benhenry Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Stryder has offered space. Frankly, I would offer space too.-- ScotHi everyone, I don't know if this is still an issue or not... but I came across the following link in an issue of Lockergnome's "Bits and Bytes."It seems to be a free service for just the kind of webspace external links for screenshots that Stryder and Scot offered to donate.The link is here: I upload netIt seems to be a work in progress with not much documentation yet... I did a "WhoIs" on iupload.net and got pointed to... Innovative Paska Inc http://ipaska.com/which also seems to be a work in progress. I will test the service below by uploading Muckshifter's avatar, then using the url with the image tags here in the forum. If you see Muckshifter looking at you, then it worked.I'm using you, Muckshifter, because I figured if they would allow that image... they will allow almost anything! Jeber... you were my second choice. Cool! after you upload an image... there is a handy dialog box for cutting and pasting the url. Test follows: ........................>http://iupload.net/042003/grumpy.gif(Removed large, flashing banner from ipaska.com that said, "The Bible says DON'T steal bandwidth" -- it looks like ipaska isn't a good solution to the avatar/sig storage issue. --ComputerBob)Muckshifter can be a sort of canary in the coal mine ... as long as you see him, the "I upload Net" links should be working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 benhenry -- works fine ... muckshifter's avatar is quite visible in the post.I have to say though ... he looks beheaded somehow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Good thing I lost - looking at my avatar twice as often wouldn't be good for my nerves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labyrinth Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 I certainly don't know how they do it, but at PCQ&A they allow image posting, but the images have to be below 50Kb and only in a Jpeg, Gif, or Tif format. I don't know how they exclude Exe. and other file extensions, but they obviously do because there hasn't been a problem, that I have heard of. Scott you might try talking to Jason Levine on that site......He'd know the complete ins and outs of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paracelsus Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Paracelsus --Thank you so much for your sensitivity about this.The reason to keep the overall width to 460-480 wide is that folks who need to use 640x480 would have to scroll as much as I had to scroll at my 800x600 with the wider images we have seen before even with your size pictures.Even so, your pictures do not make it as difficult AS the huge pictures we have seen previously here (at least at 800x600) but having said that, I still can not keep the full page in focus when reading any posts in that Topic now even at 800x600.Using .jpg would definitely be better quality at a smaller overall width and height plus, .jpg can be compressed more or less according to your needs for clarity.Personally, I think max 480 wide is probably the best way to insure all users can read posts without needing to scroll to read all posts in a Topic where screen shots have helpfully been added. Also, by using compressed .jpg files you can keep them as large or small as you need to keep clarity decent.This is just my opinion though. What does everyone else think?? Thanks to Big Jeff and Stryder for the links to AnalogX and Gadwin. Downloaded them, but haven't had a chance to test them out yet.LilBambi... Not a problem!! After two years of trying to adjust to bifocals (HATE!! them... Going back to single vision distance), and loosing 80+% of the focal vision in my right eye after an auto accident last year... I've spent a lot of time thinking about what life is like for those with limited vision.I've redone the images in two recent posts and would appreciate knowing it these fit better than the larger GIF's I used originally.It took me some time, and these may not be the best. I'm not sure whether it's better to "sharpen" or "resize" the JPG's first. Any thoughts on this would be welcome as well. I'm not real good with graphics.Where Did I GoTip o' The Week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Paracelsus -- Tip O' The Week one looks great the way you have it now!On the Where'd I Go? one, I think you could actually go to 480 wide (instead of the 450 wide) on that one and then you could get a little more clarity since it was a side by side box picture.Great job! And thanks! BiFocals! AHHHHHHHH .... I hate those things! I unfortunately have them now...and I want to go to two pair of glasses ... the bifocals drive me nuts! They are the lineless type, but because they are bifocals, I couldn't get the PhotoSun glasses I had before. A real drag since I loved those PhotoSun glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labyrinth Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I see no one has posted to this thread since the 5th, I wonder if anybody has noticed that Paska doesn't seem to like Bandwidth theft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I see no one has posted to this thread since the 5th, I wonder if anybody has noticed that Paska doesn't seem to like Bandwidth theft.labyrinth --Bandwidth theft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ComputerBob Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I see no one has posted to this thread since the 5th, I wonder if anybody has noticed that Paska doesn't seem to like Bandwidth theft.labyrinth --Bandwidth theft? Apparently, ipaska.com has changed its mind about hotlinking to images stored on their servers. Instead of displaying Muckshifter's avatar, today benhenry's message above was displaying a large flashing banner that proclaimed "The Bible says DON'T steal bandwidth."I removed the IMG tags from that post, but I left the URL to Muckshifter's avatar. ;)BTW, when I tried to browse to that URL of Muckshifter's avatar, I got a "404 Error - Not Found." