From: Dwayne (ddraig@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Mar 13 1998 - 03:31:16 MST
Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > I'm not here to be on the cutting edge of everything. I'm here to *discuss* the cutting edge of
> > everything. If I were to follow your logic, I would refuse to read anything not written in
> > lobjan, or some other "cutting edge" language.
> >
>
> Is lobjan spoken by the 80 million people on the web today?
Are we referring to the internet or to the web?
This mailing list isn't on the web. Personal email isn't on the web. Newsgroups aren't on the web. Just
because hypertext is a nifty replacement for a library doesn't mean it will also do to replace the post
office and the telephone system
This entire argument is stupid. You have already been told that people have filters to strip out HTML
mail before they see it. Other people have said they will hit delete and not read HTML mail.
Do you have so little regard for your own ideas that you will prevent people from seeing your email
simply to make a point? You have yet to explain how you can express yourself more convincingly in HTML
mail, all you have done is rant about being "progressive", but who really cares about how progressive
YOU think you are? What matters is how progressive WE think you are, and if we can't read your writing,
we're not going to have an opinion of you at all, let alone one way or another.
> Since most of those people use a mail
> reader which is HTML capable, it is silly to hold out for the few iconoclasts.
Fine. Send HTML mail. ignore your readers. They'll do a much better job of ignoring you. Which is
shame. But at least you can sit there and feel smug about yourself while the rest of us do something
useful, namely communicate effectively.
> Tell me, a skilled user of a slide rule can frequently calculate faster than a person using a hand
> calculator. If this is true, then why are slide rules now museum peices? WHat do you think the Air
> Force would have said to a contractor that insisted on doing all its engineering work with slide
> rules? When I visit Seattle and go down to the International district, I can often see elderly asian
> merchants still using abacuses, and whipping along pretty fiercely. However, I don't see them
> getting much business from anyone but first generation immigrants, who still revere the aged.
What does this mean? we are talking about -communicating-
You haven't given an example of how HTML is a better way to communicate than plain ascii as far as
dialogue goes. You have been told that people aren't seeing HTML mail. Doesn't this tell you something?
Do you care? And I thought *I* was conceited. Sheesh.
I personally could care less who reads your mail. I use netscape to read mail at the moment, although
I'll move back to elm when I get my linux box up and running. It just disturbs me that someone who
*subscribed* to a mailing list, i.e. actually exerted some effort to join a discussion group, is not
only not concerned when he is told that people don't read mail in his chosen format, but then continues
to argue the point. Why are you here? Isn't it to engage fellow travellers? Or do you just enjoy the
thrill of watching your modem's "send" light blinking on and off. Empty vessels etc.
> > Luckily I don't. I don't follow any logic when it comes to discussion fora such as this one, as
> > it strikes me as silly to allow some pointless ideal to get between me and those I wish to
> > discuss things with. I'm here to learn things, to discuss things, to be part of a conversation,
> > and it seems to me that rather than looking into "progress"-ive standards, we should support
> > standard standards: something *everyone* can understand, not the 3l33t few. At this point in
> > time, it seems that english expressed in ascii work pretty well. Maybe that will change
> > eventually, but for now it strikes me as ludicrous to say to someone "I'm not interested in what
> > you have to say because your text isn't 'cool' enough".
>
> Sure it works pretty well. Englascii is a fine standard for may discussion type exchanges. However,
> in order to deliver more complex content, we will eventually have to move to a type of markup
> standard, to allow better organisation and presentation of information.
True. I notice you said "standard". At this point in time, as far as mailing lists goes, the standard is
ascii to allow the widest possible distribution of text. Eventually this will change, and I will
appreciate it, but for the moment ascii is what is most commonly used. I can send and receive HTML mail.
I -prefer- to receive HTML mail. But I *very much prefer* to discuss things with the widest possible
selection of people.
> As the average individual
> starts getting a hundred or more email messages a day, I can easily forsee the need for use of
> graphs and tables.
I get well over 200 emails a day. I easily read all of them. Very very very few of them are in HTML
format., and most of those are just web pages which have been forwarded to me. I really don't see how
HTML will help in volume reduction. Filters will help in volume reduction. HTML won't, in fact it will
make it a lot worse, as there will be more data to transmit.
> I can read a graph with one glance, while it takes 10-30 seconds to digest even a
> well laid out table. An ascii table with more than a couple rows and columns is a major effort of
> deciphering, unless you happen to have the exact same font set on your reader.
This is true. How many tables of either type go through this last per month? How many messages which are
simply plain text go through this list per month?
> > I fail to see how using ascii is holding you back. I understood perfectly well your point. How
> > would HTML have made it clearer?
