EmbeddedRelated.com
Forums
Memfault State of IoT Report

looking for hardware source

Started by Unknown January 4, 2008
Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:33:07 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card" > and David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> instead > replied: > >> My goal is not nearly as forceful as that. I simply believe that a >> discussion forum of any kind is better for its users if they follow a >> similar communication style. > > Your belief is noted. Mine belief is that people should post as they > wish; top, middle or bottom. What if you were suddenly invaded by a > group of programmers who all liked to top post? Would you then > change and encourage others to top post?
I guess I'd try to encourage the newcomers to post properly. But ultimately, if a high enough percentage (which would be well over 50%) of the group always top-posted so that top-posting improved the group, then I'd switch to top-posting here. Idealism is important, but sometimes practicality trumps it.
Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:34:01 PST, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and > mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) instead > replied: > >> Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress.net.au> writes: >>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied: >>>> Ray Haddad wrote: >>>>> David Kelly <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> replied: >>>>> >>>>>> Failure to reply in the proper format will cause many to ignore >>>>>> one's reply. If you want a reply then you will reply in the >>>>>> format expected by those who are capable of answering. >>>>> This is just plain silly. In the early days of USENET, before it >>>>> was even called that, the norm was top posting to reply leaving >>>>> the balance of the message for reference only. Period. >>>> Ridiculous misinformation. Read the rfcs. Read the following: >>> An RFC is not a rule. Good grief. Is that all you've got? >> Do you know how many RFCs must be obeyed for you to have >> Internet service (including this net news you are using)? > > Must be obeyed? Look, my friend. Compliance is voluntary. There is > no "must be obeyed" about it. An RFC is a Request For Comments and > nothing more.
Without following the RFC's, there would be no such thing as the Internet, or anything else based on IP networking, since the RFC's form the definitions of all these protocols. Some of them are more user-level, such as the ones mentioned about newsgroup posts, but the fact that you can post and read this group is down to your newsreader and your newsserver obeying the appropriate RFC's.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:23:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> instead
replied:

>Ray Haddad wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:34:01 PST, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and >> mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) instead >> replied: >> >>> Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress.net.au> writes: >>>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied: >>>>> Ray Haddad wrote: >>>>>> David Kelly <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> replied: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Failure to reply in the proper format will cause many to ignore >>>>>>> one's reply. If you want a reply then you will reply in the >>>>>>> format expected by those who are capable of answering. >>>>>> This is just plain silly. In the early days of USENET, before it >>>>>> was even called that, the norm was top posting to reply leaving >>>>>> the balance of the message for reference only. Period. >>>>> Ridiculous misinformation. Read the rfcs. Read the following: >>>> An RFC is not a rule. Good grief. Is that all you've got? >>> Do you know how many RFCs must be obeyed for you to have >>> Internet service (including this net news you are using)? >> >> Must be obeyed? Look, my friend. Compliance is voluntary. There is >> no "must be obeyed" about it. An RFC is a Request For Comments and >> nothing more. > >Without following the RFC's, there would be no such thing as the >Internet, or anything else based on IP networking, since the RFC's form >the definitions of all these protocols. Some of them are more >user-level, such as the ones mentioned about newsgroup posts, but the >fact that you can post and read this group is down to your newsreader >and your newsserver obeying the appropriate RFC's.
A REQUEST FOR COMMENT is not a set of guidelines or rules. It is just what it states. A request for you to comment or offer your opinion. Do you understand that? Please tell me you do. Comments can go into the realm of an undoable thing, you know. They can also go counter to your precious opinion of how things should be done. In short, they are worthless in the grand scheme of making USENET work. Don't take this as a personal attack but pay attention to what you declare as sovereign rule. There's no such thing in the anarchistic world of USENET. The only thing it has going for it is the VOLUNTARY compliance to suggestions and nothing more. If you want rules, start a private forum. Otherwise, simply exist here and allow others to exist as they see fit. In short, shut up. -- Ray
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:10:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> instead
replied:

