brus brother Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 OK now kiss and make up... please don't post the picture though;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 OK now kiss and make up... please don't post the picture though;) because itd be disturbing, or because of the bandwidth.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodsWagon Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 True, you may not be burning up server space, but you are still using up bandwith. The USMB is only allocated a certain amout for each month, and we've smacked it the limit a couple of times. Not cool when the board is down at the end of each month. Pictures are cool, but working links work just as well without putting strain on the board. It's not a matter of being a long time member or a donor (which is always good), it just being part of a low budjet community. We could have ads for questionable performance parts, wings, and rims on the site to pay for it like cardomain does, and we could download at the same painfull rate, or we could keep it barebones, cheap, and fast. Is this the first time me and corky have not argued about something? Wow, a day full of firsts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 True, you may not be burning up server space, but you are still using up bandwith. The USMB is only allocated a certain amout for each month, and we've smacked it the limit a couple of times. Not cool when the board is down at the end of each month. Pictures are cool, but working links work just as well without putting strain on the board. It's not a matter of being a long time member or a donor (which is always good), it just being part of a low budjet community. We could have ads for questionable performance parts, wings, and rims on the site to pay for it like cardomain does, and we could download at the same painfull rate, or we could keep it barebones, cheap, and fast. Is this the first time me and corky have not argued about something? Wow, a day full of firsts. ok, see, now THAT makes more sense to me. in the future i'll only post pictures that are important to see, otherwise i'll just link "fun" pictures; and i'll urge others to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnuman Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 because itd be disturbing, or because of the bandwidth.... both http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/photos/showphoto.php?photo=8772&cat=500&ppuser=7470 This is the cleanest of my wheels. On most of them the clearcoating is yellowed, and coming off in places. Oh, and the bondo in the back is from the Original Owner (OO) getting hit in a parking lot. He never had a lot of use for bodywork. . . http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/photos/showphoto.php?photo=8770&cat=500&ppuser=7470 Mismatched doors because the original ones had been sideswiped and the OO never got them fixed. More bondo and a bit of bumper rash. OK, now a question. If I take the metal trim off and paint it, will it stay painted? Or will it peel off like the original paint did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 both OK, now a question. If I take the metal trim off and paint it, will it stay painted? Or will it peel off like the original paint did? i think the real important question (aside from, "why didn't your pictures work") is, if you take off your metal trim and paint it, what color is your neighbors car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 i think the real important question (aside from, "why didn't your pictures work") is, if you take off your metal trim and paint it, what color is your neighbors car sorry, it's later, i'm tired, and i'm doing tedious work on my mac... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamal Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Posting pictures isn't going to waste bandwidth (unless they're attached). The browser grabs the picture from wherever it's posted, and doesn't really have an effect on usmb. As far as the servers are concerned, it's just another line of code. In anycase, I'll rock thumbnails for the slow connections. It's always a pain in the rump roast waiting for a page with tons of pictures to load. yeah, the front fender isn't doing so great: It was always tweaked from when my sister rear-ended someone a few years ago, and the bumper is a bit scuffed up from that as well. Then I hit a trash can. Most of the tabs on the turn signal are broken off, so clear duct tape is holding it on. It used to be regular duct tape. Also I cut some holes in the bumper cover too: But that's for my lights. You can see the scuffs in this picture: My paint sucks too. No thanks go to the guy who decided to paint the wall my car was parked next to while I was home for winter break. Oh, and I did this: It started out really well when I very carefully drilled new inboard holes. Then the top wouldn't physically fit in the tower. So now I have a strut tower brace and a half degree of cross camber. Now I'm looking for someone who can make some plates to locate the tops. Those should fix things quite nicely for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Posting pictures isn't going to waste bandwidth (unless they're attached). The browser grabs the picture from wherever it's posted, and doesn't really have an effect on usmb. As far as the servers are concerned, it's just another line of code.I think you are confusing bandwidth with storage space. How many bits of information do you think it takes to show a picture versus just showing the link. Last month, in the middle of the month, we exceeded our band width for the board, the board was down until we got ahold of Shawn and he contacted the provider. So it is totally up to you, if you want to keep the board up and running, post links, if not posts pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamal Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 How many bits of information do you think it takes to show a picture versus just showing the link.. About the same amount as it takes to show this sentence. Using the tags, all the server knows is the size and location of the picture. When the page is displayed, your internet browser downloads it directly from where it is hosted, and does not use any more bandwidth than a link. This stupid argument is using more bandwidth than any of the pictures in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 About the same amount as it takes to show this sentence. Using the tags, all the server knows is the size and location of the picture. When the page is displayed, your