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 ComputerBob --Well, I guess that answers the question as to whether we might like to take advantage of that offering! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benhenry Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Apparently, ipaska.com has changed its mind about hotlinking to images stored on their servers. Instead of displaying Muckshifter's avatar, today benhenry's message above was displaying a large flashing banner that proclaimed "The Bible says DON'T steal bandwidth."I removed the IMG tags from that post, but I left the URL to Muckshifter's avatar. ;)BTW, when I tried to browse to that URL of Muckshifter's avatar, I got a "404 Error - Not Found."Hi ComputerBob and all,Sorry it has been so long since I could visit the forum... we've been cleaning up after a series of serious storms in my hometown.I noticed that the Muckshifter "Canary" finally broke. I didn't get a chance to see the "Don't Steal" banner... but it seems entirely a false accusation, since the site was mentioned in Lockergnome as encouraging uploads...Anyway, thanks for editing/removing it... I'm sure it was an eyesore. Now here is a sight for sore eyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 We had this discussion early on in the life of this forum where we beat the subject to death. It's here:http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/forums/inde...act=ST&f=9&t=14I continue not to agree that external sources for images are a good solution because there is the possibility that the external hosting service will go out of business and then historical threads will become worthless without the graphics.As I said then, Woody's forum (and others) allow embedded images of a certain type only (no .exe, etc. and less than 100k in size (I think)). Here's an example:http://www.wopr.com/cgi-bin/w3t/showflat.p...rt=1#Post257543I also do not agree that we should all be forced confirm to the lowest common denominator and limit images to VGA resolution to accomodate a few people still running circa 1995 systems. If you have to squeeze a 1024x768 screen shot into 640x480, you'll have to reduce the image size to something that will likely become unreadable. Then you'll have the people with poor eyesight complaining they can't read the image. Most people use 800x600 or 1024x768 resolutions. If you're not running your browser full screen, you can hit F11 to toggle it full screen and back. Otherwise, the scroll bars are there for a purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Why don't you tell us how you really feel, ibe98765? Bottom line: We have beat this to death, and we made a decision a while back in the forum rules, which you paraphrased pretty well:http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/forums/inde...p?s=&act=SR&f=9There is another alternative that I may consider after the next major version of the Invision Power Board (IPB) software is released and we've had a chance to test it, build new skins for it, and roll it out here (note: all that will take some months, and IPB 1.2 goes into beta next month, on June 15). That solution could involve automatic shrinking of image sizes. I have seen some IPB "mods" that claim to do that. Although I'm not sure whether they really reduce the download size of the image -- since it's possible to do this with an image tag.The problem with limiting uploads is NOT about disk space. It's about security. Although eventually I probably would run into disk space problems.I will say this, the decision I've made is going to stick at least through the end of this year. I will continue to consider all other possible solutions to the problem, especially new technologies and services. I am sensitive to concerns about images disappearing over time. I'm also sensitive to the dial-up experience, though.-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 The problem with limiting uploads is NOT about disk space. It's about security. Although eventually I probably would run into disk space problems.-- ScotIf the only problem is security, then isn't there a way to selectively allow only certain formats to be posted and reject all others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arena2045 Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 The problem with limiting uploads is NOT about disk space. It's about security. Although eventually I probably would run into disk space problems.-- ScotIf the only problem is security, then isn't there a way to selectively allow only certain formats to be posted and reject all others? Nope.Hopefully this will be an option in IPB 1.2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlim Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Get maybe the last free version of PrintKey 5.10 herehttp://fwg.raum108.de/That's what I'm using on 95, 98SE, 2K and XP. I've used it for years.Now I'm off to see what other gems I can find at that site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengeek Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 That's the best graveyard I've ever been to! Thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.