Please carefullt read my question and answer in kind
Eric Gill
news:HcRIa.410$g41....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Please read my reply carefully before flaming!!!!
> There is no flash card reader currently available that downloads
> faster than USB 1.1 rating.
Please feel free to keep using USB 1.1 if that is what makes you happy.
Likewise, I will continue to use a 1394 reader, since I get roughly 30
times the performance than from any USB 1.1 reader I've tried.
> "EarGuy"... It that your real name?
Is "Auspics" you real name? Is "Eyron" HIS real name? Are we all just
imagination?
> "EarGuy" <tape...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:21udnfjEP-i...@comcast.com...
>> Please carefully read the name of the newsgroup and consider if this
>> is a good question to ask a 33mm newsgroup...
>>
>>
>> "Eyron" <od...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:b2PIa.30567$111....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> > Is there a reason to go to USB2 with todays Compac flash
>> > cards???????????????????????????????
>> > The fastest cards I think top out at 4mb/s?
>> > Nowhere near the USB2,s nominal rate and about the same rate as
>> > USB1.1.
>> >
>> > Whats the point?
>> >
>> > Im getting between 4-5mb/s with both USB2 and firewire with my Abit
> nNs7-s
>> > v2.
>> >
>> > Eyron
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Laurence Payne
your life noticeably?
Barry Twycross
Harte <bhys...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> I think USB is measured at Burst rate meaning maximum ever achieved.
> Firewire and scsi are stream rate i think. So if this holds true then you
> will get faster bursts with USB2 and hence faster download speeds of those
> pictures.
Its not the burst rate, its the bit rate (or byte rate wrt to parallel
SCSI). Its the maximum rate that bits that can be transferred over the
wire. Whatever protocol runs on the wire subtracts from the bit rate.
There there's the question of utilisation, there will be times at which
nothing's actually happing on the bus (depending on the protocol).
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(I should put something down here).
John Miller
Jason O'Rourke wrote self-righteously to Doug:
> OTOH, both of you are top posters, so he is in no position to throw
> stones.
--
John Miller
Usenet admin since 1987
The superfluous is very necessary.
-- Voltaire
John Miller
> It's the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered
> method of bottom posting that are anal. They don't even realize how much
> of a pain bottom posting is.
Actually, the bigger pain than either is failure to trim quotes well.
--
John "top, bottom, don't care, really" Miller
Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of sense to know
how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler
pioe[rmv]
> Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the
> successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place
> thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I'm
> with John Miller... I don't really care where it's posted just as long
> noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the
> word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL
This is entirely wrong.
I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming
before the answer. So do most people.
Therefore, any reply ought to come after what is being replied to.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/
rufref
"pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message
news:3EF9C8CD...@coldsiberia.org...
newsgroup. With all that is wrong in the world I can't believe people get
so wrapped up about whether you post on top or below. I normally top post
and try to post to the person I am responding to. Now I feel like I have
been hammered into posting at the bottom
And what does this have to do with photography anyway?
Puscle
Jason O'Rourke
>> People prefer to bottom-post because that's how normal people normally
>> read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
>> page and works their way up.
>
>Not true! Just the opposite. You read the first post in a thread and the
>successive replies. The reply is at the top where normal people place
>thier eyes on the page ready to read the next bit of reply. Anyway I'm
>with John Miller... I don't really care where it's posted just as long
>noone complains about it and spouts off with how to post as being the
>word of the NNTP gods like there even are such rules. LOL
Others have show why top posting is silly. Reading a longer post
is equilivent to vertical tennis.
More importantly, you make a presumption that all the articles will
arrive in sequence and be properly threaded. That isn't always the
case in a system of thousands of NNTP servers.
What amazes me about this offshoot I started is that the primary
element of my posting was to help some clueless humorless fellow
understand why someone in the 35mm realm was complaining about
mass crosspostings. And so I have changed followups to suit.
For some reason you and a couple others wannabe rebel top posters
felt a need to beat your chest about why your inane practice makes sense.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
John Miller
> The problem with bottom posting is that during a thread when a post gets
> replied and the the reply gets replied to, etc, etc you then have to go to
> the bottom to read the reply. With top posting the new and interesting
> information is at the top.
The real problem is neither top posting nor bottom posting; it is failure to
trim the quoted parts of messages.
--
John Miller
And now for something completely the same.
pioe[rmv]
> I normally top post
> and try to post to the person I am responding to.
So what then is your rationale for letting your reply come BEFORE that
which you are replying to?
Per Inge Oestmoen
John Miller
> RFCs are the nearest things you'll find to peer-reviewed publications
> on the general 'net. If you "publish" an RFC, then you have a very good
> idea of what's going on.
Which RFC mandates bottom posting?
--
John Miller
We are what we pretend to be.
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
John Miller
> "Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> "John Miller" <m...@privacy.net> wrote to Bruce:
>> > Which RFC mandates bottom posting?
