> Prev
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Subject: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.55.100.132 with SMTP id y126mr778166qkb.39.1511916642251;
Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:50:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.2.148 with SMTP id 142mr51763vkc.1.1511916642101; Tue, 28
Nov 2017 16:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!m31no22174qtf.0!news-out.google.com!v55ni16qtc.0!nntp.google.com!g35no21771qtk.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.75.212.59;
posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.75.212.59
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
Subject: CF cards apparently not dead yet
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:50:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 1
Print Article
Forward Article
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3987972407/sony-will-start-making-cfas... 

	
From: Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:27:14 -0600
From: Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:27:19 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
Lines: 13
X-Trace: sv3-vmmL0xM/NuZOVVUnahd5d35+OSaa5WkzVjltBKrjs4V1+bweezTTOr785OO0UjVyM/b8BI2X+lR/y/s!vbDmnYaeAcX88N1EByD91zLBnsDeIKI7MwtZMYDVudBulatqPYe4OZLQomufndVQ8yedliCfHGqZ!uiJa5YTd1w==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1558
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>, 
RichA says...
> 
>
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3987972407/sony-will-start-making-cfas...

510 MB/s write speed. SD cards top out at 300 MB/s, or is there anything 
faster? Bus speed is up to 624MB/s according to wikipedia.
-- 
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:38:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <291120171438094281%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2b4110c42fb6ef7a814be0edc7a55102";
logging-data="4136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19faV8kpOpL1l74y9Drvm1L"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:owOVy3CRANBbmK4hm5YdS90EEkc=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 510 MB/s write speed. SD cards top out at 300 MB/s, or is there anything 
> faster?

xqd

> Bus speed is up to 624MB/s according to wikipedia.

which bus? 

	
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!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4
From: PeterN <peter.new@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:49:55 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
Reply-To: peter.new.nospam@verizon.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pa81e4ea5fadf8571ffe2504471ac20ed7a7124c29768fd32.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1965480218
X-Received-Bytes: 1831
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/29/2017 1:27 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA says...
>>
>>
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3987972407/sony-will-start-making-cfas...
> 
> 510 MB/s write speed. SD cards top out at 300 MB/s, or is there anything
> faster? Bus speed is up to 624MB/s according to wikipedia.
> 

It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds, 
save your money. If I wanted a  camera with a super high speed frame 
rate, I would get the camera, and then get the card that is supported at 
the camera's highest frame rate. Since the technology changes at a rapid 
pace, and I do not know what you are looking for, I will not make any 
specific recommendation. See my update posting about a prior problem I had.


-- 
PeterN 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:52:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2b4110c42fb6ef7a814be0edc7a55102";
logging-data="3374"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qNjn+eH/N8upawtjRlwsf"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hSgtH5WSR0E/yB6tNeTQvOYjwV4=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN<peter.new@verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds, 
> save your money.

higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
the camera can fully utilize it. 

	
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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:38:21 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pe5205a515f2e0803897c2f0c74b6d8d2ba15f7e0b1750cfe.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 1320
X-Received-Body-CRC: 648685859
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/29/2017 3:52 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN
><peter.new@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>
>> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
>> save your money.
> 
> higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
> the camera can fully utilize it.
>
It depends.

-- 
PeterN 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:55:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0443a8dc2665df5d13e96fb9df45c326";
logging-data="11676"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PPdPBkX6YWsKE5CNYUXTZ"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:egTOR2D5ozeurHSvhd7W+r4EX74=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
<"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:

> >> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
> >> save your money.
> > 
> > higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
> > the camera can fully utilize it.
> >
> It depends.

only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.

for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
the computer. 

	
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:01:02 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pb91286bc35e1b2a251a33b68b64824f5f3b65417382bdf12.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 1714
X-Received-Body-CRC: 988795413
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/29/2017 9:55 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
>>>> save your money.
>>>
>>> higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
>>> the camera can fully utilize it.
>>>
>> It depends.
> 
> only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.
> 
> for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
> the computer.
> 

Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of 
photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

-- 
PeterN 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:09:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0443a8dc2665df5d13e96fb9df45c326";
logging-data="22297"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xA++DGXsKVMnhs/UvECV2"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9mrKDrPUXp6oeKattIvkXckqMrM=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
<"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
> >>>> save your money.
> >>>
> >>> higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
> >>> the camera can fully utilize it.
> >>>
> >> It depends.
> > 
> > only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.
> > 
> > for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
> > the computer.
> > 
> 
> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of 
> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.

that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
out. 

	
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:17:36 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <ovnt8j0glb@news3.newsguy.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd224e0eadde0fb6c3f794f3e02be280678ad021a31c3b852.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4074543698
X-Received-Bytes: 2195
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/29/2017 10:09 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
>>>>>> save your money.
>>>>>
>>>>> higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
>>>>> the camera can fully utilize it.
>>>>>
>>>> It depends.
>>>
>>> only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.
>>>
>>> for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
>>> the computer.
>>>
>>
>> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
>> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.
> 
> maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.
> 
> that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
> usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
> rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
> out.
> 

Uh huh!

