I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to
be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.)
This time around, I happened to notice a couple of reviews on the back
cover. Here's one from the Grauniad.
----
"Packed with serious technical detail and an interesting central idea [...]" ----
Clearly the reviewer hasn't noticed that the "serious technical detail"
is wrong. Fair enough, I guess. High school physics doesn't go as far as relativity.
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
----
"Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase."
----
Have I read that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to
me that the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity
is fiction created by Heinlein.
Peter Moylan wrote on 5/12/2026 :
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I
re-read many of my books, and I've read this a number of times.
Superficially, it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's
well enough written to be readable. It does, however, display a
serious misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Serious enough to
invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody
asks.)
This time around, I happened to notice a couple of reviews on the
back cover. Here's one from the Grauniad. ---- "Packed with serious
technical detail and an interesting central idea [...]" ----
Clearly the reviewer hasn't noticed that the "serious technical
detail" is wrong. Fair enough, I guess. High school physics doesn't
go as far as relativity.
I think my high school physics touched on it briefly, but nowhere
near what I got the next year as a college freshman, and definitely
not as much as I got in the E&M course.
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
---- "Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents
whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase." ---- Have I read
that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to me that
the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity is
fiction created by Heinlein.
That's one possibility. Another is that the GftT is being coy about
having noticed the error. The more likely is either the ESP or the
discoveries made from the results of comparing ESP to radio
transmissions.
IDNR how it played out, but wasn't there some sort of shortcut
discovered that allowed the new physics ships to catch up with the
outbound twins' ships?
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to
be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of Special >Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.)
This time around, I happened to notice a couple of reviews on the back
cover. Here's one from the Grauniad.
----
"Packed with serious technical detail and an interesting central idea [...]" >----
Clearly the reviewer hasn't noticed that the "serious technical detail"
is wrong. Fair enough, I guess. High school physics doesn't go as far as >relativity.
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
----
"Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense
----
Have I read that "whole new sciences" correctly? It of humour and invents whole new
sciences in the twinkling of a phrase."looks very much to
me that the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity
is fiction created by Heinlein.
On 13/05/26 12:23, Snidely wrote:
Without that complication -- that is, if the original ship had managed
to get back to Earth -- you would already have an interesting paradox.
Most of the crew were subject to relativistic effects, so would arrive
back on Earth younger than their stay-at-home friends. The telepathic
pairs, however, communicated instantaneously, and so wouldn't have been >subject to the Lorentz time equations. Therefore the twins would still
be the same age as each other at the end of the trip.
Given the FTL rescue ship, that complicates the analysis for the rest of
the crew. They experienced relativistic effects on the outbound trip,
but not on the return trip.
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to
be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.)
This time around, I happened to notice a couple of reviews on the back
cover. Here's one from the Grauniad.
----
"Packed with serious technical detail and an interesting central idea [...]" ----
Clearly the reviewer hasn't noticed that the "serious technical detail"
is wrong. Fair enough, I guess. High school physics doesn't go as far as relativity.
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
----
"Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase."
----
Have I read that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to
me that the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity SF is fiction created by Heinlein.
On Wed, 13 May 2026 12:47:29 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 13/05/26 12:23, Snidely wrote:
Without that complication -- that is, if the original ship had managed
to get back to Earth -- you would already have an interesting paradox.
Most of the crew were subject to relativistic effects, so would arrive
back on Earth younger than their stay-at-home friends. The telepathic >pairs, however, communicated instantaneously, and so wouldn't have been >subject to the Lorentz time equations. Therefore the twins would still
be the same age as each other at the end of the trip.
Given the FTL rescue ship, that complicates the analysis for the rest of >the crew. They experienced relativistic effects on the outbound trip,
but not on the return trip.
That reminds me of another story with a similar premiss -- I forget
the author but it was called "Ultima Thule". The ship jumped out of hyperspace and out of the universe and therefore outside time. The
crew were rescued when the universe expanded to include them.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
That reminds me of another story with a similar premiss -- I
forget the author but it was called "Ultima Thule". The ship jumped
out of hyperspace and out of the universe and therefore outside
time. The crew were rescued when the universe expanded to include
them.
You may mean 'Ultima Thule' by Eric Frank Russell. (1951) Synopsis at
for example: <http://mporcius.blogspot.com/2022/06/best-sf-seven-fred-pohl-eric-frank.html>
But in that case your description is not entirely correct,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
---- "Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents
whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase." ---- Have I read
that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to me that
the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity
SF is fiction created by Heinlein.
