From: Ken Hart <>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
From: Ken Hart <>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:21:08 -0500
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <ovv5g2$1p2n$>
References: <>
<291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
<291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/30/2017 11:30 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:22:53 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:


>> 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.

Yes, but...

Your fruit in the hand analogy doesn't 'transfer' well to computers.

In most of the file transfers I've seen (No, I don't claim to have seen 
EVERY type!), a file move or transfer is a two part operation: first the 
file is copied to the destination, then after verification that the copy 
worked, the original is erased.

The apple has been moved or transferred to the other hand, but while the 
transfer or move was in progress, the apple existed in both hands. (A 
concept that the government has perfected years ago!)

(I only wish you had picked a banana or orange. You know that using an 
Apple is just going to start something!)

>> 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.
>>>> upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
>>>> cloud), which it does not.

Historically, upload and download referred to a remote system. That 
remote system was historically much larger and more capable than the 
home user's system (An Altair?). You uploaded _to_ the larger remote, 
and downloaded _from_ the  remote system.

Following the theme of interacting with a larger, more powerful system, 
you would upload your photos from your camera to your computer.

>>> 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.
>>> "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.  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.
> 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.

Except perhaps in the context of historical origins. And pedantic 

(Since I'm currently reading about ARPAnet, I'm kinda into the history 
thing right now!)

>> 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.

This one I had to look up, and actually put some thought to. (It's a 
Saturday, the public TV station is doing pledges, and I'm bored!)

If your "league" is defined as the sphere of knowledge that you possess 
and understand, then to be "out of your own league" would mean to be 
arguing a topic that is outside your sphere of knowledge, a topic that 
you don't entirely comprehend. So it is possible to be "outside of your 
own league"

Alternatively, if you are outside of my league, then you are discussing 
a topic that you admit to having less knowledge of the subject than I 
have. Or perhaps more knowledge.

In the case of nospam, it's probably best to call a spade a shovel, and 
just tell him that he will understand why nobody wants to play with him 
when he grows up and moves out of his grandmother's basement.

I'll leave it at that, as the public TV station is only two tote bags 
away from "This Old House".

Ken Hart