From: PeterN <peter.new@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3
From: PeterN <peter.new@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 17:38:34 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <ovva0v0l4f@news3.newsguy.com>
References: <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com>
<291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>
<291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnt8j0glb@news3.newsguy.com>
<fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>
<301120171254418909%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<tu712d9i2a7ss45k5c7a5gfhe7dr2l1j56@4ax.com>
<301120171946271329%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com>
<301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com> <ovv5g2$1p2n$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Reply-To: peter.new.nospam@verizon.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: p67c2591964f788cb0893e7f6fb2fadd2e417be257541736d.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <ovv5g2$1p2n$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 6844
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1623217336
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/2/2017 4:21 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 11:30 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:22:53 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
>>
>>> 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 
> fanaticism.
> 
> (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.
> 
Are you sure about nospam being a he?


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


-- 
PeterN