Reviewers rate the story, not the science babble. The boring fact is
that you cannot have special relativity literally correct -and-
interesting SF of most kinds. (no galactic empires, for example)
Even Larry Niven had to give up on it,
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite early
in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock ticking more
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the fact
that instantaneous telepathy would invalidate relativity, and it left me
with the feeling that Heinlein didn't understand relativity.
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower, even in
the two cases which are usually mixed up:
- the Lorentzian case: measuring and (back-)calculating results;
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to
be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of
Special
Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.)
speed of light). This is due to the Lorentz transformation: t' = gamma
( t + beta x/c ), with beta = v/c and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-beta^2).
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
speed of light). This is due to the Lorentz transformation: t' = gammaCorrection: It was meant to be read: t' = gamma( t - beta x/c ).
( t + beta x/c ), with beta = v/c and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-beta^2).
On 13/05/26 17:41, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
That reminds me of another story with a similar premiss -- I
forget the author but it was called "Ultima Thule". The ship jumped
out of hyperspace and out of the universe and therefore outside
time. The crew were rescued when the universe expanded to include
them.
You may mean 'Ultima Thule' by Eric Frank Russell. (1951) Synopsis at
for example:
<http://mporcius.blogspot.com/2022/06/best-sf-seven-fred-pohl-eric-frank.html>
But in that case your description is not entirely correct,
There's another story, whose title I've forgotten, where a spaceship
develops a fault that makes it impossible to slow down. So it continues through galaxies, getting faster all the time and closer to lightspeed,
until it runs through the whole future history of the universe. Then it somehow survives the Big Crunch, and finally somehow gets into the Big
Bang of the next cycle.
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to
be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of
Special
Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.)
This time around, I happened to notice a couple of reviews on the back
cover. Here's one from the Grauniad.
----
"Packed with serious technical detail and an interesting central idea
[...]"
----
Clearly the reviewer hasn't noticed that the "serious technical detail"
is wrong. Fair enough, I guess. High school physics doesn't go as far as relativity.
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
----
"Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase."
----
Have I read that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to
me that the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity
is fiction created by Heinlein.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> writes:
On 13/05/26 17:41, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
That reminds me of another story with a similar premiss -- I
forget the author but it was called "Ultima Thule". The ship jumped
out of hyperspace and out of the universe and therefore outside
time. The crew were rescued when the universe expanded to include
them.
You may mean 'Ultima Thule' by Eric Frank Russell. (1951) Synopsis at
for example:
<http://mporcius.blogspot.com/2022/06/best-sf-seven-fred-pohl-eric-frank.ht
But in that case your description is not entirely correct,
There's another story, whose title I've forgotten, where a spaceship develops a fault that makes it impossible to slow down. So it continues through galaxies, getting faster all the time and closer to lightspeed, until it runs through the whole future history of the universe. Then it somehow survives the Big Crunch, and finally somehow gets into the Big
Bang of the next cycle.
Sounds like _Tau Zero_, by Poul Anderson.
On 13/05/2026 03:43, Peter Moylan wrote:
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to
be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of Special
Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.)
I hadn't read it. I've decided to read it next.
The first thing that struck me from the cover blurb was the 'Long Range Foundation'. I wonder if this was the inspiration behind the existing
'The Long Now Foundation' co-founded by Danny Hillis and Brian Eno (yes,
that one).
It is famous for its 'The Millennium Clock' (ticks once a year, with a century hand that advances once every 100 years, and a cuckoo that comes
out once a millennium) and the Rosetta Project (ObAUE).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Now_Foundation
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it?
On 13/05/2026 02:43, Peter Moylan wrote:
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to
be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of Special
Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.)
This time around, I happened to notice a couple of reviews on the back cover. Here's one from the Grauniad.
----
"Packed with serious technical detail and an interesting central idea [...]"
----
Clearly the reviewer hasn't noticed that the "serious technical detail"
is wrong. Fair enough, I guess. High school physics doesn't go as far as relativity.
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
----
"Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase."
----
Have I read that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to
me that the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity
is fiction created by Heinlein.
You may be right, but I read that "whole new sciences" as a back-handed
way of saying "It must be a new science, because it isn't compatible
with what we have now.
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite
early in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock
ticking more
At approach or recession?
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the
fact
Eh, back to front?
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 12:47:29 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 13/05/26 12:23, Snidely wrote:
Without that complication -- that is, if the original ship had managed
to get back to Earth -- you would already have an interesting paradox.
Most of the crew were subject to relativistic effects, so would arrive
back on Earth younger than their stay-at-home friends. The telepathic
pairs, however, communicated instantaneously, and so wouldn't have been
subject to the Lorentz time equations. Therefore the twins would still
be the same age as each other at the end of the trip.