-- 
PeterN 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 01:00:33 -0500
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnt8j0glb@news3.newsguy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 5HaH7bgdsZwIJqNLsD1lZQVWXv6sbpoYuVhLqnRzXxvWwvKL3d
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aPtGjv4VX4ctTW4zxsNoTU8qFEk=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:17:36 -0500, PeterN
<"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:

>On 11/29/2017 10:09 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
>> <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
>>>>>>> save your money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
>>>>>> the camera can fully utilize it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It depends.
>>>>
>>>> only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.
>>>>
>>>> for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
>>>> the computer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
>>> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.
>> 
>> maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.
>> 
>> that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
>> usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
>> rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
>> out.
>> 
>
>Uh huh!

I must not be part of "the rest of the world".  The time it takes for
a card to transfer the photos to the computer is of no concern to me
at all.  Cutting that time in half would not be of any advantage.  My
usual routine is to remove the card, insert it in the reader, and
start the upload.  

While the photos are being uploaded, I remove the battery from the
camera and put it in the charger.  By the time I finish doing that,
and return to the computer, all the images have been uploaded.

Because I upload using Import in Lightroom, the time consuming part is
waiting for LR to generate the Smart Previews.  I know I can set LR to
generate Minimal previews, or one of the other faster options, but I
don't mind the wait for Smart Previews.

It's not like I have something terribly urgent or important to do in
those extra minutes.  I just Alt-Tab to a different window and check
my email or a newsgroup.

-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:54:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <301120171254418909%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnt8j0glb@news3.newsguy.com> <fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0443a8dc2665df5d13e96fb9df45c326";
logging-data="16124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SKXH2/G0GR6NHtFt7vuea"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Uh4EbmvN5Aki5Hpar8FL5KX2Rck=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>
> >>> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
> >>> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.
> >> 
> >> maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.
> >> 
> >> that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
> >> usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
> >> rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
> >> out.
> >> 
> >
> >Uh huh!
> 
> I must not be part of "the rest of the world".  

very true.

> The time it takes for
> a card to transfer the photos to the computer is of no concern to me
> at all.  Cutting that time in half would not be of any advantage.  My
> usual routine is to remove the card, insert it in the reader, and
> start the upload.  

> While the photos are being uploaded, I remove the battery from the
> camera and put it in the charger.  By the time I finish doing that,
> and return to the computer, all the images have been uploaded.

you must not shoot very many images at a time.

> Because I upload using Import in Lightroom, the time consuming part is
> waiting for LR to generate the Smart Previews.  I know I can set LR to
> generate Minimal previews, or one of the other faster options, but I
> don't mind the wait for Smart Previews.

that has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the card.

> It's not like I have something terribly urgent or important to do in
> those extra minutes.  I just Alt-Tab to a different window and check
> my email or a newsgroup.

i have an older 64 gig uhs card (the fastest available at the time)
which takes around 15 minutes to copy when it's full (very easy to do
with video).

a 256 gig card of similar speed would be in the 1 hour range.

newer and faster cards could reduce that to 20-30 minutes. 

	
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!news.unit0.net!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.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: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:44:19 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <ovpqir01b2r@news3.newsguy.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<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>
Reply-To: peter.new.nospam@verizon.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: p7ea33f13863c92274e208514b25af98c3de94796341bab63.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <301120171254418909%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1524818887
X-Received-Bytes: 3436
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/30/2017 12:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
>>>>> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.
>>>>
>>>> maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.
>>>>
>>>> that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
>>>> usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
>>>> rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh huh!
>>
>> I must not be part of "the rest of the world".
> 
> very true.
> 
>> The time it takes for
>> a card to transfer the photos to the computer is of no concern to me
>> at all.  Cutting that time in half would not be of any advantage.  My
>> usual routine is to remove the card, insert it in the reader, and
>> start the upload.
> 
>> While the photos are being uploaded, I remove the battery from the
>> camera and put it in the charger.  By the time I finish doing that,
>> and return to the computer, all the images have been uploaded.
> 
> you must not shoot very many images at a time.
> 
>> Because I upload using Import in Lightroom, the time consuming part is
>> waiting for LR to generate the Smart Previews.  I know I can set LR to
>> generate Minimal previews, or one of the other faster options, but I
>> don't mind the wait for Smart Previews.
> 
> that has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the card.
> 
>> It's not like I have something terribly urgent or important to do in
>> those extra minutes.  I just Alt-Tab to a different window and check
>> my email or a newsgroup.
> 
> i have an older 64 gig uhs card (the fastest available at the time)
> which takes around 15 minutes to copy when it's full (very easy to do
> with video).

Nobody realized what a busy person you are.



> 
> a 256 gig card of similar speed would be in the 1 hour range.
> 
> newer and faster cards could reduce that to 20-30 minutes.
> 


