local/global scope confusion

[Michael Wojcik]

I remember the days of Usenet,

.... which obviously have not ended, since this is posted to a Usenet
newsgroup ...

when you would, via a 9600 modem,

I assume that means a modem running in a 9600 bps mode. I'm sure
plenty of us remember reading Usenet over slower connections. I read
Usenet from shell accounts over 1200 bps async dialup connections, and
I'm not an old-timer by Usenet standards.

ask.

"how the heck to I get my printer working on Sys4 Unix?

That would be an odd question, since UNIX System IV was never
released. Perhaps you're thinking of System V Release 4 (SVR4).

bandwidth was almpost to low for abuse, as were latencies..to high.

As with most argumentum ad verecundiam, this narrative is more fantasy
than history. The prelapsarian age of Usenet, before "abuse" of
various sorts, certainly had ended before 9600 bps async modems were
widely available. ITU v.29 was issued in 1988. By that time we had
*parodies* of abuse on Usenet - Joe Talmadge created "BIFF" in 1988,
according to the net.legends FAQ.

A few minutes' research would have shown that. But I suppose argument
from personal anecdote is the preferred technique of natural philosophy.

Of course we are ignorant: that's why we are asking.

That's no reason to be arrogant, insulting, presumptuous, and prone to
posting inane and spurious generalizations, as in "there are two
people who actually really help" or "the rest are probably here
because they can't actually write javascript".

Those sins are forgivable, to an extent, in those who are both experts
(because they provide value) and regulars (because they've
demonstrated their willingness to continue participating in the
discussion). Tourists have no such excuse.

 

[Trevor Lawrence]

Well, I started the discussion on being helpful, but I don't want to
continue it

What I don't understand is the statement "this is posted to a Usenet
newsgroup ..."

So far as I know, this is just another NG. I first started corresponding on
the msnews NGs and then later on a private group. However, I was informed on
one NG that c.l.j. is more relevant to Javascript.
What makes c.l.j. different?
Are there Usenet NGs and non-Usenet NGs?

 

[Jorge]

That's no reason to be arrogant, insulting, presumptuous, and prone to
posting inane and spurious generalizations (...)

Those sins are forgivable, to an extent, (...)

Shouldn't be. No, not forgivable at all. I don't need to know a single
word of JS in order to deserve respect. Being a "regular" provides no
rights, not latin-king style. No matter how often you post, it doesn't
turn cljs into your private property. Instead of posting something
insulting, just stay away from the threads that you don't like for any
reason.

 

[Matthias Watermann]

[...]
Are there Usenet NGs and non-Usenet NGs?

Yes. Ask your favourite search engine for "Usenet" and "NNTP" (which is
the protocol used to distribute the news). And lookup the <news.answers>
group for FAQs regarding your question.

In contrast to the freely and worldwide distributed newsgroups (with
thousands of peering newsservers around the globe) there are lot of groups
hosted by a single news provider (e.g. an organisation {like Eclipse} or a
commercial company {like Google} or anybody else who likes to do so) where
the respective newsgroups are available only for readers directly
connected with that very news host.

A third class of NGs you could call "pseudo groups": Initially mailing
lists (with individual members mailing to the list) someone converts
those emails to newsgroup messages (for example mail to the
<[email protected]> mailing list is gated to the
<linux.debian.user.german> newsgroup which in turn might be available
at some Usenet newsservers.

It might seem a bit confusing at first glance, but once you've got the
hang of it (and a decent newsreader) it's quite easy. But, anyway, this
is clearly off-topic in _this_ newsgroup, hence you should look for a
newsgroup more appropriate to discuss your questions about how the
Usenet works.


--
Matthias
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
X - AGAINST M$ ATTACHMENTS
/ \

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well, I started the discussion on being helpful, but I don't want to
continue it

What I don't understand is the statement "this is posted to a Usenet
newsgroup ..."