Given the FTL rescue ship, that complicates the analysis for the rest of
the crew. They experienced relativistic effects on the outbound trip,
but not on the return trip.
That reminds me of another story with a similar premiss -- I forget
the author but it was called "Ultima Thule". The ship jumped out of
hyperspace and out of the universe and therefore outside time. The
crew were rescued when the universe expanded to include them.
You may mean 'Ultima Thule' by Eric Frank Russell. (1951)
Synopsis at for example: ><http://mporcius.blogspot.com/2022/06/best-sf-seven-fred-pohl-eric-frank.html>
But in that case your description is not entirely correct,
On 13/05/26 17:41, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
---- "Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents
whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase." ---- Have I read
that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to me that
the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity
SF is fiction created by Heinlein.
Reviewers rate the story, not the science babble. The boring fact is
that you cannot have special relativity literally correct -and-
interesting SF of most kinds. (no galactic empires, for example)
Yes, but the best authors made an effort to get the science as right as >possible. As Steve underlined, some young people learnt their physics
from SF. Yes, the authors might have needed some non-physical things,
like FTL or time travel, for the sake of the story, but they tried to
get the rest right.
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite early
in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock ticking more
At approach or recession?
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the fact
Eh, back to front?
that instantaneous telepathy would invalidate relativity, and it left me
with the feeling that Heinlein didn't understand relativity.
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower, even in
the two cases which are usually mixed up:
- the Lorentzian case: measuring and (back-)calculating results;
- the Doppler case: actually *looking* at relativistic motion.
The first case yields the Lorentz transform results, but is almost never
and nowhere "instantaneously seeable" as such: that's the second case,
which adds Doppler effects and yields quite different results!
On Wed, 13 May 2026 16:49:06 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite early
in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock ticking more
At approach or recession?
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the fact
Eh, back to front?
that instantaneous telepathy would invalidate relativity, and it left me >> with the feeling that Heinlein didn't understand relativity.
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower, even in >the two cases which are usually mixed up:
- the Lorentzian case: measuring and (back-)calculating results;
- the Doppler case: actually *looking* at relativistic motion.
The first case yields the Lorentz transform results, but is almost never >and nowhere "instantaneously seeable" as such: that's the second case, >which adds Doppler effects and yields quite different results!
My favourite litwerary approachy to that is the Queen song 39.
I'd give the URL link, but YouTube keeps changing it to one that says
"Please update your browswer".
On 14/05/26 00:49, guido wugi wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite
early in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock
ticking more
At approach or recession?
The ship is receding from the earth. Or, from another point of view the
earth is receding from the ship. But that's irrelevant. The Lorentz
equations depend only on the /scalar/ relative speed difference. The
velocity direction doesn't affect the answer. You get the same answer
whether the two bodies are approaching each other or receding from each other.
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the
fact
Eh, back to front?
The situation is symmetrical. If I am receding from you at a relative
speed v, then from my point of view you are receding from me. In the spaceship's frame of reference, the earth is receding at a high relative speed, so the earth clocks are seen to tick more slowly. The answer,
then, is that each twin sees the other as ageing more slowly.
So who is *really* the older one? The answer is different for different observers. There are no privileged observers, so anyone's answer is as
good as any other. The age difference between the two remains undefined
until they get back-a together again on Earth.
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower,
They are both receding, therefore each is younger than the other.
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 03:43, Peter Moylan wrote:
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read
many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially,
it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to >>> be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of
Special
Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book.
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.) >>>
I hadn't read it. I've decided to read it next.
The first thing that struck me from the cover blurb was the 'Long Range
Foundation'. I wonder if this was the inspiration behind the existing
'The Long Now Foundation' co-founded by Danny Hillis and Brian Eno (yes,
that one).
It is famous for its 'The Millennium Clock' (ticks once a year, with a
century hand that advances once every 100 years, and a cuckoo that comes
out once a millennium) and the Rosetta Project (ObAUE).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Now_Foundation
Actually, the clock ticks on a second by second basis.
it is only the display that counts the millennia
(saying cuckoo in a different way each time)
On Wed, 13 May 2026 20:25:04 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 13/05/26 17:41, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
The review in The Times Literary Supplement is more interesting.
---- "Robert Heinlein has a tremendous sense of humour and invents
whole new sciences in the twinkling of a phrase." ---- Have I read
that "whole new sciences" correctly? It looks very much to me that
the gentleman from The Times believes that Einstein's relativity
SF is fiction created by Heinlein.
Reviewers rate the story, not the science babble. The boring fact is
that you cannot have special relativity literally correct -and-
interesting SF of most kinds. (no galactic empires, for example)
Yes, but the best authors made an effort to get the science as right as >possible. As Steve underlined, some young people learnt their physics
from SF. Yes, the authors might have needed some non-physical things,
like FTL or time travel, for the sake of the story, but they tried to
get the rest right.