-- 
PeterN 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:24:03 -0500
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <tu712d9i2a7ss45k5c7a5gfhe7dr2l1j56@4ax.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net rETTmuEnD4dCf45ehlB2xATH5JGDVYz6S8LQ8+9pXdriaBN3jx
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V5Y7nksWp47Fozf8zDGBg0Xqbsw=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:54:41 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>
>> >>> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
>> >>> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.
>> >> 
>> >> maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.
>> >> 
>> >> that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
>> >> usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
>> >> rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
>> >> out.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Uh huh!
>> 
>> I must not be part of "the rest of the world".  
>
>very true.
>
>> The time it takes for
>> a card to transfer the photos to the computer is of no concern to me
>> at all.  Cutting that time in half would not be of any advantage.  My
>> usual routine is to remove the card, insert it in the reader, and
>> start the upload.  
>
>> While the photos are being uploaded, I remove the battery from the
>> camera and put it in the charger.  By the time I finish doing that,
>> and return to the computer, all the images have been uploaded.
>
>you must not shoot very many images at a time.
>
>> Because I upload using Import in Lightroom, the time consuming part is
>> waiting for LR to generate the Smart Previews.  I know I can set LR to
>> generate Minimal previews, or one of the other faster options, but I
>> don't mind the wait for Smart Previews.
>
>that has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the card.
>
>> It's not like I have something terribly urgent or important to do in
>> those extra minutes.  I just Alt-Tab to a different window and check
>> my email or a newsgroup.
>
>i have an older 64 gig uhs card (the fastest available at the time)
>which takes around 15 minutes to copy when it's full (very easy to do
>with video).
>
>a 256 gig card of similar speed would be in the 1 hour range.
>
>newer and faster cards could reduce that to 20-30 minutes.

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.

If you extrapolate that to the "rest of the world", then 50% of the
rest of the world aren't concerned, thus disproving your claim.


-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:46:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <301120171946271329%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="16639"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZRxUF7vVmjrRVmaF4KA0J"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R5eC3vIWVvAktX4fE8mVDn+tXE4=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<tu712d9i2a7ss45k5c7a5gfhe7dr2l1j56@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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.

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

> If you extrapolate that to the "rest of the world", then 50% of the
> rest of the world aren't concerned, thus disproving your claim.

math fail.

the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
hour for their photos and videos to copy.

you always argue against productivity and efficiency. 

actually, you always argue no matter what anyone says. 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:56:13 -0500
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com>
References: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net X6bQ73Fmo7MAMnnolOk5KgKlEYLyH/Jfyx994FMk9w6qSSIvn2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fCUIj+BxNAm3fq+OTWDtffN6roM=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:46:27 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<tu712d9i2a7ss45k5c7a5gfhe7dr2l1j56@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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.  Adobe uses two terms on this page:

https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/import-camera-photos-bridge.htm

The top line says "import photos" and #2 says to "Click Download
Images".

SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":

https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7491/~/sandisk-produc...

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.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/importing-photos-lightroom-ba...

I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,
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 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.

>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.  

"Transfer" - a widely used term - is sorta incorrect since the files
are not transferred from one place to another.  
>

>> If you extrapolate that to the "rest of the world", then 50% of the
>> rest of the world aren't concerned, thus disproving your claim.
>
>math fail.
>
>the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
>hour for their photos and videos to copy.

No, but most people aren't using cards that hold that many images, so
"most people" aren't at play here.  Very few people, in fact.
>
The wait time for a process to complete is minimal when transferring
files from a card to the computer compared to some of the other
processes in the workflow.  

You used video as an example.  I just worked on a video in Adobe
Elements Premier.  The transfer from the card was a couple of minutes
at most (I didn't time it), but it took quite a bit of time to render
the edited video, and much longer to burn it to a DVD.  

No particular problem, though.  When I know I'm going to do something
that takes time to complete, I start the process and go do something
else and come back later.  I don't sit there in front of the computer
watching it.  Perhaps you do, though.

-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:22:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="9629"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FvzQOfHihfclGXHt1pf4E"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+wtev2MF5k8fuOk2UPUN9nqvJ9I=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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.

> Adobe uses two terms on this page:
> 
> https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/import-camera-photos-bridge.htm
> 
> The top line says "import photos" and #2 says to "Click Download
> Images".

download is incorrect, although it's sometimes used for
camera->computer.

> SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":

transfer is equivalent to copy.

they didn't say upload or download.

> https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7491/~/sandisk-produc...
> 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.

> https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/importing-photos-lightroom-ba...
> ow.html
> 
> I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,

not only least applicable, but wrong.

> 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, and it's used *far* more often
than transfer.

a common (yet inefficient) way to copy a file in windows is choose copy
from the edit menu (or ctrl-c). not transfer.

move is another, although move means deleting the originals.

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.

if the original is deleted after a copy, it's a move.

> >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. 

> "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.

once again, you're *well* out of your league. 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:30:49 -0500
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net R+a5EVDHVRE2L+C0ZjXUlQnuxJ4dcVMcgxHWMy/S+03csKVRvE
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OQJjvO2oZXTHVUsJU4rkEDN79ko=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:22:53 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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".
 
Since using any of those terms are commonly used to describe the
process, none are incorrect.
>
>> Adobe uses two terms on this page:
>> 
>> https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/import-camera-photos-bridge.htm
>> 
>> 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.  
>
>> SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":
>
>transfer is equivalent to copy.

In SanDisk's terminology, yes, 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.

>
>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.  

>
>> https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7491/~/sandisk-produc...
>> 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.  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. 
>
>> https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/importing-photos-lightroom-ba...
>> ow.html
>> 
>> I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,
>
>not only least applicable, but wrong.

No, not "wrong".  As long as there is an established and common
understanding of what is being done, the usage is not wrong.  
>
>> 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.  

>and it's used *far* more often than transfer.

By whom?  Where?  You just make up "facts".  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.

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

Why introduce a completely different concept into this?

>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.
>
>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.
>> >
>> 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.
>
>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.

