Today's snow...

"RJ Webb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Had a good day?

Quoted message said:

Richard Webb

No. stuck inside working all day!, from the webcams it looked like the
perfect conditions up north. Took the following pano from my local hill
tonight, full marks if you can guess where I am

http://www.stuartstuart.fsnet.co.uk/misc/snignt1.jpg taken at 18:30 gmt

(RJ Webb) said:

Had a good day?
Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143.A2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg

That's one hell of a file download.

Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

"C L Imber" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(RJ Webb) said:

Had a good day?
Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143.A

2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg

Quoted message said:

That's one hell of a file download.

Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

Yes sorry ..... 251K

What amazed me with this pic is the detail, none of the ground detail could
be seen with the eye. for all you camera buffs this was taken on an Ixus 400
with 15 sec shutter openings! The distant city glows of Newcastle ( a few
clicks to the right of orion) and Edinburgh (the big glow in the op
direction (like the sun about to rise)) are not at all obvious to the human
eye!

!

]

Stuart wrote on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:49:09 -0000....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's one hell of a file download.

Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

Yes sorry ..... 251K

I suspect it was a reference to NASA's 11 megabytes, rather than your
251k !

What sort of connection is Chris on if he can get it in 7 seconds?

--
Tim Jackson
[email hidden]
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk

Tim Jackson said:

Stuart wrote on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:49:09 -0000....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's one hell of a file download.

Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

Yes sorry ..... 251K

I suspect it was a reference to NASA's 11 megabytes, rather than your
251k !

What sort of connection is Chris on if he can get it in 7 seconds?

Theoretically a 2MB link could manage 11MB in 7 secs, however, in my
experience a 100MB pipe can barely manage that!

(RJ Webb) said:

Had a good day?

Excellent day, failed miserably orienteering near Huddersfield, then
went climbing above Dovestone Reservoir. Not a snow flake in sight,
we were too far north and too far south!

--
York Alpine Club - http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Recent Photos - http://climbing.me.uk
Old Photos - http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
My Brother's Photos - http://www.caldwellcreations.co.uk

Approx 1minute 30 seconds for me - 7 secs, been vaselining the TCP packets,
Chris??

Jimmy ;-)

"Chris Street" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

C L Imber said:

(RJ Webb) said:

Had a good day?
Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...

Quoted message said:

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143.

A2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's one hell of a file download.

Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

Only took me seven seconds ...:-)

Stuart said:

Took the following pano from my local hill
tonight, full marks if you can guess where I am

Which direction is the centre of the pic looking ?

Chris

In article <[email hidden]>,

(C L Imber) said:

Theoretically a 2MB link could manage 11MB in 7 secs, however, in my
experience a 100MB pipe can barely manage that!

I pulled it down with the 2MB link at work, still took a couple of
minutes. Often servers are quick enough to feed data at that speed.
Fantastic image!
Rob

In article <[email hidden]>, Rob Milne
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(C L Imber) said:

Theoretically a 2MB link could manage 11MB in 7 secs, however, in my
experience a 100MB pipe can barely manage that!

I pulled it down with the 2MB link at work, still took a couple of
minutes. Often servers are quick enough to feed data at that speed.

If we are talking about a DSL line then it is 2 mega-bits per second
rather than 2 mega-bytes per second which would work out at about 44
seconds minimum for that image.

There are not many businesses or other organisations that will have
larger pipes than 2 Mbp/s which are not shared with other user's of
their network which makes comparisons difficult.

The 7 second figure would work out at about 12.5 Mbp/s which is really
rather generous for an individual's connection unless the individual was
using it at 4 am when the network traffic was minimal!

Quoted message said:

Fantastic image!

Great isn't it!

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/

"Chris Gilbert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Stuart said:

Took the following pano from my local hill
tonight, full marks if you can guess where I am

Which direction is the centre of the pic looking ?

Chris

The bearing of the mouse pointer should be in the status bar!

http://www.stuartstuart.fsnet.co.uk/misc/staenight.htm

Arh, that explains it.

Jhimmy :-)

"Chris Street" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jhimmy said:

Approx 1minute 30 seconds for me - 7 secs, been vaselining the TCP

packets,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chris??

