. The "No Style" is a Fujifilm EXIF header group in the RAW (RAF) files, which with the SOOC JPEGs will usually refer to Fujifilm film simulations. Usually these will be listed as "Film Simulation", "Monochrome", "Pict Style Color Space", "Picture Style"(exposure setting), "Saturation" (Typically, Normal, 0,0), and "Sharpness" (in-camera applied JPEG sharpness level). The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just do what I can to prevent that. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-18 14:46:22 +0000, PAS said:
On 5/18/2017 10:30 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-18 12:18:52 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2017051721002020171-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... | https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqfsozxu086j53/DSF4553-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/or7cq6um4psithj/DSF4573-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/byvhxa4iqicdw03/DSF4685-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/uonqwq86ierx5ug/DSF4758-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3lpskk7dcay8ql/DSF4763.jpg An interesting effect that I don't understand: The images seem a bit hazy. (In Pale Moon [Firefox].) I then downloaded E and viewed it in IrfanView. It's noticeably sharper with deeper colors! I don't think I've ever noticed such an effect before. I have know idea of what effect "Pale Moon" might have on your viewing experience, as I am not using Firefox, but it is odd. It must be nice to live within driving distance of such jaw-dropping landscapes. It is a 3 hour drive. Hah, it can take me that long to travel the 55 miles to Manhattan :) From my place out at Lake Nacimiento, West of Paso Robles it is about 180 miles to the Southern Yosemite NP gate. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-18 14:44:30 +0000, "Mayayana" said:
"Savageduck" wrote | It must be nice to live within driving distance of | such jaw-dropping landscapes. | | It is a 3 hour drive. | Very nice. The best I can do is to reach the Kancamagus Highway in that time. Which is beautiful, but not on the same scale. | Technical note: I see the images but need to set | "No Style". I also wonder about the and . Maybe | some kind of software is inserting those? They serve | no purpose and make it harder to copy the link. | | The "No Style" is a Fujifilm EXIF header group in the RAW (RAF) files, I meant No Style in the browser. Dropbox is doing something that hides the images from me, but if I go to View - Style - No Style to drop out the CSS then I can see it. I just mentioned that in case others have trouble. When you say "browser", are you refering to Firefox, or Outlook Express? ....and what do you mean by "hides the images from me"? If they are hidden, how are you able to view them? Dropbox shouldn't be doing anything with regard to EXIF changes. | The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use | them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet | clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just | do what I can to prevent that. Not a big deal. I just find it easier to click-select the line to paste in a browser, while the brackets require a more careful drag-select. I see that you use MS Outlook Express, I suspect since it is not a particularly good Usenet client that it is not conforming when it comes to dealing with the " " delimiters. What you should be seeing is a clickable URL/link contained within those delimiters. However, admitedly for those who have to use your method, some care must be employed when making the selection. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Technical note: I see the images but need to set | "No Style". I also wonder about the and . Maybe | some kind of software is inserting those? They serve | no purpose and make it harder to copy the link. | | The "No Style" is a Fujifilm EXIF header group in the RAW (RAF) files, I meant No Style in the browser. Dropbox is doing something that hides the images from me, but if I go to View - Style - No Style to drop out the CSS then I can see it. I just mentioned that in case others have trouble. no need to drop out css. however, if cookies are blocked (and you've said you do that), then dropox will display a signup popup, which can easily be dismissed. | The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use | them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet | clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just | do what I can to prevent that. Not a big deal. I just find it easier to click-select the line to paste in a browser, while the brackets require a more careful drag-select. no need to copy/paste. the link should be directly clickable. if not, get a better newsreader. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/18/2017 4:49 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana wrote: | Technical note: I see the images but need to set | "No Style". I also wonder about the and . Maybe | some kind of software is inserting those? They serve | no purpose and make it harder to copy the link. | | The "No Style" is a Fujifilm EXIF header group in the RAW (RAF) files, I meant No Style in the browser. Dropbox is doing something that hides the images from me, but if I go to View - Style - No Style to drop out the CSS then I can see it. I just mentioned that in case others have trouble. no need to drop out css. however, if cookies are blocked (and you've said you do that), then dropox will display a signup popup, which can easily be dismissed. I've noticed that .... and wondered WHY that happened! Thanks for explaining. :-) | The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use | them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet | clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just | do what I can to prevent that. Not a big deal. I just find it easier to click-select the line to paste in a browser, while the brackets require a more careful drag-select. no need to copy/paste. the link should be directly clickable. if not, get a better newsreader. Agreed. The links 'work' for me using Thunderbird. -- David B. |
A few more from Yosemite
In article , David B.
