Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Buck <Buck@Scanners.Inc>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.earlmiller
Subject: Re: indexes (was Re: 8/24_1 445of613] - "Octokuro_StrawberryMarshmallow (35).jpg")
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 09:11:26 -0400
Organization: Scanners Inc
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <g2u1ne5vka0tp683kikjectdppqirtdcfp@4ax.com>
References: <aVi8F.65372$yw3.62323@usenetxs.com> <20nlme9hvrmk44fcmpq5jq2guhosl176bl@4ax.com> <r7emmel33nqnc6fud9tas7mldt3hd69vij@4ax.com> <25gomeh86qehro3i6ecs6p0946ntndjpeh@4ax.com> <dgvtmetdrgprh2hapn3ebian5v5ogpr1si@4ax.com> <040920190459125565%abuse@localhost.localdomain> <4cl0ne9hhrfj00pt20pb78j85iscpoemk7@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3567f0022ce8091e02a2b7ba29b70ab679f790f079d2828.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
X-Received-Bytes: 8216
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4166176961
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.earlmiller:12637
On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 19:41:43 -0500, SL <SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8>
posted: "Re: indexes (was Re: 8/24_1 445of613] -
"Octokuro_StrawberryMarshmallow (35).jpg")"
>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 04:59:12 -0500, Randy Wang
><abuse@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>>In article <dgvtmetdrgprh2hapn3ebian5v5ogpr1si@4ax.com>,
>>SL <SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8> wrote:
>>
>>> There are times when making a dx makes real sense, it's too
>>> time consuming though and for a good majority you can use the cover
>>> image as a selection guide.
>>
>>The main thing about indexes is that they're left over from the era
>>of dialup, when most people were forced to pick and choose what to
>>download. In olden times, it took far too long to download a few
>>selected full-size pics from a set to see whether you wanted to get the
>>entire set (and getting the entire set would take many minutes).
>>That's all over, and the need for indexes has faded away with it.
>>
>>There are many groups whose charters are absurdly out of date and need
>>to be revised because they have too many rules from the era of dialup,
>>like restrictions on the number of files or the volume (in megabytes)
>>that should be uploaded in one batch or within 24 hours or whatever.
>>However, that's only an observation, not a recommendation (I'm not
>>saying "Go revise the charters"), because we are (sadly) in the endgame
>>of Usenet binaries and there's just no point in doing any of that
>>maintenance stuff any more. I'm not predicting the imminent death of
>>Usenet binaries; it's obvious that the groups will go on for some
>>further number of years, until the server-operating corporations have
>>had enough and they pull the plug and shut down our playground.
>>(There's no such thing as a small Usenet binaries server any more;
>>for many years it has been a big business, requiring many millions of
>>dollars for the servers and the disk farm in each instance. That's why
>>the vast majority of Usenet servers are now owned and operated by a
>>very small number of companies, Highwinds being the most obvious
>>example with dozens of brand names selling access to its servers.)
>>
>>Anyroad, back to indexes: There's also no point in those any more.
>>Personally, I don't mind creating index files for my relatively few
>>uploads, but it would certainly get to be an annoying chore if my
>>upload volume were higher. For anyone whose downloading routine always
>>includes getting the indexes and vgrepping them for individual files
>>to download selectively, that's OK as far as it goes, but it seems
>>obsolete to me, probably just an old habit, and I suggest trying a
>>different approach a few times to see whether it works OK for you:
>>In the article list in your newsreader, just choose some pics somewhat
>>at random scattered throughout the set, give the command to download
>>them all, view 'em (if you have a really good newsreader, that part can
>>be done in the newsreader also), and decide whether to grab the entire
>>set.
>>
>>I can see only two likely reasons for not doing that: a very slow net
>>connection or an absurdly small traffic quota from your ISP or from
>>your news server. I have to assume that those things are rare, except
>>that unfortunately some ISP craporations are getting nasty lately about
>>capping the download volume. Download quota from NNTP servers is
>>monthly charge, no contract), and as for net connections ... har!
>>We can all see how that's going these days. Gigabit is all the rage.
>>And I'm definitely not speaking from any privileged situation; my net
>>connection is very slow DSL, as cheap as I can get it because I can't
>>afford anything better. *But* it also works just fine for the stuff
>>I'm talking about. Beyond that, if you have 25 megabits or faster,
>>you've got nothing to worry about unless your ISP is one of those
>>especially nasty cap-imposing fuckers (like Comcast/Xfinity).
>>
>>ticket, take the ride." Why not take a chance and download the entire
>>set (excluding the index files if they exist!); what the hell. Look at
>>the set eventually and decide whether to keep it. If you delete it,
>>then what have you lost? A few minutes of downloading time, while
>>you're doing other things on the computer? Or some NNTP download quota
>>that's worth a few pennies? What's the big deal? Live a little. :->
>>
>>OBTW, disk space is also dirt-cheap ... looking only at the relatively
>>low-capacity drives (not 10 TB or anything), the price point is now
>>$80 for each 4-terabyte chunk. That's peanuts.
>>
>>P.S.: Speaking of net bandwidth, other than Usenet, if you think you
>>need gigabit, or even a hundred megabits, for streaming videos, check
>>this out:
>>
>><https://stopthecap.com/2019/08/20/
>>wall-street-journal-says-faster-internet-not-worth-it-
>>but-they-ignore-bottlenecks-and-data-caps/>
>
> I choose to honor the Charter for .pubes because I don't want
>any fucking excuses for staying On Topic there..."well, you broke the
>Charter too!" situations.
> I dL all of Bucks sets without looking at their covers first.
>It's faster to judge them later. Others, I'll check out, sometimes.
> In the .wallpaper groups there's definitely some whiners
>there. I post to duplicates because there's a 50 pic limit in
>(straight).wallpaper. Unclear about indices. They had people all
>over the World in remote areas(The Outback) at times so in the end the
>group played to the lowest common denominator. I don't know what the
>situation is there now...it's basically fallen apart, but there's that
>damn rule in the way! People will cling, so instead of being KF'ed, I
>post to .duplicates.
> I can't tell you how much longer ng's will be around. I've
>prophosied about things in the Past and either I'm flat dead wrong or
>I've eaten crow(the exact opposite happens!). We all know how
>business works though: when it's no longer profitable they'll SHUT
>THE MOTHERFUCKER DOWN! We may not even get a kiss goodnight!
Here is my approach. I don't download or do indexes. The first thing I
do is check to see if I already have the set. I hate downloading
things I already have, but forgot about them. If I don't recognize the
model/set I randomly download a couple of files. Then using Agent I
SELECT the file and press F7 to see a preview of the file/image.
Pressing F8 gives a larger view of the file/image. Pressing F7 a
second time turns the preview feature off. This gives enough info to
decide if I want to download the entire set or not.
I agree with the dirt cheap disk space opinion. I look for when they
are on sale, and if I can afford it, get one. I'm slowly transferring
to external drives from CD/DVD's. More so because my drive doesn't
always want to work correctly, it has a mind of it's own.
Let me apologize for jumping into the middle of this dialog. But I
have to agree that indexes are history. Even though I us the Agent F7
feature I never use it on an index file.
P.S. I use Agent 7.2
|
|
')){kind=link}