Jimmy ;-)

No, company I work for has it's own dark fibre across the pond that pops
out on the same backbone as NASA....:-) I can hit about 23Mb/sec if I try
hard and the web server at the far end can actually shove it out that

fast.

Quoted message said:

At home I'm stuck with 512k until they get a wayleave to dig the final bit
of fibre to my house.

Quoted message said:

"Chris Street" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:23:19 +0000, C L Imber wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:11:47 GMT, [email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote:
>
>>Had a good day?
>>Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...
>>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143

..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg

Quoted message said:

>
> That's one hell of a file download.
>
> Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

Only took me seven seconds ...:-)

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Jhimmy said:

Approx 1minute 30 seconds for me - 7 secs, been vaselining the TCP packets,
Chris??

Jimmy ;-)

No, company I work for has it's own dark fibre across the pond that pops
out on the same backbone as NASA....:-) I can hit about 23Mb/sec if I try
hard and the web server at the far end can actually shove it out that fast.

At home I'm stuck with 512k until they get a wayleave to dig the final bit
of fibre to my house.

Quoted message said:

"Chris Street" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:23:19 +0000, C L Imber wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:11:47 GMT, [email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote:
>
>>Had a good day?
>>Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...
>>

>http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143.

A2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg

Quoted message said:

>
> That's one hell of a file download.
>
> Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

Only took me seven seconds ...:-)

It's a hard life some people lead :-)
--
Darren

Stuart said:

What amazed me with this pic is the detail, none of the ground detail
could be seen with the eye. for all you camera buffs this was taken
on an Ixus 400 with 15 sec shutter openings!

If you think that's amazing, take a look at this one. This is a 4
minute exposure at f4 at ISO 400. Taken at 6:28pm on Sunday, two and a
quarter hours after sunset. This shot is lit purely by moonlight.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190088.jpg

For the Rooneys in the audience, there has been no manipulation or even
processing in this shot. This is exactly what it looked like straight
out of the camera (apart from resizing and sharpening obviously).
Normally I would apply a bit of processing, probably to darken the sky a
bit in this case, but I just wanted to show you what it looked like
without.

Note to Woollyzone, taken on a £30 Jessops tripod. :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Alrighty, here's one from myself, guess where I live. Picture is 97Kb.

http://slashhashmash.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

Don't bother with the rest of the site, it's a 'something to do in the
holidays' thing.
--
Muzz
reply to uglyduck NOT spamfrog

spamfrog said:

Alrighty, here's one from myself, guess where I live. Picture is 97Kb.

http://slashhashmash.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

Don't bother with the rest of the site, it's a 'something to do in the
holidays' thing.

Oops, this may be more helpful.
http://slashhashmash.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/wyvis.html
--
Muzz
reply to uglyduck NOT spamfrog

I noticed that Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from Paul
Saunders contained the following:

Quoted message said:

If you think that's amazing, take a look at this one. This is a 4
minute exposure at f4 at ISO 400. Taken at 6:28pm on Sunday, two and a
quarter hours after sunset. This shot is lit purely by moonlight.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190088.jpg

Why not just shoot in daylight? <g>

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Geoff Berrow said:

Why not just shoot in daylight? <g>

1. By the time I got there the sun was in the wrong place.

2. The nature of the light in the day is quite different, in particular
the colour and brightness of the sky.

3. The moon was much higher in the sky than the sun would have been, so
lighting the scene differently. Winter sun is low, winter moon is high.
You never get a high sun with snow.

4. Although the unprocessed pic didn't look much different to a
daylight scene, it would have after a little processing.

5. No people around to ruin the pic! :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

"spamfrog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

spamfrog said:

Alrighty, here's one from myself, guess where I live. Picture is 97Kb.

http://slashhashmash.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

Don't bother with the rest of the site, it's a 'something to do in the
holidays' thing.

Oops, this may be more helpful.
http://slashhashmash.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/wyvis.html
--
Muzz
reply to uglyduck NOT spamfrog

somewhere just west of Alness

Clashnabuiac ????