wrote: | The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use | them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet | clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just | do what I can to prevent that. Not a big deal. I just find it easier to click-select the line to paste in a browser, while the brackets require a more careful drag-select. no need to copy/paste. the link should be directly clickable. if not, get a better newsreader. Agreed. The links 'work' for me using Thunderbird. if anything at all works in thunderbird, be very happy. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/18/2017 5:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , David B. wrote: | The " & " are standard Usenet UTF-8 URL (link) delimiters and I use | them to prevent broken URL links. However, some nonconforming Usenet | clients will still break URLs even if the delimiters are used. I just | do what I can to prevent that. Not a big deal. I just find it easier to click-select the line to paste in a browser, while the brackets require a more careful drag-select. no need to copy/paste. the link should be directly clickable. if not, get a better newsreader. Agreed. The links 'work' for me using Thunderbird. if anything at all works in thunderbird, be very happy. I don't APPEAR to have ANY problems reading Usenet groups with Thunderbird, so I *AM* very happy! :-) -- David B. |
A few more from Yosemite
"Savageduck" wrote
| When you say "browser", are you refering to Firefox, or Outlook Express? | ...and what do you mean by "hides the images from me"? | If they are hidden, how are you able to view them? | | Dropbox shouldn't be doing anything with regard to EXIF changes. | Firefox. An increasing number of pages show up with partially blank content. If you're not familiar with webpage coding it's hard to explain. HTML specifies something like an image. CSS can be used to specify details like position and border. Sometimes CSS is used to hide content which is then only made visible via script. I'm not sure why. So with script routinely disabled, I sometimes see missing items. But the if I also disable CSS then I just get the basic HTML and it works. Undoubtedly more than you care to know. It's part of the increasing complication of protecting privacy and security online. | I see that you use MS Outlook Express, I suspect since it is not a | particularly good Usenet client that it is not conforming when it comes | to dealing with the " " delimiters. What you should be seeing is a | clickable URL/link contained within those delimiters. However, | admitedly for those who have to use your method, some care must be | employed when making the selection. It has nothing to do with OE, which works quite well for Usenet. And there's no reason to put brackets around a link. It serves no purpose and does not conform with any kind of HTML standard. But it's not a big deal, as I said. I just prefer not to click links in the post.... Don't ask. :) |
A few more from Yosemite
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | I see that you use MS Outlook Express, I suspect since it is not a | particularly good Usenet client that it is not conforming when it comes | to dealing with the " " delimiters. What you should be seeing is a | clickable URL/link contained within those delimiters. However, | admitedly for those who have to use your method, some care must be | employed when making the selection. It has nothing to do with OE, which works quite well for Usenet. And there's no reason to put brackets around a link. yes there is. It serves no purpose and does not conform with any kind of HTML standard. wrong. But it's not a big deal, as I said. I just prefer not to click links in the post.... Don't ask. :) much easier than copy/pasting it. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-18 22:50:23 +0000, "Mayayana" said:
"Savageduck" wrote | When you say "browser", are you refering to Firefox, or Outlook Express? | ...and what do you mean by "hides the images from me"? | If they are hidden, how are you able to view them? | | Dropbox shouldn't be doing anything with regard to EXIF changes. | Firefox. An increasing number of pages show up with partially blank content. If you're not familiar with webpage coding it's hard to explain. HTML specifies something like an image. CSS can be used to specify details like position and border. Sometimes CSS is used to hide content which is then only made visible via script. I'm not sure why. So with script routinely disabled, I sometimes see missing items. But the if I also disable CSS then I just get the basic HTML and it works. Undoubtedly more than you care to know. It's part of the increasing complication of protecting privacy and security online. | I see that you use MS Outlook Express, I suspect since it is not a | particularly good Usenet client that it is not conforming when it comes | to dealing with the " " delimiters. What you should be seeing is a | clickable URL/link contained within those delimiters. However, | admitedly for those who have to use your method, some care must be | employed when making the selection. It has nothing to do with OE, which works quite well for Usenet. And there's no reason to put brackets around a link. It serves no purpose and does not conform with any kind of HTML standard. But it's not a big deal, as I said. I just prefer not to click links in the post.... Don't ask. :) Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. delims = "" | "" | "#" | "%" | "" Which is found he http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt ....and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
"Savageduck" wrote
| Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. |
A few more from Yosemite
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A it's talking about text, not html. But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. nope Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. it's not html. it's *text*, and not just newsreaders or email apps either. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) even less likely to work. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. they're not superfluous. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. of course there are. don't be stupid. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. what ever gave you that idea??? On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. and clumsiness. |
A few more from Yosemite
"nospam" wrote
..... I simply can't respond to any of your recent posts. You have no idea what you're talking about. Sometimes you do. Sometimes you don't. What I find odd is that you can't tell the difference. |
A few more from Yosemite
In article , Mayayana
wrote: "nospam" wrote .... I simply can't respond to any of your recent posts. true. you can't. You have no idea what you're talking about. far more than you do. Sometimes you do. Sometimes you don't. this is one of the former. What I find odd is that you can't tell the difference. what i find odd is that you refuse to learn. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said:
"Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ....and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/18/2017 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ...and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) Does that mean you are a closet IE user? ;-p -- PeterN |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-19 02:11:02 +0000, PeterN said:
