From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:23:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 289
Message-ID: <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <> <301120171254418909%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <301120171946271329%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="7804"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0VWlvbf/p9eXEmAzyUcVw"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QuSd4pq62XkHls8yJyk9druPd4w=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<>, Tony Cooper<> wrote:

> >
> >> >> So we have two people with anecdotal versions.  One says he's not
> >> >> concerned with the amount of time it takes to upload photos from a
> >> >> card, and the other is concerned that it takes 15 minutes to upload
> >> >> his videos.
> >> >
> >> >since the transfer is local, it's called copying.
> >> 
> >> The process is called many things...upload, download, import, copy,
> >> transfer, etc. 
> >
> >some of which are incorrect.
> No, not at all.  Common usage over time determines correctness of
> usage.  For example, a "computer" was once the correct term to
> describe the people who calculate as an occupation.  Common usage over
> time has made "computer" the correct term to describe the device.  We
> no longer call the people who calculate "computers".

attempt at moving goalposts detected. 

> Since using any of those terms are commonly used to describe the
> process, none are incorrect.

some are.

> >> Adobe uses two terms on this page:
> >> 
> >>
> >> 
> >> The top line says "import photos" and #2 says to "Click Download
> >> Images".
> >
> >download is incorrect, although it's sometimes used for
> >camera->computer.
> Well, see, that's your problem.  Adobe uses "download" to mean "copy",
> and anyone who uses the Adobe program understands this.  So, you can't
> really say it is incorrect.  

yes i can, and it is. 

adobe has it wrong. they can (and do) make mistakes.

> >> SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":
> >
> >transfer is equivalent to copy.
> In SanDisk's terminology, yes,

not just sandisk, but computer terminology in general

> but not in the correct meaning of the
> word.  Copy creates a new instance but the old instance remains.
> Transfer moves the instance from one location to another.

nope. transfer means copying data. whether the original is deleted is

windows had a tool called windows easy transfer which copies files from
one computer to another, leaving the originals.

go tell microsoft they're wrong. let us know how well that works out.

> >they didn't say upload or download.
> No, and that's my point.  Many terms are used, and understood, to
> describe the process.  No one of them is correct or incorrect.  

just because people can figure out what is meant doesn't change
incorrect usage into correct usage.

> >>
> >>
> >> sfe
> >> r-speed
> >> 
> >> The different card readers that came up in a search also use
> >> "Transfer".
> >> 
> >> In Lightroom, the word "Copy" is used. but they also use "import" when
> >> they say refer to getting images from a card to Lightroom.
> >
> >importing is much more than a simple copy.
> Immaterial. 

nope. it's a *very* *significant* difference.

you haven't any clue about this stuff.

> The process of importing replicates the image on the card
> to a location on the computer.  It copies it.  What else happens is
> immaterial to this discussion. 

absolutely wrong.

the 'what else' is *why* it's called import and not copy.

you haven't any clue about this stuff.

> >>
> >> kfl
> >> ow.html
> >> 
> >> I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,
> >
> >not only least applicable, but wrong.
> No, not "wrong".  

yes. wrong.

> As long as there is an established and common
> understanding of what is being done, the usage is not wrong.  

and that common understanding is that upload/download is to/from a
remote system (sometimes from/to an embedded device), which is not the
case between multiple volumes on a single computer.

> >> but you can't say that "it's called copying" as if it's the *right*
> >> term because "copy" is used less than "transfer" any of the other
> >> terms including "upload" and "download" by the general user.
> >
> >i never said copy was the *only* term, 
> That's a typical nospam weasel.  You have said "it's called copying"
> and I have replied that it's called many other things.  And you've
> argued with that.  Make up your mind.  

nothing weasel about it. once again, you haven't a clue.

i never said it's only called copying. you came up with that just to
argue, the usual idiocy we can expect from you.

> >and it's used *far* more often than transfer.
> By whom?  Where?  You just make up "facts". 

i do not make up *anything*. ever.

> It's not used far more
> often in the context of the process of replicating files on  card to
> the computer, and that is the subject of this discussion.

copying absolutely is used more often than transfer. without question.