>
> tell me if this comes out in any way that is usable:aaaaa bbbb cccc sdfghsh sghrt dhtdhrfth
> dhrthcxgnjy
> 564 456 564756 6765 6765 8778 67866
> 1692 1368 1694268 20295 20295 26334 203598
> 5076 4104 5082804 60885 60885 79002 610794
> 15228 12312 15248412 182655 182655 237006 1832382
> 45684 36936 45745236 547965 547965 711018 5497146
> 137052 110808 137235708 1643895 1643895 2133054 16491438
> 411156 332424 411707124 4931685 4931685 6399162 49474314
> 1233468 997272 1235121372 14795055 14795055 19197486 148422942
> 3700404 2991816 3705364116 44385165 44385165 57592458 445268826
> 11101212 8975448 11116092348 133155495 133155495 172777374 1335806478
> 33303636 26926344 33348277044 399466485 399466485 518332122 4007419434
> 99910908 80779032 1.00045E+11 1198399455 1198399455 1554996366 12022258302
> 299732724 242337096 3.00134E+11 3595198365 3595198365 4664989098 36066774906
> 899198172 727011288 9.00403E+11 10785595095 10785595095 13994967294 1.082E+11
> 1348796976 1090516704 1.3506E+12 16178389260 16178389260 20992446552 1.623E+11
>
> I didn't think so. Now you'll complain that I used gibberish, right? Ok how about this:
>
> Object (and name) Date of encounter (TT) Distance Orbit arc
> Reference Object (and name)
> JD Calendar (AU)
>
> (3361) Orpheus 2450857.28 1998 Feb. 12.78 0.1668 4 oppositions, 1982-1990 MPC
> 22668 (3361) Orpheus
> (6037) 1988 EG 2450873.41 1998 Feb. 28.91 0.0318 5 oppositions, 1988-1998 MPC
> 31414 (6037) 1988 EG
> 1998 BZ7 2450878.18 1998 Mar. 5.68 0.1130 1-opposition, arc = 39 days MPC
> 31427 1998 BZ7
> (8201) 1994 AH2 2450982.06 1998 June 17.56 0.1930 4 oppositions, 1981-1997 MPC
> 31008 (8201) 1994 AH2
> 1987 OA 2451046.05 1998 Aug. 20.55 0.1092 3 oppositions, 1987-1997 MPC
> 30469 1987 OA
> (1865) Cerberus 2451142.25 1998 Nov. 24.75 0.1634 7 oppositions, 1971-1989 MPC
> 16007 (1865) Cerberus
> 1996 FG3 2451143.27 1998 Nov. 25.77 0.0384 3 oppositions, 1996-1998 MPC
> 31420 1996 FG3
> 1989 UR 2451145.67 1998 Nov. 28.17 0.0583 2 oppositions, 1989-1997 MPC
> 30756 1989 UR
>
> 1994 WR12 2451196.11 1999 Jan. 17.61 0.1277 1-opposition, arc = 35 days MPC
> 24576 1994 WR12
> 1991 VE 2451197.41 1999 Jan. 18.91 0.1573 2 oppositions, 1991-1997 MPC
> 30978 1991 VE
> (6047) 1991 TB1 2451256.02 1999 Mar. 18.52 0.1632 4 oppositions, 1985-1996 MPC
> 27434 (6047) 1991 TB1
> 1992 SK 2451263.76 1999 Mar. 26.26 0.0559 5 oppositions, 1953-1996 MPC
> 28615 1992 SK
> (1863) Antinous 2451270.12 1999 Apr. 1.62 0.1894 6 oppositions, 1948-1986 MPC
> 20313 (1863) Antinous
> (6489) Golevka 2451332.31 1999 June 2.81 0.0500 2 oppositions, 1991-1995 MPC
> 25418 (6489) Golevka
> 1989 VA 2451504.39 1999 Nov. 21.89 0.1938 5 oppositions, 1989-1997 MPC
> 31005 1989 VA
>
> This was just a small fraction of data on near earth asteroid encounters predicted over the next 30
> years.
>
> However, If I had used HTML, I could have presented the same information is a graphical format, with
> links to other graphic formats, that would all have been much easier to use than 30 pages of an
> ascii text table that doesn't even align properly.
And how many such messages do you write to the extropians list?
Do you see my point?
I really don't think that the ability to very very rarely present tables accurately is worth tossing
several (at least!) subscribers to this list into the wastebasket. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
I already agree that HTML is a better way to transmit complex tables and graphs etc. But it is not a
better way to communicate the vast majority of the messages to this list, and communication is the
entire point, is it not?
Dwayne.
--
return...to...the...source
ddraig@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~ddraig
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:44 MST