So far as I know, this is just another NG. I first started corresponding on
the msnews NGs and then later on a private group. However, I was informed on
one NG that c.l.j. is more relevant to Javascript.
What makes c.l.j. different?
Are there Usenet NGs and non-Usenet NGs?

No. its all Usenet, except no one calls it that any more.

 

[John W Kennedy]

No. its all Usenet, except no one calls it that any more.

According to some, USENET is restricted to the Big 8.

And note that all public newsgroups are Google Groups, but not all
Google Groups are newsgroups.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton

 

[David Mark]

One of the reasons I don't normally hang out here.

(is that I don't know anything about browser scripting, but can't help
but post rambling and confused indictments of the Javascript
language.)

There are two people who actually really help..Erwin Moller is one, and
I forget the other..

Erwin is the OP, so he can't help here. Not sure who the "other"
would be.

There are about 3-4 who try, but often don't really understand the problem.

This from you? Even if you did understand a problem here (not as of
yet), you are incapable of stringing together coherent sentences, much
less giving useful advice.

The rest are probably here because they can't actually write javascript,

Well studied.

(IMHO an entirely reasonable thing) but like to think they can (entirely
unreasonable !)

That is a dangerous combination.

Personally I find it a total bitch after C.

You made a wrong turn at D? And you are posing. You never wrote a
line of C.

Its loosely typed with respect to variables, but much stronger with
respect to object data versus method..for example.

Thanks professor.

The DOM is very weird.

So weird, it is not even part of the language.

There are some abbreviations that work, and some that don't.

Oh brother.

You can name some elements, bit not others.

Don't bite the elements.

Some DOM descriptions parts vary from browser to browser. I found the
worts was the way in which <SELECT><OPTION> elements responded to
mouseover events..fortunately you don't need those with a full js
implementation, you can create your own flyout selections.

You are a poor imitation of VK.

<INPUT type FILE> stuff is an abortion with respect to styling..but
thats not javascripts fault. You can patch your way round that by laying
dummy layers over the top to mask the inherent ugliness..

You could get a better result banging your head on the keyboard at
random.

Oh, and the way in which elements are stored in the DOM varies between
browsers as well..

Some things never change.

 

[Trevor Lawrence]

Thanks Evertjan and Jorge
Your answers gave precisely the info. I needed, even though my question
may
have been a little unclear.

I have noticed that many other replies in this NG have not been as
polite
and helpful

One of the reasons I don't normally hang out here.

[snip]

There was lots of rambling here

My question is
What is your problem ?
If someone gives a reasonable answer, then why does it need to be pull apart
and dissected? (I think l am being tautologous here.)

 

[David Mark]

One of the reasons I don't normally hang out here.

[snip]

There was lots of rambling here

My question is
What is your problem ?

Hard to tell what you are referring to from what you quoted. I was
talking to "The Natural Philosopher", who answered nothing.

If someone gives a reasonable answer, then why does it need to be pull apart
and dissected? (I think l am being tautologous here.)

I think you misread something.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Shouldn't be. No, not forgivable at all.

You're entitled to your opinion. Weighed against decades of Usenet
convention, it doesn't count for much in my reckoning, but thanks for
sharing.

I don't need to know a single
word of JS in order to deserve respect. Being a "regular" provides no
rights, not latin-king style.

I mentioned no rights.

No matter how often you post, it doesn't
turn cljs into your private property.

That claim escaped my notice as well.

Instead of posting something
insulting, just stay away from the threads that you don't like for any
reason.

This refrain - which anyone familiar with Usenet has seen more times
than they can count - is as tiresome as the flame wars. Most
newsgroups have their share of abrasive but informative regulars. Some
readers enjoy them; others do not. Railing against them has never been
productive.

Sigh. It's always September.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

And note that all public newsgroups are Google Groups, but not all
Google Groups are newsgroups.

IMHO, it would be wiser to use the term "Google Groups" to refer only to
those residing only at Google, although not to rely on others doing
likewise.