>I guess I'd try to encourage the newcomers to post properly. But >ultimately, if a high enough percentage (which would be well over 50%) >of the group always top-posted so that top-posting improved the group, >then I'd switch to top-posting here. Idealism is important, but >sometimes practicality trumps it.
To some here, top posting is "proper" posting. Get over it. They certainly don't seem to be insisting that you do it their way. -- Ray
Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:23:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card" > and David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> instead > replied: > >>... >>Without following the RFC's, there would be no such thing as the >>Internet, or anything else based on IP networking, since the RFC's form >>the definitions of all these protocols. Some of them are more >>user-level, such as the ones mentioned about newsgroup posts, but the >>fact that you can post and read this group is down to your newsreader >>and your newsserver obeying the appropriate RFC's. > > > A REQUEST FOR COMMENT is not a set of guidelines or rules. It is > just what it states. A request for you to comment or offer your > opinion. Do you understand that? Please tell me you do.
Take a look at some of the important RFCs and how detailed they are, and how important that technical detail is, and you will understand that the literal meaning of the traditional label "Request For Comment" no longer applies to them, after they have become adopted. David is right as regards the RFC's for IP etc. Of course detailed obedience to the RFC on newsgroup posting formats is less critical, since most (?) readers are flexible (?) people. (Personally I find bottom-posting to be more natural than top-posting, both to write and to read.) -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:22:10 +0200, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> instead replied:

>Take a look at some of the important RFCs and how detailed they >are, and how important that technical detail is, and you will >understand that the literal meaning of the traditional label >"Request For Comment" no longer applies to them, after they have >become adopted. David is right as regards the RFC's for IP etc.
The remain REQUEST FOR COMMENT documents, not rules. -- Ray
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:15:21 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied:

>"Anonymous." wrote: >> >> The liveability of Usenet is unaffected by top-posting. >> >> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >>> True also. However, assuming fairly reasonable users, pointing out >>> of the standard conventions, together with reasons for them, >>> generally has favorable results and makes Usenet more livable for >>> all. In my experience. > >PLONK
That's a rather extreme form of censorship simply because you disagree with him. -- Ray
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:58:33 +0900, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress.net.au> instead replied:

>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:15:21 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card" >and CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied: > >>"Anonymous." wrote: >>> >>> The liveability of Usenet is unaffected by top-posting. >>> >>> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> True also. However, assuming fairly reasonable users, pointing out >>>> of the standard conventions, together with reasons for them, >>>> generally has favorable results and makes Usenet more livable for >>>> all. In my experience. >> >>PLONK > >That's a rather extreme form of censorship simply because you >disagree with him.
By the way, that was meant to make you smile. Nothing more. But you may flame me, plonk me, ignore me or call my office. I'll have my secretary await your message to me. I told her you were a top priority today. -- Ray
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:58:33 +0900, Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:15:21 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card" > and CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied: > >>"Anonymous." wrote: >>> >>> The liveability of Usenet is unaffected by top-posting. >>> >>> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> True also. However, assuming fairly reasonable users, pointing out >>>> of the standard conventions, together with reasons for them, >>>> generally has favorable results and makes Usenet more livable for >>>> all. In my experience. >> >>PLONK > > That's a rather extreme form of censorship simply because you > disagree with him.
No it's actually an easy way of ignoring stupidity. It's not censorship to not listen to the rambling of the self important. If you can't follow establshed etiquette then we don't have to pay attention to you. Oh yeah, *PLONK*
Well, that settles it. I won't top post any more because I've been
plonked. What shall I do? Oh, dear. What shall I ever do?

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:37:50 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and anon-i-mouse <anon-i-moose@att.uucp> instead replied:

>No it's actually an easy way of ignoring stupidity. It's not >censorship to not listen to the rambling of the self important. If you >can't follow establshed etiquette then we don't have to pay attention >to you. > >Oh yeah, *PLONK*
-- Ray

Memfault State of IoT Report