Yes, I learned about Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts
before he wrote his book from an sf story called "The New Reality" by
Charles L. Harness.
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40274255-the-new-reality>
On 13/05/2026 21:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 03:43, Peter Moylan wrote:
I recently re-read "Time for the Stars", by Robert Heinlein. I re-read >>> many of my books, and I've read this a number of times. Superficially, >>> it's a typical Heinlein adventure story, and it's well enough written to >>> be readable. It does, however, display a serious misunderstanding of
Special
Relativity. Serious enough to invalidate the main premise of the book. >>>
(I won't bore you by explaining what the error is, unless somebody asks.) >>>
I hadn't read it. I've decided to read it next.
The first thing that struck me from the cover blurb was the 'Long Range
Foundation'. I wonder if this was the inspiration behind the existing
'The Long Now Foundation' co-founded by Danny Hillis and Brian Eno (yes, >> that one).
It is famous for its 'The Millennium Clock' (ticks once a year, with a
century hand that advances once every 100 years, and a cuckoo that comes >> out once a millennium) and the Rosetta Project (ObAUE).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Now_Foundation
Actually, the clock ticks on a second by second basis.
it is only the display that counts the millennia
(saying cuckoo in a different way each time)
Oh? How do you know that Jan? How many millennia have you been listening
to it for? </smile>
Op 14/05/2026 om 0:54 schreef Peter Moylan:
On 14/05/26 00:49, guido wugi wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs
quite early in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth
clock ticking more
So, where was the blooper in the Heinlein narrative?
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 16:49:06 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite early >> in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock ticking more
At approach or recession?
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the fact
Eh, back to front?
that instantaneous telepathy would invalidate relativity, and it left me >> with the feeling that Heinlein didn't understand relativity.
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case: >what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower, even in >the two cases which are usually mixed up:
- the Lorentzian case: measuring and (back-)calculating results;
- the Doppler case: actually *looking* at relativistic motion.
The first case yields the Lorentz transform results, but is almost never >and nowhere "instantaneously seeable" as such: that's the second case, >which adds Doppler effects and yields quite different results!
My favourite litwerary approachy to that is the Queen song 39.
I'd give the URL link, but YouTube keeps changing it to one that says "Please update your browswer".
Read that as "There is nothing wrong with your browser, our website
writer is incompetent".
Why do computer companies (etc.) love to introduce new "features" that do nothing to improve one's experience but just make life more difficult?
On 14/05/26 00:49, guido wugi wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite
early in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock
ticking more
At approach or recession?
The ship is receding from the earth. Or, from another point of view the
earth is receding from the ship. But that's irrelevant. The Lorentz
equations depend only on the /scalar/ relative speed difference. The
velocity direction doesn't affect the answer. You get the same answer
whether the two bodies are approaching each other or receding from each other.
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the
fact
Eh, back to front?
The situation is symmetrical. If I am receding from you at a relative
speed v, then from my point of view you are receding from me. In the spaceship's frame of reference, the earth is receding at a high relative speed, so the earth clocks are seen to tick more slowly. The answer,
then, is that each twin sees the other as ageing more slowly.
So who is *really* the older one? The answer is different for different observers. There are no privileged observers, so anyone's answer is as
good as any other. The age difference between the two remains undefined
until they get back-a together again on Earth.
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower,
They are both receding, therefore each is younger than the other.
Den 14.05.2026 kl. 17.16 skrev athel.cb@gmail.com:
Why do computer companies (etc.) love to introduce new "features" that do
nothing to improve one's experience but just make life more difficult?
Because they don't know about webpage design. Thet hire someone to do it
who promises to produce a modern and appealing webpage, but the designer knows next to nothing about userfriendly design.
This has been a problem ever since webpages became common.
I wrote this some time in the late nineteens:
-a-a-a-a-a https://bertel.lundhansen.dk/?page=internettet/internetpeople
It's been relevant ever since.
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) posted:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 16:49:06 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite early >>>>> in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock ticking more
At approach or recession?
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the fact >>>>Eh, back to front?
that instantaneous telepathy would invalidate relativity, and it left me >>>>> with the feeling that Heinlein didn't understand relativity.
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower, even in >>>> the two cases which are usually mixed up:
- the Lorentzian case: measuring and (back-)calculating results;
- the Doppler case: actually *looking* at relativistic motion.
The first case yields the Lorentz transform results, but is almost never >>>> and nowhere "instantaneously seeable" as such: that's the second case, >>>> which adds Doppler effects and yields quite different results!