-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:16:50 -0500
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <o8p12d5d87a1fmlkrggg5paib0rjaqffeu@4ax.com>
References: <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net kKmCPP/jraquPJZegFp6NQv2jRqybMtUqWl9EQ9TsVXCrntOlJ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eHL8uF6A3DrgRj3j65xGsOpd8OE=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:30:49 -0500, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>>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.

Nor, it seems, that I can type "ad hominem" correctly.  I was laughing
so hard that my fingers wandered on the keyboard.

-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
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: <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="7804"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0VWlvbf/p9eXEmAzyUcVw"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QuSd4pq62XkHls8yJyk9druPd4w=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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:
> >> 
> >> https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/import-camera-photos-bridge.htm
> >> 
> >> 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
separate.

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.

> >>
> >> https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7491/~/sandisk-produc...
> >> 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.

> >> https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/importing-photos-lightroom-ba...
> >> 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
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.  

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. 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:15:00 -0500
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com>
References: <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> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net GFrQwR/9MnHzPwNCWS9ViQRVmq3JS01GXx4hZrXzZbsT4lxlSA
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lAj4d8Xq1mRaNfVeYeXy3VbdmVk=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:23:31 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

nospam is now floundering around trying to defend his mistakes by
using "you haven't a clue" defense instead of facts. You can always
tell when nospam has realized he's lost the argument when he starts
peppering his replies with that and other insinuations that the other
person doesn't know what he's talking about.  

-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:48:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <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> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="5216"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YKfBhXqVJWjWzPanOQ+n8"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uFmbt8/I3ytSkBvvDBsGtKdEKOA=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:23:31 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article<25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> ><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> nospam is now floundering around trying to defend his mistakes by
> using "you haven't a clue" defense instead of facts. You can always
> tell when nospam has realized he's lost the argument when he starts
> peppering his replies with that and other insinuations that the other
> person doesn't know what he's talking about.

i'm not floundering *at* *all*. you are well over your head, you made
*numerous* fundamental errors, just like you did in the dcc thread, and
worse, you flat out refuse to admit or even discuss it.

tl;dr you do *not* know what you're talking about, which is why you
snipped everything. 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:51:14 -0500
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com>
References: <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> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com> <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 0in8YS2moBe9UsutB5llWwQQ3Yplah2ecSc98DE94Gf5Iayv6U
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Lf75pn3uXRI3TL3Nx43VzVTt8C4=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:48:01 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:23:31 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article<25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>> ><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> nospam is now floundering around trying to defend his mistakes by
>> using "you haven't a clue" defense instead of facts. You can always
>> tell when nospam has realized he's lost the argument when he starts
>> peppering his replies with that and other insinuations that the other
>> person doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
>i'm not floundering *at* *all*. you are well over your head, you made
>*numerous* fundamental errors, just like you did in the dcc thread, and
>worse, you flat out refuse to admit or even discuss it.
>
>tl;dr you do *not* know what you're talking about, which is why you
>snipped everything.

More floundering.

Anyone who writes, as you did,  "move is another, although move means
deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
their head in a topic.

-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:57:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <011220171457582172%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <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> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com> <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="3450"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19a4tY7Y7ERCNThQtDgH1xu"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qmbJ4opuge9gkliMIKh8hthZwcI=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> nospam is now floundering around trying to defend his mistakes by
> >> using "you haven't a clue" defense instead of facts. You can always
> >> tell when nospam has realized he's lost the argument when he starts
> >> peppering his replies with that and other insinuations that the other
> >> person doesn't know what he's talking about.
> >
> >i'm not floundering *at* *all*. you are well over your head, you made
> >*numerous* fundamental errors, just like you did in the dcc thread, and
> >worse, you flat out refuse to admit or even discuss it.
> >
> >tl;dr you do *not* know what you're talking about, which is why you
> >snipped everything.
> 
> More floundering.

nope. 

> Anyone who writes, as you did,  "move is another, although move means
> deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
> their head in a topic.

that's *exactly* what move means. 

you're *well* over your head and sinking *fast*.

as with the dcc thread, you refuse to admit you haven't a clue or show
any interest in learning something. 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:27:11 -0500
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com>
References: <tu712d9i2a7ss45k5c7a5gfhe7dr2l1j56@4ax.com> <301120171946271329%nospam@nospam.invalid> <q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com> <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid> <25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com> <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com> <011220171457582172%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net jM84zCU1EZSqCruU+iFG8g+rclfuv0bAvd0VNWQa19xPYhQ01x
Cancel-Lock: sha1:312yJ+HqrI3Q96J8GIgf5yFugFA=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:57:58 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> nospam is now floundering around trying to defend his mistakes by
>> >> using "you haven't a clue" defense instead of facts. You can always
>> >> tell when nospam has realized he's lost the argument when he starts
>> >> peppering his replies with that and other insinuations that the other
>> >> person doesn't know what he's talking about.
>> >
>> >i'm not floundering *at* *all*. you are well over your head, you made
>> >*numerous* fundamental errors, just like you did in the dcc thread, and
>> >worse, you flat out refuse to admit or even discuss it.
>> >
>> >tl;dr you do *not* know what you're talking about, which is why you
>> >snipped everything.
>> 
>> More floundering.
>
>nope. 
>
>> Anyone who writes, as you did,  "move is another, although move means
>> deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
>> their head in a topic.
>
>that's *exactly* what move means. 

