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.
That is, NOT at the top.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/
Tesselator
"pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message news:3EF9C926...@coldsiberia.org...
> Tesselator wrote:
>
> > 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.
No. Actually is entirely subject to personal preference which was the
point I was making in the first place.
> I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming
> before the answer. So do most people.
Then read the first post fist. Do you always start in the middle of a book?
> Therefore, any reply ought to come after what is being replied to.
> That is, NOT at the top.
It does come after. at the top of the next reply!
If this is backwards to you then when you turn the page of a book you
must either read from the bottom up or you quickly rescan the page you
just finished... LOL, you're not gonna get very far in /that/ book.
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
Jason O'Rourke
>> I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming
>> before the answer. So do most people.
>
>Then read the first post fist. Do you always start in the middle of a book?
When you read a newspaper, do you start with January 1 and work your way
up to today in June?
Newsgroups have expirations as little as a couple days up to a more typical
few weeks. And in a long running thread, the first post may or may not
be available, or it may be a few hundred posts ago.
You appear to be posting from Japan, so perhaps bottom to top doesn't
seem so weird to you. But it doesn't really work well with English
or other latin based languages because each portion is still top to bottom.
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.
Tesselator
"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message news:bdcvn1$14el$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Tesselator <jimm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I want to know what it is about, and I want to see the question coming
> >> before the answer. So do most people.
> >
> >Then read the first post fist. Do you always start in the middle of a book?
>
> When you read a newspaper, do you start with January 1 and work your way
> up to today in June?
So you're saying newspapers should quote the previous days' article and
the top of each article?
> Newsgroups have expirations as little as a couple days up to a more typical
> few weeks.
Actually the default is one month for all three of the most popular newsreaders
currently in distribution. Good try tho. Additionally if you frequent a
particular newsgroup it usually a good idea to increase that "30 day" default
value to 90 days or so.
> And in a long running thread, the first post may or may not
> be available, or it may be a few hundred posts ago.
So we should include all that and post at the bottom of a few hundred
quoted messages? Right...
> You appear to be posting from Japan, so perhaps bottom to top doesn't
> seem so weird to you. But it doesn't really work well with English
> or other latin based languages because each portion is still top to bottom.
Ya, I live in Japan where they read top to bottom, right to left, and also
left to right. Both here and in the western world you will notice that
arrangement in both writting and reading: "Top to bottom" When I write,
I start at the top of the page not at the bottom. If I'm writting a paper
on a previously read paper or replying to a recieved mail I do not start
writting at the bottom of /thier/ page. At best I would staple mine "ON TOP"
of thiers including thiers "AT THE BOTOM" underneath mine, as a reference
in case it needed to be used as such.
But all this is getting rather silly. As we /should/ both know there are
legitimate claims for all three styles; top, bottom, and in-line. Not any
ONE of them being more or less "correct" than any other. My real statement
here is: Do as you please just don't try and enforce that as being a rule
of some kind when it's clearly not. _and_ Please realize how completely
anal it would be to try and do so.
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.
Ben A L Jemmett
news:bddlpd$7va$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
> Actually the default is one month for all three of the most popular
newsreaders
> currently in distribution. Good try tho.
Wonderful, especially if you've just picked up the group and your news
server is only carrying the last two days' articles. Good try, though.
--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)
Tesselator
> > Actually the default is one month for all three of the most popular
> > newsreaders currently in distribution. Good try tho.
> Wonderful, especially if you've just picked up the group and your news
> server is only carrying the last two days' articles. Good try, though.
>
Just the last two days??? That would be a drag. Actually I suppose there
are such servers too. Terrible!
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
Jason O'Rourke
>> >Then read the first post fist. Do you always start in the middle of a book?
>> When you read a newspaper, do you start with January 1 and work your way
>> up to today in June?
>So you're saying newspapers should quote the previous days' article and
>the top of each article?
Online variants actually will list pointers to priors on the subject.
But generally they write so that each article stands alone.
>> Newsgroups have expirations as little as a couple days up to a more typical
>> few weeks.
>Actually the default is one month for all three of the most popular newsreaders
>currently in distribution. Good try tho. Additionally if you frequent a
>particular newsgroup it usually a good idea to increase that "30 day" default
>value to 90 days or so.