My favourite litwerary approachy to that is the Queen song 39.
I'd give the URL link, but YouTube keeps changing it to one that says
"Please update your browswer".
Read that as "There is nothing wrong with your browser, our website
writer is incompetent".
Why do computer companies (etc.) love to introduce new "features" that do nothing to improve one's experience but just make life more difficult?
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric viewpoint.
"It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!" There's also
more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability of
a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it - to
the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose things like
the text width.
Den 14.05.2026 kl. 21.13 skrev Richard Tobin:
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability of
a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it - to
the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose things like
the text width.
That is their wet dream. The user can override their choices, though many people do not know that.
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it
- to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like[...]
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it
possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended.
That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with information content seen as less important.
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) posted:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:Why do computer companies (etc.) love to introduce new "features" that do >nothing to improve one's experience but just make life more difficult?
On Wed, 13 May 2026 16:49:06 +0200, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid>
wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs quite early >> > >> in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth clock ticking more
At approach or recession?
slowly than his own. That's back to front, even if you ignore the fact >> > >Eh, back to front?
that instantaneous telepathy would invalidate relativity, and it left me
with the feeling that Heinlein didn't understand relativity.
I take it we're receding, if it's early in the book. In which case:
what's wrong with it? Time of the receding partner seems slower, even in >> > >the two cases which are usually mixed up:
- the Lorentzian case: measuring and (back-)calculating results;
- the Doppler case: actually *looking* at relativistic motion.
The first case yields the Lorentz transform results, but is almost never >> > >and nowhere "instantaneously seeable" as such: that's the second case,
which adds Doppler effects and yields quite different results!
My favourite litwerary approachy to that is the Queen song 39.
I'd give the URL link, but YouTube keeps changing it to one that says
"Please update your browswer".
Read that as "There is nothing wrong with your browser, our website
writer is incompetent".
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language.
That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web
site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They
want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has
become an unholy mess. That's why you keep getting messages like "Please >install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think
that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
Leading to current abominations such as small grey text on a grey
background. Sometimes I think that the youthful web-designers of
today do that deliberately to exclude old people like me.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely
<snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it
- to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it
possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended.
That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with information content seen as less important.
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language.
That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web
site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They
want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has
become an unholy mess.
That's why you keep getting messages like "Please
install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think
that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it
- to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it
possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended.
That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with information content seen as less important.
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language.
That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web
site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They
want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has
become an unholy mess. That's why you keep getting messages like "Please install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think
that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids
are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers
cannot read.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids
are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers
cannot read.
Den 15.05.2026 kl. 09.40 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers cannot read.
They will get the answer from the developer that they won't make
different designs for different browsers. They simply don't understand
that their job would be easier if they kept within correct HTML.
Many years ago I switched bank because the one I used had implemented a netbank system that didn't work in my updated browser. An employer
called the developer and gave me the phone. I talked to him for 15
minutes, and he still didn't get the point.
The new bank said that they hadn't found a computer system that didn't
work with their netbank, and I had no problem, but they proved too expensive, so after a couple of years I went back to the first bank
which now had a perfect netbank system.
A year ago they 'updated' it, so now the numbers look different and
several fundamental functions have not been implemented in the new
system. Alas, the system is common for a lot of banks.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely
<snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it
- to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present
content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it
possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for
them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended.
That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with
information content seen as less important.
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language.
That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web
site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They
want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has
become an unholy mess. That's why you keep getting messages like "Please
install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think
that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids
are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers
cannot read.
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:Is the web page designer responsible for the information content?
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely
<snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it
- to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width.-a This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it
possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended.
That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with information content seen as less important.
[quoted text muted]
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
But that might make all existing HTML pages unreadable.
Verily, in article <bs4d0lhn5cdt9238hbs3ssvp52pbpn4tcb@4ax.com>, did hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
[quoted text muted]
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
But that might make all existing HTML pages unreadable.
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
Verily, in article <bs4d0lhn5cdt9238hbs3ssvp52pbpn4tcb@4ax.com>, did >hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
[quoted text muted]
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
But that might make all existing HTML pages unreadable.
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
It's called "Markdown".
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:06:51 -0400, The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
You wish.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
It's called "Markdown".
Why not? Most browser handle multiple protocols. I've never seen one
which couldn't handle ftp. Firefox even handles gopher.
On 13/05/26 17:41, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
That reminds me of another story with a similar premiss -- I
forget the author but it was called "Ultima Thule". The ship jumped
out of hyperspace and out of the universe and therefore outside
time. The crew were rescued when the universe expanded to include
them.
