Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
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<firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.,
>>>>> 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
>> 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.
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".