Stilly Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 No, it really doesn't do anything as far as bandwidth conservation as a whole, but it redirects some of it to another server. I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that the forum would load first, and then the iframe...so the end result would be the forum loading faster, and the sigs just loading on top of that. I dunno, I'm thinking some speed would be gained in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 No, it really doesn't do anything as far as bandwidth conservation as a whole, but it redirects some of it to another server. I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that the forum would load first, and then the iframe...so the end result would be the forum loading faster, and the sigs just loading on top of that. I dunno, I'm thinking some speed would be gained in this. .... stupid smart kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Stillbored, I'm starting to think you're getting some kind of kickback from someone on this iframe thing, but it's a great suggestion. Jax, noone's said this yet with all the pissing but, Thanks. Not sure what you're thanking him for, really. He basically just said "I'll do it when I damn well feel like it" but ah well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 shit, that's brilliant. I can DEFINTELY get behind that. It's exactly the kind of compromise I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilly Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Stillbored, I'm starting to think you're getting some kind of kickback from someone on this iframe thing, but it's a great suggestion.Not sure what you're thanking him for, really. He basically just said "I'll do it when I damn well feel like it" but ah well. The Russian Mob is in on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 you mean, the type of tyranny you were looking to accomplish? It's exactly the kind of compromise I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilly Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 shit, that's brilliant. I can DEFINTELY get behind that. It's exactly the kind of compromise I was looking for. See? Some of us on the "other side" were being constructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 if by 'some' you mean 'you', sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I can DEFINTELY get behind that. Ewhhhh arch likes to get behind men.... Queer!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilly Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 if by 'some' you mean 'you', sure. Ok...um...rabble rabble rabble. I'm going to start a poll to see where everyone stands on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalHeart Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Alan, that is badass. No one is being suppressed of their right to have long sigs, AND those of us who get tired of super long scroll time (hey, I'm all for sigs, long and short, but I'm lazy, man!) can rejoice! Hip hip hurray! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 barring the fact I've not read more than one page of this... limiting sigs is in no way compromising free speech... if you want to insult the republicans, you can do so just fine without taking up a terrabyte of space... why do you need 500 giant pictures to express all your opinions? you could put 500 small pictures, or change it around a little bit from time to time... the only way this would be a free speech infringement is if they were preventing you from posting a particular topic on your sig, which they're not, you'll just have to work with the limitations... heck, even the westboro baptist church is allowed to protest their views with limitations... they can picket, just not on the actual cemetery. it's just a pain to sit there and wait 2 minutes to load a signature on a thread just so we can scroll through the same damn stale inside joke we already saw 3 years ago when it was actually funny, plus the other 65 inside jokes you made up since then... if the banning of the actual substance of whatever you were putting in your signatures was at risk here, i'd be all against it... but it's not... you can put all the gay, religious, and republican bashing you want... plus all the boobs and half assed photoshops you want as well, but you should have consideration for those of us actually trying to READ THE FORUM and allow us to scroll down to the next reply without it taking 3 minutes to get passed your atrociously annoying sigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alive she cried Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 but you should have consideration for those of us actually trying to READ THE FORUM and allow us to scroll down to the next reply without it taking 3 minutes to get passed your atrociously annoying sigs. 1.44 seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 to scroll down. do you know how long it takes to load up? You know how many times I've been reading only to have the page snap back up to see jax's sig? And, again, it's annoying to HIM. Doesn't matter how long it takes to scroll down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 no, more like 3 mins 1.44 seconds, you forgot to add the three minutes it took the load the page... plus, this page in particular doesn't have enough large sig people like 85% of the other pages do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aartemys Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 You know how many times I've been reading only to have the page snap back up to see jax's sig? ARGH! That totally burns my buns when that happens...I disabled sigs long, long ago because of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 no, more like 3 mins 1.44 seconds, you forgot to add the three minutes it took the load the page... plus, this page in particular doesn't have enough large sig people like 85% of the other pages do you act like you're on dial-up. DoJ's animated gifs take longer to load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 DoJ's animated gifs do not snap me back to his signature after I've begun reading someone's post because it's in a signature that's a book in length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Well Jax, I don't know how you did it but your new version takes even longer to load now. I'm turning off my signatures. Fuck you, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 wait, what do you guys mean by snapping back, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 It takes a while for an image or a group of images to load, and on most browsers, the page snaps back up to the picture once it has finally stopped loading. If Jax posts at the top of the page, we can scroll past it all we want but everytime one of his pictures finishes loading, our browser will snap right back up to the top of the page until the entire signature is done loading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 oh, shit. for some reason, i always thought that was just my computer acting shitty for customizing the fuck out of everything, which chief blames for everything that goes wrong on my shit. that's funny. so you people lose your place when reading things a lot too, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 yes, we do. no longer just 1.4 seconds, is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 jesus no, its like 1.8 now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 hardly 1.8. that, sir, depends on a. your computer and b. how nice your DSL/Cable wants to be that day. that being said, poll closes tonight at 11:59 PM EDT <a href="http://www.7is7.com/otto/countdown.html?year=2008&month=4&date=11&hrs=23&ts=12&min=59&sec=59&tz=-300&lang=en&show=dhms&mode=r&cdir=down&bgcolor=%23CCFFFF&fgcolor=%23000000&title=Poll%20Closes" rel="external nofollow">Poll Closes</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.