You may mean 'Ultima Thule' by Eric Frank Russell. (1951) Synopsis at
for example: <http://mporcius.blogspot.com/2022/06/best-sf-seven-fred-pohl-eric-frank.htm
But in that case your description is not entirely correct,
There's another story, whose title I've forgotten, where a spaceship
develops a fault that makes it impossible to slow down. So it continues through galaxies, getting faster all the time and closer to lightspeed,
until it runs through the whole future history of the universe. Then it somehow survives the Big Crunch, and finally somehow gets into the Big
Bang of the next cycle.
Verily, in article <7g1g0ldp5etq1mhfbfugd66ittana9qjsu@4ax.com>, did
hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:06:51 -0400, The True Melissa
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
You wish.
Why not? Most browser handle multiple protocols. I've never seen one
which couldn't handle ftp. Firefox even handles gopher.
Your browsers must be older than mine. Browsers used to be able to
handle ftp:// URLs, but then in 2021 all the web browsers dropped FTP support, more or less simultaneously.
Verily, in article <7g1g0ldp5etq1mhfbfugd66ittana9qjsu@4ax.com>, did >hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:06:51 -0400, The True Melissa
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
You wish.
Why not? Most browser handle multiple protocols. I've never seen one
which couldn't handle ftp. Firefox even handles gopher.
On 17/05/26 02:39, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <7g1g0ldp5etq1mhfbfugd66ittana9qjsu@4ax.com>, did
hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:06:51 -0400, The True Melissa
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
You wish.
Why not? Most browser handle multiple protocols. I've never seen one
which couldn't handle ftp. Firefox even handles gopher.
Your browsers must be older than mine. Browsers used to be able to
handle ftp:// URLs, but then in 2021 all the web browsers dropped FTP >support, more or less simultaneously. That was a major pain in the arse
for me, because for years I've been using FTP to distribute my software.
(Of course separate FTP clients do exist, but not everyone knows how to
use them.) I had to create a kludge (and potential security hole) to
allow fetching files via HTTP.
Doesn't the O/S support FTP, or have they stopped that too?
I need to update my web pages, but if I can't use FTP, how will I do
it?
On Sun, 17 May 2026 09:13:12 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 17/05/26 02:39, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <7g1g0ldp5etq1mhfbfugd66ittana9qjsu@4ax.com>,
did hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:06:51 -0400, The True Melissa
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
You wish.
Why not? Most browser handle multiple protocols. I've never seen
one which couldn't handle ftp. Firefox even handles gopher.
Your browsers must be older than mine. Browsers used to be able to
handle ftp:// URLs, but then in 2021 all the web browsers dropped
FTP support, more or less simultaneously. That was a major pain in
the arse for me, because for years I've been using FTP to
distribute my software. (Of course separate FTP clients do exist,
but not everyone knows how to use them.) I had to create a kludge
(and potential security hole) to allow fetching files via HTTP.
Doesn't the O/S support FTP, or have they stopped that too?
I need to update my web pages, but if I can't use FTP, how will I do
it?
Doesn't the O/S support FTP, or have they stopped that too?
Ar an seacht|| l|i d|-ag de m|! Bealtaine, scr|!obh Steve Hayes:
Doesn't the O/S support FTP, or have they stopped that too?
I need to update my web pages, but if I can't use FTP, how will I do
it?
This rCLWindow 11 ProrCY machine does support ftp on the the command line (at >least, when I type ftp I get the traditional ftp> prompt).
On 17/05/26 16:09, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2026 09:13:12 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 17/05/26 02:39, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <7g1g0ldp5etq1mhfbfugd66ittana9qjsu@4ax.com>,
did hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:06:51 -0400, The True Melissa
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
One browser client could read both HTML and NewHTML.
You wish.
Why not? Most browser handle multiple protocols. I've never seen
one which couldn't handle ftp. Firefox even handles gopher.
Your browsers must be older than mine. Browsers used to be able to
handle ftp:// URLs, but then in 2021 all the web browsers dropped
FTP support, more or less simultaneously. That was a major pain in
the arse for me, because for years I've been using FTP to
distribute my software. (Of course separate FTP clients do exist,
but not everyone knows how to use them.) I had to create a kludge
(and potential security hole) to allow fetching files via HTTP.
Doesn't the O/S support FTP, or have they stopped that too?
I need to update my web pages, but if I can't use FTP, how will I do
it?
It's a browser problem, not an OS problem. If you can find a
sufficiently old version of your browser, it will still handle FTP.
If you've been using FTP to upload your web pages, that will probably
still work. You just can't do it through your web browser. FTP servers
and FTP clients are still alive and well. It's just that the feature has
been ripped out of your browser.