Let me explain this to you as someone who has actually run a news server.
What *you* set on your newsreader is irrelevent. It is the admin for the
nntp server who decides. For text groups the expiration will likely be
long. For binary groups it could be just a day or two. In short, you
have no reliance, and achivers like Google may respect the X flag to
not save the article.
It is laziness alone that leads you to expect the reader to read the
context that you wouldn't provide. Your choice, but if you're going to
take the time to write such pearls of wisdom, you might as well make it
readable. I don't try very hard to read poorly written articles, I
just skip on.
>> And in a long running thread, the first post may or may not
>> be available, or it may be a few hundred posts ago.
>
>So we should include all that and post at the bottom of a few hundred
>quoted messages? Right...
It should take very little included text to show context.
Tesselator
> >> >Then read the first post fist. Do you always start in the middle of a book?
> >> When you read a newspaper, do you start with January 1 and work your way
> >> up to today in June?
> >So you're saying newspapers should quote the previous days' article and
> >the top of each article?
> Online variants actually will list pointers to priors on the subject.
> But generally they write so that each article stands alone.
Hehehe, And the references are where? Usually at the bottom right?
Those evil top-posters!
O :-)
> >> Newsgroups have expirations as little as a couple days up to a more typical
> >> few weeks.
> >Actually the default is one month for all three of the most popular newsreaders
> >currently in distribution. Good try tho. Additionally if you frequent a
> >particular newsgroup it usually a good idea to increase that "30 day" default
> >value to 90 days or so.
> Let me explain this to you as someone who has actually run a news server.
> What *you* set on your newsreader is irrelevent. It is the admin for the
> nntp server who decides. For text groups the expiration will likely be
> long. For binary groups it could be just a day or two. In short, you
> have no reliance, and achivers like Google may respect the X flag to
> not save the article.
>
> It is laziness alone that leads you to expect the reader to read the
> context that you wouldn't provide. Your choice, but if you're going to
> take the time to write such pearls of wisdom, you might as well make it
> readable. I don't try very hard to read poorly written articles, I
> just skip on.
I agree with this! I also agree with the guy who says trimming is
a more important issue than where you place your reply. All you're
saying if I read you right, is that including contextual quotations
is a considerate and recommended practice.
Yes. That's right. I think so too!
> >> And in a long running thread, the first post may or may not
> >> be available, or it may be a few hundred posts ago.
> >So we should include all that and post at the bottom of a few hundred
> >quoted messages? Right...
> It should take very little included text to show context.
Point taken. Agreed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know! Let's be different! We'll call it side-posting and write up an RFC.
Like this:
> Let me explain this to you |I agree with this! I also
> as someone who has actually |agree with the guy who says
> run a news server. What *you* |trimming is a more important
> set on your newsreader is |issue than where you place your
> irrelevent. It is the admin |reply. All you're saying if
> for the nntp server who decides. |I read you right, is that
> For text groups the expiration |including contextual quotations
> will likely be long. For binary |is a considerate and recommended
> groups it could be just a day |practice.
> or two. In short, you have no |
> reliance, and achivers like |Yes. That's right.
> Google may respect the X flag to |I think so too!
> not save the article. |
Or how about diagonal posting? (Would a fore-slant be more polite than a
back-slant do you think?)
> Let me explain this t o you as someone / I agree with this! I also agree
> who has actually run a news server. / with the guy who says trimming is
> What *you* set on your newsreader is / a more important issue than where
> irrelevent. It is the admin for the / you place your reply. All you're
> nntp server who decides. For text / saying if I read you right, is that
> groups the expiration will likely / including contextual quotations is a
> be > long. For binary groups it / considerate and recommended practice.
> could be just a day or two. In / Yes. That's right. I think so too!
> short, you have no reliance, /
> and achivers like Google may /
> respect the X flag to not /
> save the article. /
Anyone wanna try spherical?
O :-)
Sorry... bad attempt at some pretty pityful humor. ;) And I'm not directing
this at you Jason... Just the whole issue... which /to me/ is sillier than
than my jokes here.
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
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)
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.