If you had ever demonstrated a sense of humor here before, I would
think you are joking.  But, you're not.

Moving a file does not delete anything.  It merely relocates the file.

>you're *well* over your head and sinking *fast*.
>
>as with the dcc thread, you refuse to admit you haven't a clue or show
>any interest in learning something.

Thanks for reminding me.  My Forte Agent account has to be renewed
this month.  As usual, I will pay with PayPal and let them convert the
10 Euro cost to US$.  As I said, a simple and convenient way to do
this.  


-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:59:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <011220171659450575%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <tu712d9i2a7ss45k5c7a5gfhe7dr2l1j56@4ax.com> <301120171946271329%nospam@nospam.invalid> <q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com> <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid> <25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com> <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com> <011220171457582172%nospam@nospam.invalid> <q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="19482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UsvbfRMwFKCGAvvCzZT3A"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F8yonn8kuCf8eVL+gnbG4ot3nwE=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >> Anyone who writes, as you did,  "move is another, although move means
> >> deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
> >> their head in a topic.
> >
> >that's *exactly* what move means. 
> 
> If you had ever demonstrated a sense of humor here before, I would
> think you are joking.  But, you're not.
> 
> Moving a file does not delete anything.  It merely relocates the file.

nope.

move a file from volume to another volume and the file will be copied,
then the original deleted, resulting in one instance of the file.

copy a file from volume to another volume and the file will be copied,
with the original left where it is, resulting in two instances of the
file.

the same applies to move/copy other objects, such as blocks of text,
blobs of data, database objects, etc. 

it may be possible to optimize a move, such as when both files are on
the same file system (what you're erroneously calling relocating), but
that's not required nor is it guaranteed to work that way in every
case. no matter the implementation, the same result is obtained, just
one might be faster or slower than another. 

it's also possible, depending on the file system, that a copy doesn't
actually copy anything, but rather just adds another entry in the
directory, resulting in a copy operation that is effectively instant,
no matter how large the file may be. both copies point to the same
blocks on the volume.

you also incorrectly claimed that lightroom import is a copy operation.
it is not. importing in lightroom adds information to its internal
database, however, as part of the import process, photos *might* be
copied, moved or left untouched, depending on the location of the
photos at the time the import is done and whether the user chose
managed or referenced assets.

> >you're *well* over your head and sinking *fast*.

^^this^^

> >as with the dcc thread, you refuse to admit you haven't a clue or show
> >any interest in learning something.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me.  My Forte Agent account has to be renewed
> this month.  As usual, I will pay with PayPal and let them convert the
> 10 Euro cost to US$.  As I said, a simple and convenient way to do
> this.

not only are you still not getting it, but you *still* refuse to admit
you don't understand it. 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 17:58:18 -0500
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <41m32dhkb203odpb818hm9s4a8qt2v9i12@4ax.com>
References: <q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com> <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid> <25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com> <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com> <011220171457582172%nospam@nospam.invalid> <q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com> <011220171659450575%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net vgAo1nKg8BvyGVuhW9ko2ApJhGyFghhx6sZxH8BPOk51v6edT0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KHODod8kM0JqvLzwsAz3s1KHRcU=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:59:45 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> Anyone who writes, as you did,  "move is another, although move means
>> >> deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
>> >> their head in a topic.
>> >
>> >that's *exactly* what move means. 
>> 
>> If you had ever demonstrated a sense of humor here before, I would
>> think you are joking.  But, you're not.
>> 
>> Moving a file does not delete anything.  It merely relocates the file.
>
>nope.
>
>move a file from volume to another volume and the file will be copied,
>then the original deleted,

Nonsense.  The original is moved.  Nothing is deleted.

>resulting in one instance of the file.

Of course.  The one instance is the original in the new location.
Remember the example of the apple being moved from one hand to the
other.  It's still the original apple.

You are confusing the "original location" with the "original file".
The moved file is the same as it was in the prior location.  It
remains the original.

-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 18:07:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <011220171807042971%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com> <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid> <25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com> <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com> <011220171457582172%nospam@nospam.invalid> <q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com> <011220171659450575%nospam@nospam.invalid> <41m32dhkb203odpb818hm9s4a8qt2v9i12@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="12028"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xp4rlk3kmvosv3DFdapIB"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qUzl4KvMSI5z10MG4Moa3XPNO3g=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<41m32dhkb203odpb818hm9s4a8qt2v9i12@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >
> >> >> Anyone who writes, as you did,  "move is another, although move means
> >> >> deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
> >> >> their head in a topic.
> >> >
> >> >that's *exactly* what move means. 
> >> 
> >> If you had ever demonstrated a sense of humor here before, I would
> >> think you are joking.  But, you're not.
> >> 
> >> Moving a file does not delete anything.  It merely relocates the file.
> >
> >nope.
> >
> >move a file from volume to another volume and the file will be copied,
> >then the original deleted,
> 
> Nonsense.  The original is moved.  Nothing is deleted.

wrong.

read what i wrote, and the parts you snipped in an lame effort to twist
things.

> >resulting in one instance of the file.
> 
> Of course.  The one instance is the original in the new location.
> Remember the example of the apple being moved from one hand to the
> other.  It's still the original apple.

you *still* don't get it.