When I first wrote my web server (the one that I developed), it
supported only HTTP. When I came to add HTTPS support, I initially
thought that the server would need two tree roots per domain, one for
the non-confidential web pages (served with HTTP) and one for the ones
that need security (served with HTTPS). It turns out, though, that
owners of web sites never make that distinction.
A related topic: some of my web pages are password protected. There is--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
an internet standard for supporting that case. The standard provides for several levels of security, depending on how cautious you want to be. It turns out, though, that all existing web browsers that I know of fail to support the most secure options, and in addition always default back to
the least secure option. Hypocrites!
Since we were forcibly moved from ADSL (copper) to FTTH, I haven't been
able to access any HTTP page, the ISP blocks all outgoing HTTP
connections on port 80. Connections are left spinning without progress,
or TCP reset.
* Peter Moylan <10ubq0j$1gip9$1@dont-email.me> : Wrote on Sun, 17 May
2026 17:16:31 +1000:
When I first wrote my web server (the one that I developed), it
supported only HTTP. When I came to add HTTPS support, I
initially thought that the server would need two tree roots per
domain, one for the non-confidential web pages (served with HTTP)
and one for the ones that need security (served with HTTPS). It
turns out, though, that owners of web sites never make that
distinction.
Since we were forcibly moved from ADSL (copper) to FTTH, I haven't
been able to access any HTTP page, the ISP blocks all outgoing HTTP connections on port 80. Connections are left spinning without
progress, or TCP reset.
On Sun, 17 May 2026 17:16:31 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
It's a browser problem, not an OS problem. If you can find a
sufficiently old version of your browser, it will still handle
FTP.
If you've been using FTP to upload your web pages, that will
probably still work. You just can't do it through your web browser.
FTP servers and FTP clients are still alive and well. It's just
that the feature has been ripped out of your browser.
That's OK then.
Windows keeps losing functionality with each new version they bring
out, so I wondered if it had gone from the O/S as well.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser.
We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids
are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers
cannot read.
Actually, FTP has never been part of the OS; it's just one more
application program. Traditionally, though, the OS suppliers have found
it convenient to include a command-line FTP client in their
distributions. By now it would be extra effort to remove it, and they
don't want to alienate the people who prefer the command line.
Liz Tuddenham wrote on 5/15/2026 :
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely
<snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it
- to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present
content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it
possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for >> them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended.
That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with
information content seen as less important.
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language.
That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web >> site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They >> want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has
become an unholy mess. That's why you keep getting messages like "Please >> install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think
that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers cannot read.
Enough customers to matter?
Every customer should matter. Each disgruntled one will spread the word
to several others.
In article <m3pl2toqb5.fsf@pison.robolove.meer.net>,
Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
Since we were forcibly moved from ADSL (copper) to FTTH, I haven't been >>able to access any HTTP page, the ISP blocks all outgoing HTTP
connections on port 80. Connections are left spinning without progress,
or TCP reset.
What ISP is that?
(Presumably you mean *to* port 80.)--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Since we were forcibly moved from ADSL (copper) to FTTH, I haven't been >>>able to access any HTTP page, the ISP blocks all outgoing HTTP >>>connections on port 80. Connections are left spinning without progress, >>>or TCP reset.
What ISP is that?
The national one, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
Madhu wrote:
[...]
Since we were forcibly moved from ADSL (copper) to FTTH, I haven't been >>>> able to access any HTTP page, the ISP blocks all outgoing HTTP
connections on port 80. Connections are left spinning without progress, >>>> or TCP reset.
What ISP is that?
The national one, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
That's very surprising. You'd think they would be deluged with
complaints.
Snidely wrote:
Liz Tuddenham wrote on 5/15/2026 :
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids >>> are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers
cannot read.
Enough customers to matter?
Every customer should matter. Each disgruntled one will spread the word
to several others.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it
- to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended. That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with information content seen as less important.
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language.
That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has
become an unholy mess. That's why you keep getting messages like "Please install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think
that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up
with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids
are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers
cannot read.
Le 18/05/2026 |a 15:08, Liz Tuddenham a |-crit :
Snidely wrote:
Liz Tuddenham wrote on 5/15/2026 :
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the
whizz-kids
are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers >>>> cannot read.
Enough customers to matter?
Every customer should matter. Each disgruntled one will spread the word
to several others.
Many large organisations don't seem to care, as their ratings on
Trustpilot indicate (at random: British Airways scores 1.5*, Amazon
1.7*, and for both the site says, "HasnrCOt replied to negative reviews"; Ryanair scores 1.3*).