internet browser downloads it directly from where it is hosted, and does not use any more bandwidth than a link. This stupid argument is using more bandwidth than any of the pictures in the thread. :-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamal Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 oh, and I did the whole wet sand deal: Before After Small increments are key, and you want to spend a lot of time with the finer grits. I did mine in the sink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 oh, and I did the whole wet sand deal: Before After Small increments are key, and you want to spend a lot of time with the finer grits. I did mine in the sink. what grit incriments did you use? i'm going to do this today. how long did it take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamal Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 I don't remember off the top of my head, but I think you should go down to like 2000, and keep the increments as close as possible. Spend as much time on each grit as it takes to get the scratches off from the last one. I probably spend like 20 min per side, but if I did it again I'd do a better job. I only used like 3 different grits, and I think I started with 400 and went to 1200. I would start with something higher, and spend more time on each. I still had scratches with mine and they looked cloudy, and apparnantly there shouldn't be any when you're done. Also make sure you use a sanding block. I hit it with spray on clear coat, which filled in the scratches and made it look clear. Apparantly that's not the best way to go, though, and mine are a bit clould and orange-peely. Read through this whole thread: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158315 There's more stuff down farther. Like this post which basically says I did it wrong: I would like to offer my two cents here. For back ground info I have several years experiance with removing scratches and hazing from aircraft transparancies to include F-15 canopies (stretched acrylic) and windscreens (a laminate consiting of layers of polycarbonate and acrylic) as well as helicopters. The basic steps given in the original post are accurate but I would like to offer some additional info if I may. If your lenses are deeply scratched you may not be able to do anything more than make them look better. If all you have is hazing (cloudy/milky looking) then you should be able to remove it completely. Instead of doing this next to a faucet you could wet the surface of the lens with a spray bottle containing water and 2-3 drops of dishwashing liquid. The dishwashing liquid helps to lift the sanding debris from the surface. As you are sanding, use liberal amounts of water (from the spray bottle) to keep the surface wet and wash off the debris. Change out your sandpaper often. I reccomend using more than two seperate grades of sandpaper though. I would reccomend adding a 1200 and 1600 grit to the 800 and 2000. Those two grits will help the 2000 grit remove all of the scratches left from the 800. To finish I have used a polish from 3M called Finesse It. It is really good stuff if you can find it. After that use whatever you wax you car with and the lenses will look better than new. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it the way that was originally posted, I'm just offering a way for everyone to get even better results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 I don't remember off the top of my head, but I think you should go down to like 2000, and keep the increments as close as possible. Spend as much time on each grit as it takes to get the scratches off from the last one. I probably spend like 20 min per side, but if I did it again I'd do a better job. I only used like 3 different grits, and I think I started with 400 and went to 1200. I would start with something higher, and spend more time on each. I still had scratches with mine and they looked cloudy, and apparnantly there shouldn't be any when you're done. Also make sure you use a sanding block. I hit it with spray on clear coat, which filled in the scratches and made it look clear. Apparantly that's not the best way to go, though, and mine are a bit clould and orange-peely. Read through this whole thread: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158315 There's more stuff down farther. Like this post which basically says I did it wrong: are the lenses foggy until the clearcoat is added? or do you sand until it's perfect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 About the same amount as it takes to show this sentence. Using the tags, all the server knows is the size and location of the picture. When the page is displayed, your internet browser downloads it directly from where it is hosted, and does not use any more bandwidth than a link. This stupid argument is using more bandwidth than any of the pictures in the thread. Well, from what I have been told the pictures on a web site versus links does impact bandwidth. By having picture on the board's web pages it causes more traffic between the board's web site and your computer, by only posting a link, the traffic is between the site the picture is on and the site that is requesting the picture with little to no traffic to the board's web site. I'll ask Shadow and see what he has to say, he is probably the one person that I would lean toward for this type of discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeshoup Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Well, from what I have been told the pictures on a web site versus links does impact bandwidth. By having picture on the board's web pages it causes more traffic between the board's web site and your computer, by only posting a link, the traffic is between the site the picture is on and the site that is requesting the picture with little to no traffic to the board's web site. I'll ask Shadow and see what he has to say, he is probably the one person that I would lean toward for this type of discussion. This depends on where the image is hosted. The USMB server knows no difference if the pictures is hosted on say photobucket, because your computer has to go out and download the photo from photobucket instead. Now if the picture is hosted in the gallery, or attached to the message. Then, yes, it uses bandwidth from USMB. Either way, linking to the picture is still better than posting the image directly imho, unless the image is small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 This depends on where the image is hosted. The USMB server knows no difference if the pictures