Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsMessage-ID: <68096d1a@news.ausics.net> From: not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) Subject: Re: Favorite Font Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc References: <1835a5c81ceedfd3$44418$19313$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <20250414092849.00004cdd@gmail.com> <87wmbcguz9.fsf@somewhere.edu> User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.31 (i586)) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net Date: 24 Apr 2025 08:43:39 +1000 Organization: Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net Lines: 98 X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail Bytes: 5310 In comp.os.linux.misc Farley Flud wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:56:58 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote: >>> >>> Print? Does anyone still print? >> >> The web has become nearly intolerable. Even the choice of font is >> horrible in nearly all websites, not to mention text size, image and >> ads. It's funny how sometimes I invoke the print-friendly extension on >> my browser just to read /on screen/. But the rule is to actually print >> it out. >> > > Well, it depends on the web site. > > A lot of sites are designed only for mobile and they are certainly > terrible. But such sites usually contain no worthwhile information This point is made often and I want to agree with it, but the fact is that the websites of many ISPs are like that, so you can't really even get on the internet anymore without some capacity for viewing such websites (particularly annoying to people like me who prefer lightweight web browsers which _really_ don't work with them). Same with government websites here in Australia (I have to enable the Referer: header to log in because the idiots depend on that!). It's often the most essential sites that are the worst. Sometimes I prefer to pretend I don't have internet access at all. > Then there are the various blogs that use standard blog templates > that are loaded with javascript. Some of these blogs are worthwhile > and can be saved in the browser using the "Save Web Page Complete" > option. This should be followed by stripping the HTML file of > all javascript and then removing all javascript and CSS files. > > However, the best way to save web pages is to use either "wget" or "curl" > followed, again, by stripping all the javascript an CSS files. Saving web pages with images that also load locally can be tricky with Wget. The link rewriting with -k isn't up to facing the complicated design of some websites. HTTtrack can struggle too, short of spending hours tweaking its configuration. I don't like PDFs much, so the SingleFile extension for Firefox has been handy, it can embed images in the HTML so you just have one file. But I'd prefer a separate program so I didn't have to run Firefox, and of course support for downloading recursively. >> And books, of course: I print out a chapter to see if I want to >> continue the reading and it's much lighter to carry a chapter than the >> entire physical book. Electronic devices are not flexible like paper >> and they reflect light in a different way and you can't write on their >> margins using a device that lets you feel the friction of pencil on >> paper or pen on paper. Some pens are such beautiful devices. >> >> Anything interesting I find on the web I print for later reading. > > Whew! You must spend a fortune on ink or toner. > > Saving web pages as described above, or printing to PDF, is the > much cheaper, and in the long term more desirable, option. The same > applies to books. Nah, I prefer long content printed out too. I mainly use waste paper that's printed on one side, and old toner carts that are too faint for important use, but still readable for text. The one problem is that, even when I take the time to check before printing, I still miss scrap pages that are the wrong way round and get things printed over the top of the old text. That's damn frustrating. Paper costs about tripled recently in Australia when local manufacturing wound back, so that has curtailed me a bit. > I have literally tens of thousands of web pages saved. If I were > to physically print all of those the paper alone would weigh several > tons. To be honest, most often I skip things online that are too long to read comfortably on a screen, but if it's really worthwhile I'll print it out. I even wrote software to scrape and reformat a whole website in part just so that I could print some sections out properly. > It would be even worse for the digital books in my collection. > Printing even a tiny fraction of those would break the foundation > of my home. My only intention for downloading digital books is to print them, unless I have them purely for reference to small sections. I mostly stick to buying physical copies anyway, usually second hand. > One has to get accustomed to preserving and consuming digital data > as digital data. The fact that I'm talking to you here means that I've tried it, but preferences vary. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#