I seem to observe that the best service is often provided by small
companies seeking to grow, to gain and retain customers and build a good reputation. Once they've grown, it often deteriorates, especially if
they are taken over. Whatever the product is, the chances are that every decade or so one must find a new bushy-tailed start-up.
There are exceptions. Octopus Energy is big, and rates 4.8*.
On Sun, 17 May 2026 07:47:54 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
wrote:
Ar an seacht|| l|i d|-ag de m|! Bealtaine, scr|!obh Steve Hayes:
Doesn't the O/S support FTP, or have they stopped that too?
I need to update my web pages, but if I can't use FTP, how will I do
it?
This rCLWindow 11 ProrCY machine does support ftp on the the command line (at
least, when I type ftp I get the traditional ftp> prompt).
I'm glad to see they haven't removed that.
I've never managed to get it to work from a browser anyway, so I won't
miss it as long as it's still available on the command line.
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham wrote on 5/15/2026 :
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely
<snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!"
There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability
of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it >>>>> - to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present
content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it
possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for >>>> them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they
wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended. >>>> That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with
information content seen as less important.
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language. >>>> That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web >>>> site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They >>>> want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has
become an unholy mess. That's why you keep getting messages like "Please >>>> install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think >>>> that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up >>>> with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids >>> are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers
cannot read.
Enough customers to matter?
Every customer should matter. Each disgruntled one will spread the word
to several others.
Liz Tuddenham suggested that ...
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham wrote on 5/15/2026 :
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 15/05/26 05:13, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <mn.72c57ea55f4f248f.127094@snitoo>, Snidely
<snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
And Liz and Athel might be accused of a very ego-centric
viewpoint. "It better be the way *I* want it, or it's not right!" >>>>>>> There's also more than a bit of "You kids get off of my lawn!"
One of the big changes since the early days of HTML is the ability >>>>>> of a web page producer to make a page appear exactly as they want it >>>>>> - to the pixel - rather than letting the browser or user choose
things like the text width. This puts the ego-centricity in a
different place.
The original design goal of HTML was to let the page designer present >>>>> content, without specifying the presentation details. Things like
colours and fonts were under the control of the reader. That made it >>>>> possible for vision-impaired people to use larger fonts; for
colour-blind people to set up colour combinations that worked better for >>>>> them; and so on.
Over time, as you say, the web page designers have decided that they >>>>> wanted to take that power away from the readers, and to force the
readers to see exactly the layout and so on that the designer intended. >>>>> That led to an emphasis on controlling the presentation details, with >>>>> information content seen as less important.
A further design goal was to have a clear and simple mark-up language. >>>>> That goal was wrecked by more and more demands for new features. The web >>>>> site designers don't want to stick to last month's version of HTML. They >>>>> want to sit right on the bleeding edge, and that means that HTML has >>>>> become an unholy mess. That's why you keep getting messages like "Please >>>>> install version 987 of your browser". That hurts those of us who think >>>>> that last year's browser was working just fine, and don't want the
overhead of changing versions all the time.
The time has come, I believe, to scrap HTML altogether, and to come up >>>>> with a new cleaner design. Preferably one that won't be declared
obsolete next week.
Pages written in the original HTML can be read on any browser. We
should make it clear to people who pay for web pages that the whizz-kids >>>> are losing them potential customers by writing code that some browsers >>>> cannot read.
Enough customers to matter?
Every customer should matter. Each disgruntled one will spread the word
to several others.
And how many providers have you convinced that you're a thorn in their sides?
-d
On 14/05/26 19:03, guido wugi wrote:
Op 14/05/2026 om 0:54 schreef Peter Moylan:
On 14/05/26 00:49, guido wugi wrote:
Op 13/05/2026 om 12:25 schreef Peter Moylan:
A problem with the Heinlein story is that a blooper occurs
quite early in the book. The twin on the ship sees the earth
clock ticking more
So, where was the blooper in the Heinlein narrative?
You quoted it above. On both the inbound and the outbound trip,
relativity says that the twin on the ship should see the earthbound
clock ticking more slowly than his own clock. Heinlein says the
opposite. It's as if he thought that the earth was stationary in some absolute sense, i.e. that the earth had zero speed with respect to the luminiferous ether.
For most of the trip, and ignoring the complications of instantaneous telepathy, each twin will see the other as not getting old as fast. The
only time when the twin on the ship will see his brother suddenly
getting older is during turnaround [...]
For some years I used iCab as my regular broswer (I forget why I
changed -- probably it had difficulties with a new operating system).
It displayed a green smiling face when it encountered a web page with
no HTML errors, a red scowling face when it encountered one with
serious errors, and orange neutral face for some intermediate cases.
I almost never saw the green face other than when I was visiting one
of my own pages.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:27:40 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,603 |