> You are confusing the "original location" with the "original file".

i'm not the least bit confused. 

> The moved file is the same as it was in the prior location.  It
> remains the original.

not necessarily. 

	
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Message-ID: <dmd62d164t0a5s96mhfoejd4bfl0lm7q7u@4ax.com>
References: <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid> <25i12d9kmctuhca9v12h2sdjiii8bsovi9@4ax.com> <011220170123311498%nospam@nospam.invalid> <nbo22dhh9pgutmiqoohij7utb3ouvil9e7@4ax.com> <011220171348010348%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1bc32dp8bgdd22b02f6urm783aosmppdfa@4ax.com> <011220171457582172%nospam@nospam.invalid> <q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com> <011220171659450575%nospam@nospam.invalid> <41m32dhkb203odpb818hm9s4a8qt2v9i12@4ax.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 54
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 12:34:38 +1300
X-Received-Body-CRC: 209211938
X-Received-Bytes: 3150
Print Article
Forward Article
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 17:58:18 -0500, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:59:45 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article<q4h32dd6g9jvjo8p4tali6a8gjitu2v4ts@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >> Anyone who writes, as you did,  "move is another, although move means
>>> >> deleting the originals" should never accuse anyone else of being over
>>> >> their head in a topic.
>>> >
>>> >that's *exactly* what move means. 
>>> 
>>> If you had ever demonstrated a sense of humor here before, I would
>>> think you are joking.  But, you're not.
>>> 
>>> Moving a file does not delete anything.  It merely relocates the file.
>>
>>nope.
>>
>>move a file from volume to another volume and the file will be copied,
>>then the original deleted,
>
>Nonsense.  The original is moved.  Nothing is deleted.

'Moving' is a physical action. Something is physically moved. You can
physically move a brick. You can physically move a car. But computer
data is not physical. It is represented by a pattern of bits, the
exact nature f which depends on the medium on which the data is
stored. You cannot physically move data from (say) RAM to a hard disk.
The data on the hard disk is represented by a pattern of electrical
charges. The data on the HDD is represented by microscopic magnetic
domains.
>
>>resulting in one instance of the file.
>
>Of course.  The one instance is the original in the new location.
>Remember the example of the apple being moved from one hand to the
>other.  It's still the original apple.

But that entails a physical movement. It's generally impossible to
move data inside a computer in the same way.
>
>You are confusing the "original location" with the "original file".
>The moved file is the same as it was in the prior location.  It
>remains the original.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens 

	
From: Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:21:08 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <ovv5g2$1p2n$1@gioia.aioe.org>
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zbCsgRx3lefeW5lTDMklVw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
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:

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.

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


-- 
Ken Hart
kwhart1@frontier.com 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 17:16:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <021220171716246791%nospam@nospam.invalid>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8fa3d4f349ef2c295126efeed9aa2b5b";
logging-data="21295"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KaFUc/eKVtl9rlekICbmo"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TtSmlMyCpfonSwnW3TDqJ4khPnA=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <ovv5g2$1p2n$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart<kwhart1@frontier.com> 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.

the analogy doesn't transfer at all. as i said before, it's bogus.

> 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.

correct (although there are exceptions, which i've mentioned).

> 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!)

not quite correct. the copy partially exists, growing as the copy
progresses. 

if the copy fails or is cancelled by the user, then the partial copy is
what gets deleted, leaving the original untouched.

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

they're in season.



> >>>> 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.

correct.

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

not correct.

cameras and computers are peers. 

normally, the camera shows up as external 'hard drive', as does the
memory card in a card reader, so it's just a simple copy to transfer
the photos, the same as copying files to/from another drive volume.

these days, cameras are usually smartphones and in many cases, more
powerful than the computer to which they are attached. also, photos are
frequently transferred automatically, without the user needing to do
anything. 

	
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 

	
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!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news7
From: PeterN <peter.new@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:29:07 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <ovrsc4021dk@news7.newsguy.com>
References: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<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>
Reply-To: peter.new.nospam@verizon.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pef605583caf60c59d7c828bc735b3327ed7f45a8ac198565.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <301120172122538513%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1095778853
X-Received-Bytes: 5063
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/30/2017 9:22 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<q1a12d9msklql1uenqv73qfdg3l647mbbs@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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.
> 
>> Adobe uses two terms on this page:
>>
>> https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/import-camera-photos-bridge.htm
>>
>> The top line says "import photos" and #2 says to "Click Download
>> Images".
> 
> download is incorrect, although it's sometimes used for
> camera->computer.
> 
>> SanDisk uses "transfer" and "transfer speed":
> 
> transfer is equivalent to copy.
> 
> they didn't say upload or download.
> 
>> https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7491/~/sandisk-produc...
>> 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.
> 
>> https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/importing-photos-lightroom-ba...
>> ow.html
>>
>> I agree that "upload" or "download" are the least applicable terms,
> 
> not only least applicable, but wrong.
> 
>> 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, and it's used *far* more often
> than transfer.
> 
> a common (yet inefficient) way to copy a file in windows is choose copy
> from the edit menu (or ctrl-c). not transfer.
> 
> move is another, although move means deleting the originals.
> 
> 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.
> 
> if the original is deleted after a copy, it's a move.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
>> "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.
> 
> once again, you're *well* out of your league.
> 
True. He stopped using Kindergarten arguments a long time ago.
It is noted that once more, you twisted my plain statement, that the 
speed of copying images from a card is not the most important element of 
photography, into a meaningless blather.
-- 
PeterN 

	
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx35.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Message-ID: <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com>
References: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 35
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 15:37:44 +1300
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2727543659
X-Received-Bytes: 2332
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:46:27 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<tu712d9i2a7ss45k5c7a5gfhe7dr2l1j56@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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.
>
>upload or download would be when it involves a remote system (i.e., the
>cloud), which it does not.
>
>> If you extrapolate that to the "rest of the world", then 50% of the
>> rest of the world aren't concerned, thus disproving your claim.
>
>math fail.
>
>the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
>hour for their photos and videos to copy.

Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
copy.
>
>you always argue against productivity and efficiency. 
>
>actually, you always argue no matter what anyone says.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:44:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <301120172144567865%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="15319"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18s5wF7BD3fCRXOp3ePuMN7"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AwUMNapX+NoAFJe9CgHvTAN43Xk=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
> >hour for their photos and videos to copy.
> 
> Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
> copy.

they do if they bought slow cards, possibly much longer than that. 

	
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad!fx35.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Message-ID: <msm32d9q6fcp13i69tlqg61011of34rutj@4ax.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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com> <301120172144567865%nospam@nospam.invalid>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 11:46:07 +1300
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4012365931
X-Received-Bytes: 1749
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:44:56 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
>> >hour for their photos and videos to copy.
>> 
>> Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
>> copy.
>
>they do if they bought slow cards, possibly much longer than that.

The source of your data is ... ?
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 17:51:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <011220171751296862%nospam@nospam.invalid>
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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com> <301120172144567865%nospam@nospam.invalid> <msm32d9q6fcp13i69tlqg61011of34rutj@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="45cb7d992eea03c8b6a6899a8b6e0b03";
logging-data="4173"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TKaLQBO7mRZaArLJbP8wV"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0GL17M7dQtplWKI8GwWP+SXZKx4=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<msm32d9q6fcp13i69tlqg61011of34rutj@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
> >> >hour for their photos and videos to copy.
> >> 
> >> Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
> >> copy.
> >
> >they do if they bought slow cards, possibly much longer than that.
> 
> The source of your data is ... ?

mathematics. 

	
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.176.72 with SMTP id b8mr139215itj.35.1512257884771;
Sat, 02 Dec 2017 15:38:04 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!193no7337itr.0!news-out.google.com!s63ni1236itb.0!nntp.google.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Message-ID: <t7e62d1c4kjgo6sh41jmei5l394qfrvhdj@4ax.com>
References: <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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com> <301120172144567865%nospam@nospam.invalid> <msm32d9q6fcp13i69tlqg61011of34rutj@4ax.com> <011220171751296862%nospam@nospam.invalid>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 24
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 12:38:06 +1300
X-Received-Bytes: 1747
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3486879814
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-Bytes: 1603
Print Article
Forward Article
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 17:51:29 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article<msm32d9q6fcp13i69tlqg61011of34rutj@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> >the reality is that most people aren't interested in waiting a half
>> >> >hour for their photos and videos to copy.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >
>> >they do if they bought slow cards, possibly much longer than that.
>> 
>> The source of your data is ... ?
>
>mathematics.

Mathematics can tell you whether or not "most people have half an
hour's worth of photos or videos to copy." I bet you can't prove it.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens 

	
From: Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 03:49:35 -0600
From: Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:49:35 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.348c959efdc637c898cf2a@news.supernews.com>
References: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
Lines: 17
X-Trace: sv3-GyTbvbBdZPkNIVttXJKJYKS8ZeLxOzeN4PbJCoUV7Ut7uywi6kSD4RC6s9DU4VlPKMKwk063rYMprO0!ZvGF0UYxaBaG6MYrHRNDxzlWQL2JN+6QfOZARW93/q9o+GDPBw+HQbh9eHgsxm06Pw30PjzYWrZI!lGexYFuD
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2187
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens 
says...
> Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
> copy.

When I travel I shoot an average of 200-600 shots per day (RAW+JPEG) and 
sometimes some videos. > 10GB of data on a given day is not unusual.

Then, in the evening I don't have that much time. Usually I'm back late, 
am short of time, so it makes a difference if the image transfer to the 
computer takes 2 minutes instead of 10 minutes. 
-- 
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 05:13:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <021220170513236203%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com> <MPG.348c959efdc637c898cf2a@news.supernews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8fa3d4f349ef2c295126efeed9aa2b5b";
logging-data="4905"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Nm/dKGTLYaFqEG2h/bZbR"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BxYMGp6+402qD7G4gwMh7YoqMK8=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<MPG.348c959efdc637c898cf2a@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
> > copy.
> 
> When I travel I shoot an average of 200-600 shots per day (RAW+JPEG) and 
> sometimes some videos. > 10GB of data on a given day is not unusual.
> 
> Then, in the evening I don't have that much time. Usually I'm back late, 
> am short of time, so it makes a difference if the image transfer to the 
> computer takes 2 minutes instead of 10 minutes.

exactly. 