>> >
>
> Wrongo, perhaps you don't bother to read RFCs all that often? Figures.
<second attempt>
So which RFC IS it that mandates bottom posting, Bruce?
--
John Miller
"In the long run, every program becomes rococo, and then rubble."
-- Alan Perlis
mheim
(I realize that bottom posting is a long standing usenet convention even
if it is not codified, written down, enforced, ... etc. ; ah, for the
good old days when the participants tacitly agreed to work together with
a common set of principles, that didn't have to be enforced, for the
common good; these were the people who created and maintained usenet as
a labor of love ... ah, for the good old days)
I think top posting favors those who have been paying attention and
following the discussion as it unfolds - they have most likely already
read all the previous responses as they came in, and surely don't need
to do it again. (caveat: I suppose this presupposes the fact that most
newsreaders by default start you at the top of a post; I realize that
this is not always true and my be configurable, but it has still been my
experience.)
I think bottom posting favors those who are jumping into the middle of
something that has been going on for awhile without them, although it
still seems likely that they would have had the opportunity to start at
the beginning of all the unread posts, unless they had already expired
(in which case it seems the whole thread would be out of date), or the
reader is just lazy. (same caveat as above.)
I think I fit in the first group, but strongly support following the
conventions which got us here in the first place; (if you don't know
what these are, consider yourself a newbie;) however, I also subscribe
to: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys
the pig" - anonymous.
Inadequate snippage and cross posting are more "detrimental,"
$.02,
Mark
(MY opinions, NOT those of my employer)
rufref
"pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message
news:QfrKa.13640$KF1.276547@amstwist00...
Stewy
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Jon Pike <Anono...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
> : news:lMmcnetUlrS...@giganews.com:
>
> :> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tesselator <jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :>: Really... we're not gonna do that silly top posting thing on here
> :>: are we? Gawd I hope not! It's extremely anal! It's not correct.
> :>: and just wastes everyone's time. Gripes about misspellings are even
> :>: more tollerable!
> :>
> :>
> :> It's the people that whine about top posting instead of their prefered
> :> method of bottom posting that are anal. They don't even realize how
> :> much of a pain bottom posting is.
>
> : People prefer to bottom-post because that's how normal people normally
> : read. They start at the top, and go down. Noone starts at the bottom of a
> : page and works their way up.
>
Top posting is for avid readers who follow threads
Bottom posting is for lurkers who want to follow conversations
Jon O'Brien
anyone...@hotmail.com (Stewy) wrote:
> Top posting is for avid readers who follow threads
> Bottom posting is for lurkers who want to follow conversations
And trimming excess quotes is for everyone.
Jon.
Got Whiz? Cheese that is...
talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person you
repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.
smog
"Got Whiz? Cheese that is..."
<whizwhizwh...@whizwhizwhizwhizwhiz.com> wrote in message
news:AO4ge.1262$T3.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> But, then this isn't a book. This is a conversation. Bottom posting is
> like talking to someone except before you say anything new to the person
> you repeat what has already been seed before. Bottom posting is stupid.
>
>
I don't like anybody posting in my bottom.
...........and I don't want anyone planting any seeds up there either.
smog
DD
So are you.
Dave
Doug Chadduck
thusly offending no-one.
Leaving no clue what one is talking about most of the time. But hey,
this is usenet.
It's a never gonna end debate. Read 'em or not. Freedom of choice. yadda
yadda yadda
Ron Hunter
norm in English. Top posting leads to confusion since one sees an
answer before the question. Perhaps die-hard Jeopardy fans will feel at
home, but most people would prefer the 'normal' order, which is top down.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
whichever posting style the user preferred, and post replies at the
bottom. That way the computer does the work, and everyone is happy.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
William Graham
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:S9dge.2563$rt1....@fe04.lga...
works pretty well, since that one person has little trouble remembering you
and what you said last. The place where top posting doesn't work very well
is on forums like these, where over a hundred people will be reading your
post, and some of these people have just arrived after a week at the top of
a mountain somewhere. For these, top posting saves no time, and is just a
pain in the ass........
erg...@comcast.net
" Top posting leads to confusion since one sees an
answer before the question."
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:S9dge.2563$rt1....@fe04.lga...
imbsysop
top-posters are lazy posters
primo they are too lazy to scroll down in a message
secundo they are mostly too lazy to edit the message(s) leaving
endless, irrelevant quotes in the thread
ergo
I consider their additions futile
ergo as I'm a lazy reader I do not want to scoll down to endlessly
repeated message quotes so their message(s) go straight to the trash
(exception made for just this one)
Jon O'Brien
wrote:
> Re: Please carefullt read my question and answer in kind
> Not if one reads the subject first.
I'm confused. What are you talking about?
Jon.
ka...@sonic.net
If they want to piss away their time on top of a mountain,
they can damned well piss away some more time catching up.