> >a common (yet inefficient) way to copy a file in windows is choose copy
> >from the edit menu (or ctrl-c). not transfer.
> What has that to do with anything?  

because it proves you wrong.

> The discussion has been about the
> replication of files on a card to another location.  Control-c copies
> but does not copy anything *to* anywhere. 

actually, it does copy something to somewhere.

you haven't a clue how it works.

> What it copies is
> basically in computer Limbo - which we call the clipboard - until
> "Paste" (control-v) is invoked.  

contradicting yourself so quickly? 

first you say it doesn't copy anything to anywhere then you say it
does. you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

the point you miss is that the term copy is more widely used than
transfer. simple as that.

> Why introduce a completely different concept into this?

it's not a completely different concept.

you clearly don't understand what you're talking about, as usual.

> >move is another, although move means deleting the originals.
> No, the original is not deleted.  It is relocated.  
> Try to think of this in simple terms.  You have an apple in your left
> hand.  You move it, or transfer it, to your right hand.  The apple has
> been relocated, but it has not been deleted.

proof you have zero understanding of how file systems work.

in simple terms: with a move, you end up with one apple. with a copy
you end up with two apples. 

> >import is specific to asset managers, since it's a lot more than just
> >copying.
> >
> >the point is that upload and download are incorrect.
> >
> >> I like precise use of the correct words in any situation, but there is
> >> no precise term in this case.   The *function* is a copy function
> >> since the files remain on the original medium and are replicated in a
> >> new location, but the term "copy" has not achieved any standard
> >> status.
> >
> >copying does not mean deleting the original.
> Right, but I have not said or implied that it does. Quite the
> opposite, in fact.
> >
> >if the original is deleted after a copy, it's a move.
> Incorrect since the original is not deleted, it's just relocated.  If
> the file has been copied, and the file which was copied is deleted
> from where it was copied from, that's a separate and discrete
> function.  It's not part of the copy or transfer function. 

moving files is a *single* function. 

in unix:  mv foo bar

under the hood, it will copy and then delete the original, but the user
still sees it as a single function. 

when the move is across volumes, the files *must* be copied and then
the originals deleted. 

when the move is within the same volume, it may be possible (but not
always) to simply update the directory (what you're erroneously calling
relocation), but that's just an implementation detail. 

on some file systems, copying a file only copies data if the file later
changes. until that point (which may never occur), all copies point to
the same blocks on the volume. 

you're digging yourself a deeper hole, as usual.

> >> >upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
> >> >cloud), which it does not.
> >> >
> >> For that matter, an upload or a download is also a copy function.  The
> >> uploaded or downloaded files are replicated in another location, but
> >> we don't use "copy" to describe uploading or downloading.  
> >
> >sometimes copy is used in that context and may be acceptable. 
> >
> >examples: copy to the cloud. copy to the server. 
> More to my point that there are not standardized and specific terms
> and that there are - instead - a number of terms that are
> understandable, widely and commonly used, and therefore correct.

just because people can figure out what's meant doesn't mean it's

> >> "Transfer" - a widely used term - is sorta incorrect since the files
> >> are not transferred from one place to another.  
> >
> >yes they most certainly are transferred.
> To "transfer" is to move from one location to another. SanDisk is
> using the word to mean "copy" or replicate somewhere else.  

transfer is a perfectly acceptable word to mean copy files. 

it's also used as a performance metric, i.e, transfer speed.

> The files
> are not transferred; they never move. They stay on the card with a
> copy placed elsewhere.  What is being transferred is a copy, not the
> file.

you *really* don't understand how this works.

> Again, it's one more validation of my original point:  we have several
> terms that are understood to have the same meaning, and none of the
> several common terms can be said to be incorrect.

yes they can.

> >once again, you're *well* out of your league.
> I love it when you come up that one.  If it's my league, I can't be
> out of it.  The actual saying for what you mean is "You're well out of
> my league".  You can't even use a bog-standard ad holmium correctly.

it's common usage, so by your own definition, it's correct.