On 5/18/2017 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ...and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) Does that mean you are a closet IE user? ;-p Not even close. For most stuff I use Safari, and I use Chrome together with the Zenmate VPN extension for my surreptitious BBC viewing, and some other browsing. Once upon a time, back when MS provided a Mac System 7 edition of IE I used it briefly. Now I am thankful there is no current Mac edition of IE. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
"Savageduck" wrote
| I think that we are talking at cross purposes. Maybe. It's not worth a long discussion, at any rate. If you want to use brackets then go ahead. I appreciate seeing peoples' photos and the brackets are really not a big deal. It was just a comment. |
A few more from Yosemite
In article 2017051819323040534-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: Once upon a time, back when MS provided a Mac System 7 edition of IE I used it briefly. Now I am thankful there is no current Mac edition of IE. mac internet explorer was actually pretty good for its time. it was discontinued in 2003, after apple introduced safari. it also used an entirely different render engine than the windows version, written by an entirely different team. the only thing it had in common with the windows version was its name. unlike today, there weren't a wide variety of browsers back then. it was basically just netscape and ie. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/19/2017 3:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-19 02:11:02 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/18/2017 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ...and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) Does that mean you are a closet IE user? ;-p Not even close. For most stuff I use Safari, and I use Chrome together with the Zenmate VPN extension for my surreptitious BBC viewing, and some other browsing. I do much the same, but ...... I'm shocked to learn that a fellow like you would break the law! ;-) Once upon a time, back when MS provided a Mac System 7 edition of IE I used it briefly. Now I am thankful there is no current Mac edition of IE. -- David B. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-19 13:02:37 +0000, "David B." said:
On 5/19/2017 3:32 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 02:11:02 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/18/2017 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ...and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) Does that mean you are a closet IE user? ;-p Not even close. For most stuff I use Safari, and I use Chrome together with the Zenmate VPN extension for my surreptitious BBC viewing, and some other browsing. I do much the same, but ...... I'm shocked to learn that a fellow like you would break the law! ;-) What Law? We rebelled against the crown in 1776. I am just keeping up a tradition. What is a boy, whose Trans-Atlantic family thoroughly twisted his thought process with the Goons, to do? -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/19/2017 3:24 PM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 14:02:44 UTC+1, David B. wrote: On 5/19/2017 3:32 AM, Savageduck wrote: Not even close. For most stuff I use Safari, and I use Chrome together with the Zenmate VPN extension for my surreptitious BBC viewing, and some other browsing. I do much the same, but ...... I'm shocked to learn that a fellow like you would break the law! ;-) Once upon a time, back when MS provided a Mac System 7 edition of IE I used it briefly. Now I am thankful there is no current Mac edition of IE. -- David B. Ah but he's not breaking his laws only ours ;-) Indeed! ;-) I think my TV license is due at the end of the month.... I've paid mine by Direct Debit, monthly, for years! -- David B. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/19/2017 3:50 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-19 13:02:37 +0000, "David B." said: On 5/19/2017 3:32 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 02:11:02 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/18/2017 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ...and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) Does that mean you are a closet IE user? ;-p Not even close. For most stuff I use Safari, and I use Chrome together with the Zenmate VPN extension for my surreptitious BBC viewing, and some other browsing. I do much the same, but ...... I'm shocked to learn that a fellow like you would break the law! ;-) What Law? Don't worry - it's OUR law, not yours! ;-) We rebelled against the crown in 1776. I am just keeping up a tradition. You Americans are just *BAD*!!! What is a boy, whose Trans-Atlantic family thoroughly twisted his thought process with the Goons, to do? NOW we're getting to the REAL truth!!! ;-) -- David B. |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/19/2017 4:47 PM, Whisky-dave wrote:
we have to pay for a license by law. Only if one has a TV set! |
A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-19 15:47:41 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 15:50:13 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 13:02:37 +0000, "David B." said: On 5/19/2017 3:32 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 02:11:02 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/18/2017 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ...and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) Does that mean you are a closet IE user? ;-p Not even close. For most stuff I use Safari, and I use Chrome together with the Zenmate VPN extension for my surreptitious BBC viewing, and some other browsing. I do much the same, but ...... I'm shocked to learn that a fellow like you would break the law! ;-) What Law? well we in the UK as citizens you can be fined or go to prison for not having a TV license even if you don't watch TV. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/599...Scotland-fines I should be OK then, I just won't watch the BBC in the UK. We rebelled against the crown in 1776. Have you got photographic evidence of this :) I only have hand-stitched, and scribed with a quill evidence of that. I am just keeping up a tradition. What is a boy, whose Trans-Atlantic family thoroughly twisted his thought process with the Goons, to do? Laugh at the stupidity of such a system where we have to pay for a license by law. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
On 05/19/2017 11:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 15:50:13 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: snip http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/599...Scotland-fines We rebelled against the crown in 1776. Have you got photographic evidence of this :) Sort of... check the back of the US $2 bill! (One of my ancestors was left out of that picture.) -- Ken Hart |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/22/2017 9:57 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 17:02:35 UTC+1, David B. wrote: On 5/19/2017 4:47 PM, Whisky-dave wrote: we have to pay for a license by law. Only if one has a TV set! Not it's any equipment capable of recieving the transmission, so if you have a DVD player with a tuner you have to pay. I stand corrected! :-( I've now read he- http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one Sorry about that, Dave! -- David B. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com