	
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.0.21 with SMTP id 21mr153804ita.13.1512258058698;
Sat, 02 Dec 2017 15:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!193no8996itr.0!news-out.google.com!s63ni1236itb.0!nntp.google.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Message-ID: <obe62dll2t0tnkjp0nnnnjpgpls7odnalm@4ax.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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com> <MPG.348c959efdc637c898cf2a@news.supernews.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 23
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 12:41:00 +1300
X-Received-Bytes: 1861
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1339823010
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-Bytes: 1717
Print Article
Forward Article
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:49:35 +0100, Alfred Molon<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article<j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens 
>says...
>> Most people don't have half an hour's worth of photos or videos to
> copy.

>
>When I travel I shoot an average of 200-600 shots per day (RAW+JPEG) and 
>sometimes some videos. > 10GB of data on a given day is not unusual.
>
>Then, in the evening I don't have that much time. Usually I'm back late, 
>am short of time, so it makes a difference if the image transfer to the 
>computer takes 2 minutes instead of 10 minutes. 

I didn't say (or imply) that nobody ever has half an hour's worth of
photos or videos to copy, or even 10 minutes worth.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens 

	
From: Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 01:10:29 -0600
From: Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:10:29 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.348e9ce8b5c9bdbf98cf2d@news.supernews.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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com> <MPG.348c959efdc637c898cf2a@news.supernews.com> <obe62dll2t0tnkjp0nnnnjpgpls7odnalm@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
Lines: 14
X-Trace: sv3-wiYbVV71X9ReE0ZNS6ApVx5N9av2q/3aGjLTH9mTURWWsehAiAIQeNxj9fmJcl8QToCHr9c55eKqFoH!6zoTha5VXsou9otZ9CCFk/dIrXxJFLENNVB6XVODFJdX5USx/L9kUXEtrlp+qXiwaByq6AJC8kjN!XbyUTZSsaQ==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2058
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<obe62dll2t0tnkjp0nnnnjpgpls7odnalm@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens 
says...
> I didn't say (or imply) that nobody ever has half an hour's worth of
> photos or videos to copy, or even 10 minutes worth.

Yes, but it can happen more often than you would think that somebody on 
an interesting trip ends up taking loads of pictures or videos every day 
- and is short of time in the evenings ;-) 
-- 
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 09:24:13 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <f8kf1dFh5jgU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <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> <j1g12d57mbp79dtssim2m5ubndur9fv491@4ax.com> <MPG.348c959efdc637c898cf2a@news.supernews.com> <obe62dll2t0tnkjp0nnnnjpgpls7odnalm@4ax.com> <MPG.348e9ce8b5c9bdbf98cf2d@news.supernews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net FSEQFCuEsIGvX2fFDQFLUQVa3rahls9cuwd2KfJlyRIlze7Yji
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IArdjWZx1atEfxE9TUCv9TK3ucw=
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2017-12-04 07:10:29 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

> In article<obe62dll2t0tnkjp0nnnnjpgpls7odnalm@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> says...
>> I didn't say (or imply) that nobody ever has half an hour's worth of
>> photos or videos to copy, or even 10 minutes worth.

that would be the conclution that i would expect from nospam. reformat 
and reinstall...

> 
> Yes, but it can happen more often than you would think that somebody on
> an interesting trip ends up taking loads of pictures or videos every day
> - and is short of time in the evenings ;-)


-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.55.31.145 with SMTP id n17mr1049927qkh.36.1512037563367;
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:26:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.153.216 with SMTP id b207mr129788vke.8.1512037563269;
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:26:03 -0800 (PST)
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!m31no157102qtf.0!news-out.google.com!t48ni463qtc.1!nntp.google.com!m31no157100qtf.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:26:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.37.90.65; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.37.90.65
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com>
<291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com>
<291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5a6eab34-9d52-4ef3-b589-f5b7ee5f4d31@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:26:03 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2429
X-Received-Body-CRC: 842641179
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 03:02:01 UTC, PeterN  wrote:
> On 11/29/2017 9:55 PM, nospam wrote:
> > In article<ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> > <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
> >>>> save your money.
> >>>
> >>> higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
> >>> the camera can fully utilize it.
> >>>
> >> It depends.
> > 
> > only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.
> > 
> > for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
> > the computer.
> > 
> 
> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of 
> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

It can be, especaily if you've come back from a holiday with umpteen cards that need putting on a
computer, it's amazing just how slow USB2 is compared to USB3 once you're used to USB3.
Tonight I'll be off-loading ~8GB from card to computer, it usually takes a couple of minutes on USB3
 with USB2 it's more like 15mins+ 

	
Next <
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:55:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <301120171255321938%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com> <MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com> <ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com> <5a6eab34-9d52-4ef3-b589-f5b7ee5f4d31@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0443a8dc2665df5d13e96fb9df45c326";
logging-data="16124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LvH/PEOI+6pJCCfVZCHNC"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u8Y4UYJ8BLxIAUu7Eca/1h1TBq8=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<5a6eab34-9d52-4ef3-b589-f5b7ee5f4d31@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of 
> > photography, unless you are a photo journalist.
> 
> It can be, especaily if you've come back from a holiday with umpteen cards
> that need putting on a computer, it's amazing just how slow USB2 is compared
> to USB3 once you're used to USB3.

no shit.
.
> Tonight I'll be off-loading ~8GB from card to computer, it usually takes a
> couple of minutes on USB3  with USB2 it's more like 15mins+

now multiply that by 32 for a 256 gig card.