is hosted on say photobucket, because your computer has to go out and download the photo from photobucket instead. Now if the picture is hosted in the gallery, or attached to the message. Then, yes, it uses bandwidth from USMB. Either way, linking to the picture is still better than posting the image directly imho, unless the image is small. Do this test, create two web sites, one with pictures from another site, one with links to another site. Now see how long it take each to load, the time it takes to load is band width, the longer it takes, the more band width (or at least that was how it was explained to me). If it didn't take longer to load, why the warning for 56K modems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 because it's not changing the loading time by linking a picture. because the picture is linked to another site it's taking minimal bandwidth from usmb and the majority of it from it's host site (photobucket) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamal Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Do this test, create two web sites, one with pictures from another site, one with links to another site. Now see how long it take each to load, the time it takes to load is band width, the longer it takes, the more band width (or at least that was how it was explained to me). If it didn't take longer to load, why the warning for 56K modems? The warning is for the people on modems, because when you open up a page with a dozen pictures embedded, it's going to take awhile for them all to load, versus just doing it one at a time/looking at only the pictures you want through links. The reason I used the thumbnails was to be considerate to the slow connections. As far as the USMB servers are concerned, it's the same as just a link to the picture, but it gets opened in this window instead of a new one. LosDiosDeVerde86, I didn't sand them until the scratches were all gone, and the clearcoat filled them all in. The problem with that is that the heat can cause the clearcoat to haze up a bit, which it seems to be doing. I was just going off the legacycentral thread, but after reading the one I linked, I realized I should have gone something like 800-1200-1500-1800-2000, and made sure to get all the scratches out on each step. It will take a lot longer, but the results will be worth it. Although it might be a better idea to just pick up a plastic polishing kit at a parts store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeshoup Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Do this test, create two web sites, one with pictures from another site, one with links to another site. Now see how long it take each to load, the time it takes to load is band width, the longer it takes, the more band width (or at least that was how it was explained to me). If it didn't take longer to load, why the warning for 56K modems? I guess I should have read what you were talking about. I thought we were talking about something with keeping bandwidth costs for USMB low. (which, bandwidth shouldn't be the correct term for) The warning for 56k users is because a 56k modem only has a band wide enough for 56kilobits per second... so if you post a picture in a post instead of a link, it will take longer for the whole page to load. Very annoying when you're reading something, and the whole page jumps because a picture just loaded, moving everything around. Plus, its a waste of time when you just want to see one picture, and not every other one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 I guess I should have read what you were talking about. I thought we were talking about something with keeping bandwidth costs for USMB low. (which, bandwidth shouldn't be the correct term for) The warning for 56k users is because a 56k modem only has a band wide enough for 56kilobits per second... so if you post a picture in a post instead of a link, it will take longer for the whole page to load. Very annoying when you're reading something, and the whole page jumps because a picture just loaded, moving everything around. Plus, its a waste of time when you just want to see one picture, and not every other one. no, actually this was supposed to be about sharing pictures of the blemishes and damaged parts of your car. but, evidently, it's not now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brus brother Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 So then, how exactly does one best remove the rust spots out of fenders or bandwidth? no, actually this was supposed to be about sharing pictures of the blemishes and damaged parts of your car. but, evidently, it's not now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosDiosDeVerde86 Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 So then, how exactly does one best remove the rust spots out of bandwidth? grind your modem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnuman Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 OK, when a call was made for pictures of wagons, the thread grew (quickly) to be several pages. Of pictures of wagons. Now, when a call for pictures of the blemishes that cars tend to get is made, a massive outcry of bandwidth abuse is heard. What is the factor that changed? Is it that we are afraid to show anyone that our cars are not immune to the effectst of rust and corrosion? Have we so little faith in the inherant beauty of our cars that we fear to show a few zits? Emily has a few of these zits. That does not make her less beautiful to me. Granted, I want to correct the blemishes she has, and make her as beautiful to others as she is to me. That is not out of being ashamed, though. It is more a small repayment to her for the years of faithful service she has given to her three respective owners (ending with me). Yes it will be nice when she is back in full bloom, and it really will not take that long. For pretty's sake, I need three doors, a rear bumper, driving lights, the sunroof installed, and cleaner wheels. That is all I'm going to do to her as far as looks are concerned (meaning that you can see). Beyond looks? Maintainance at 200k miles, arear swaybar, a better clutch, and AGX struts. All that will take time, but it is worth it. I hear comercials on the radio: Is your dream car a. . .(it lists a few). I'll admit it, I talk to my radio. I always say (and mean it) "my dream car is under my butt" Emily is the best damn car I have ever owned. Bar none. If she has a few zits, well then, I guess they are damned good zits too. Sorry, I had to vent on that one. 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.