The humble traffic light has been honoured with a Google Doodle to celebrate its 101st Anniversary
tinyurl.com/oyz3jgg - The Telegraph
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Aug 15 at 12:48
|
If you can post graphics, and very irritating ones at that, is there still an ongoing reason as to why nobody else can?
Even in "My Drive" or whatever its called? It'd be very helpful and easily changed.
|
>> Even in "My Drive" or whatever its called?
Can't even post text there, never mind graphics - it's still being 'paved' :)
|
>> If you can post graphics, and very irritating ones at that, is there still an
>> ongoing reason as to why nobody else can?
Basically because from past experience, one or two people cannot be trusted to behave themselves with such an option.
Plus us mods should have an extra perk now that you've all got edit keys ;)
|
>>Basically because from past experience, one or two people cannot be trusted to behave themselves with such an option.
Really? When did you have experience of allowing people to post graphics and/or pictures?
That's just a throw away stock answer from the days when storage was more expensive and it was difficult to explain bandwidth usage to Peter. Its also garbage.
It wasn't really valid then and it certainly isn't valid now.
>>Plus us mods should have an extra perk now that you've all got edit keys ;)
Why?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Aug 15 at 13:43
|
Storage and bandwidth also were irrelevant then as it is now. The image will linked to in a URL and the browser will load the image directly. It is not stored on Khoo Systems' servers nor is is served up by the web server.
The GIF that Dave has posted loads from the Telegraph website.
i.telegraph.co.uk//multimedia//archive//03398//101st-anniversary-_3398
002a.gif
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 5 Aug 15 at 13:46
|
>>Storage and bandwidth also were irrelevant then as it is now. The image will linked to in a
>>URL and the browser will load the image directly.
I know that. You know that. Did you ever try to explain it to Peter?
|
>> Really? When did you have experience of allowing people to post graphics and/or pictures?
Not pics/graphics as such (although we did have one instance on HJ of a spammer posting music files and jpgs). What happened was someone went overboard when they found out they could make text bigger using the BIG command. i.e. once discovered it got abused.
>> Why?
I see you're in one of your irritating wind up moods today.
|
>>I see you're in one of your irritating wind up moods today.
Its a reaction to a trite, tired and silly answer to a serious question.
This Forum software was great in its day. The display is, IMO, still one of the best. But it has fallen very far behind in some technical and functional areas.
I wondered, and wonder, why such a small change is not made.
|
|
As for being trusted with the blessing, you don't see people typing b******, f***, c*** etc. etc., do you? But we both know we could, and that might be worse than flashing or oversize text.
|
|
IIRC last time this was discussed the general consensus was that people (including me) preferred plain text, with links to anything 'fancy' that you had to actively choose to click on. Not sure whether large text falls into the 'fancy' category, but it's a slippery slope... :)
|
I don't care about the fancy text, but how many times would it be useful and appealing to put a picture in?
Its such an a*** having to upload them somewhere and then link to it, and then when the picture is removed nobody ever gets to see it at a later date.
|
The ability to post pictures would be nice. I belong to forums that are far more unruly than C4P and it is very rare that pictures have to be removed because they violate forum policy.
Perhaps a trial period?
|
Me too R O'R, and even on our charity forums no-one has ever abused the facility to post a pic.
Apart from Non Motoring, surely it would make the Technical forum a lot more user friendly and appealing?
Pat
|
>> I don't care about the fancy text, but how many times would it be useful and appealing to put a picture in?
And how many times would I (or one of the other mods) have to edit it because it was incorrectly formatted (e.g. too big or too small). At least at the moment there is some control over it. Do I (and the others) really want to do more moderating work than we already do now?
Granted there are other ways of doing it, but I don't control the purse strings, and as any income generated from this site is so small who is going to pay for the any alterations to the layout?
Anyway, I'm not the one in charge. I suggest you take it up with the one further up the chain.
Gees, I wish I never bothered now.
I thought an article about how long traffic lights had been in existence, and the spinning button fitted beneath the box at pedestrian crossings might have generated a discussion , but all I seem to have got is complaints and criticism about a poxy gif image.
Presumably you don't use Google as your default search engine, given how the graphic irritates you so much?
|
Oh get over yourself, you big jessie.
>> all I seem to have got is complaints and criticism about a poxy gif image.
I cannot imagine what goes on in your head. I, in the course of a reasonable and serious question, said the graphic was very irritating, I don't think annoy else even mentioned it.
>> I wish I never bothered now.
Don't worry, you didn't.
You're just upset because you gave some silly answer without thinking it through, and now realise that you don't know the answer.
Plonker.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Aug 15 at 19:35
|
As a fellow-mod (on HJ) I sympathise greatly, Dave!
If I dare ask a question about traffic lights, out of interest, does anyone know when the first set of electric lights first appeared in the UK?
In the 1970s I was in charge of the audit of one of the traffic light makers, GEC-Elliott Traffic Automation. The mechanism (about 80 % of the cost) seemed surprisingly complex for what seemed like a simple task. I suppose that 40 years on the whole system is indeed simpler with modern electronics.
|
|
I just love traffic lights. Useless Wales government use them on a semi permanent basis where they b******d up a perfectly decent fast bit of road, ending up killing an innocent motorcyclist...morons.
|
>> I just love traffic lights. Useless Wales government use them on a semi permanent basis
>> where they b******d up a perfectly decent fast bit of road, ending up killing an
>> innocent motorcyclist...morons.
When I become dictator, the next road engineer who thinks we need traffic lights on a roundabout at 1:30 in the morning, will, by sun up the next morning, be found hanging lifeless from the bucking thing with his eyes pecked out by the crows.
|
>> As a fellow-mod (on HJ) I sympathise greatly, Dave!
>>
So do I! Been there and done it elsewhere - completely thankless task.
|
"completely thankless task."
Yes it is but thanks anyway. Don't know how you stick at it.
Re traffic lights I believe Norwich was the first city to install them on a roundabout!
|
|
Lights can help on roundabouts -Portwood in Stockport being a case in point. However, I also agree that between say midnight and 5am they should be switched off.
|
|
Well to get from Cemetery Junction in Reading, down the A4/Southampton St to the Oracle car park, a distance of appprox 1.1 miles, you have to negotiate 10 sets of the things. On the (slightly shorter) way out, there's just the 8. That's not including the numerous pedestrian crossings.
|
|
We have two pelican crossings in Settle. Do they count because we have no proper traffic lights? If we get fed up watching steam trains & low flying jets we go and watch them change.
|
>> If we get fed up watching steam trains & low flying jets we
>> go and watch them change.
What's the commute to Bath like? :)
|
Bit personal Focusless.
Last time I looked it was about 6 steps from t'bed
|
Traffic Lights - 101 yrs old today - No FM2R
