E
Eric Gisin
Bullshit. UUCP is long gone.Justin said:
Bullshit. Almost never happens.
Bullshit. Ever seen a blog, change log, etc.
More bullshit.
Bullshit. Ever seen a blog, change log, etc.
More bullshit.
J
Justin
Eric Gisin wrote on [Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:03:54 -0700]:
Oh, yes. Someone who doesn't know the difference between their arse and
a hole in the ground. It still happens often enough.
Bullshit, happens all the time.
You mean a blog where all the responses come AFTER the initial posts and
whatever responses they are replying to?
You read from bottom to top, do you?
Oh, yes. Someone who doesn't know the difference between their arse and
a hole in the ground. It still happens often enough.
Bullshit, happens all the time.
You mean a blog where all the responses come AFTER the initial posts and
whatever responses they are replying to?
You read from bottom to top, do you?
A
Alpha
Justin is totally obtuse in reasoning....as usual.
Some posts require top-posting. I for one have a brain that does not want
the message over and over again.
Some posts require bottom-posting, particularly if the previous information
is short.
Some posts require removing all previous information...as is almost the case
here.
Any hard and fast rules are evidence of the stupidity of those that adhere
to them.
Some posts require top-posting. I for one have a brain that does not want
the message over and over again.
Some posts require bottom-posting, particularly if the previous information
is short.
Some posts require removing all previous information...as is almost the case
here.
Any hard and fast rules are evidence of the stupidity of those that adhere
to them.
C
Camper
Well put. Now where should I post? No sense in asking Justin.
A
Alpha
In my view, you did it right.
W
Who Dat?
Definitely that SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!!!
B
Bob
That is the main reason for not top posting.
If I have not been following the thread carefully, I will not know
what the top-posted response is referring to. Even if I read the
entire post below the reply, I still will not know what the reply is
referring to.
The correct way is to snip out all the old material from the original
post leaving enough to establish context, and then post your replies
in the correct places so the reader can follow what you are saying.
J
Justin
Alpha wrote on [Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:47:37 -0700]:
And since you have quoted nothing and added no context whatsoever to
your post, you have made a post that has NO VALUE AT ALL.
And since you have quoted nothing and added no context whatsoever to
your post, you have made a post that has NO VALUE AT ALL.
J
Justin
Camper wrote on [Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:07:38 GMT]:
At the bottom, unless you are not replying to the message you are
responding to, then you start a whole new thread.
At the bottom, unless you are not replying to the message you are
responding to, then you start a whole new thread.
E
Eric Gisin
Take your meds, and the delusions go away.Justin said:
****ing clueless. Change ISPs if it does.
****ing clueless. Stop doing crack.
I only read the reply. Only a ****ing moron reads the quoted text.
K
Ken Maltby
Smarty said:
Why not just author a copy of the other side, and put
that in the next slot of your carousel?
Luck;
Ken
J
Justin
Eric Gisin wrote on [Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:46:49 -0700]:
Sure, yes. Because there's always more than one broadband company available.
Yes, because that is the only reason anyone would respond to one of your
contentless posts.
Or someone who hasn't yet received the post you are quoting.
Take your head out of your arse, realise that not everyone is a special
as you and cheer up.
Sure, yes. Because there's always more than one broadband company available.
Yes, because that is the only reason anyone would respond to one of your
contentless posts.
Or someone who hasn't yet received the post you are quoting.
Take your head out of your arse, realise that not everyone is a special
as you and cheer up.
S
Smarty
Ken,
That is exactly what I do Ken. I actually offered that option in a
subsequent reply, describing how I took DVDs like Goodfellow (Robert DiNiro)
and others which span 2 sides and reauthor them to 2 disks.
I'm old enough to remember the Garrard turntable which had a robotic arm
which would flip vinyl LP albums years ago. What a monstrosity. I'm glad
this is NOT being done for DVDs.
Smarty
That is exactly what I do Ken. I actually offered that option in a
subsequent reply, describing how I took DVDs like Goodfellow (Robert DiNiro)
and others which span 2 sides and reauthor them to 2 disks.
I'm old enough to remember the Garrard turntable which had a robotic arm
which would flip vinyl LP albums years ago. What a monstrosity. I'm glad
this is NOT being done for DVDs.
Smarty
J
Justin
Smarty wrote on [Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:48:49 -0400]:
Does it need to be though? I know there were laserdisc players that
would flip the laser to the other side of the disc, instead of flipping
the disc. Or some similar method where it was the laser that moved or
changed and not the disc.
Does it need to be though? I know there were laserdisc players that
would flip the laser to the other side of the disc, instead of flipping
the disc. Or some similar method where it was the laser that moved or
changed and not the disc.
A
AnthonyR
well yes because LP's had that physical connection with the needle to makeSmarty said:
but we've come a long way with electronics
since those days, a laser on either side and a switching circuit would be
all that is needed now but it would add to cost of manufacturing.
They even had lasers that can detect the physical grooves in old LP albums
nowaday and convert the optical data into digital info that is then
converted to music, so it can play old records without a needle or contact,
and correct for scratches and avoid hiss etc..
But these new record players are about $10,000 I believe.
Amazing what lasers can do. Right?
AnthonyR.
A
AnthonyR
Bob said:
Also, because this entire posting etiquete exchange is off-topic a new
thread should have been started, no?
So the rest of us don't have to read 5-10 posts before realizing there is no
longer info about dvd changers.
Maybe one day soon a computer software program built into the newsgroup
engine can automatically sort out text in
post and re-format them properly, remove quotes past 3 replies and also
start new threads when no relative text is detected?
LOL Until then we are bound to see this stuff erupt often. By the way, I am
nuetral and can read and figure out both styles with no problem.
It's not that hard, and if I don't understand a post, big deal, their loss
that I didn't get their point, and I move on.
AnthonyR.
S
Smarty
You're right, Justin. I think the design options would be to put dual lasers
on both sides of the stationary DVD, rotate the disk with a robotic
mechanism, or, as you say, rotate the laser to the other side of the
stationary disk. If I were the designer, I would personally use the dual
laser approach, since the notion of adding an additional moving mechanism to
the already complex 400 DVD changer would be less reliable than a stationary
dual pickup.
on both sides of the stationary DVD, rotate the disk with a robotic
mechanism, or, as you say, rotate the laser to the other side of the
stationary disk. If I were the designer, I would personally use the dual
laser approach, since the notion of adding an additional moving mechanism to
the already complex 400 DVD changer would be less reliable than a stationary
dual pickup.
Justin said:
S
Smarty
AnthonyR,
As a rabid audiophile, I would have loved an optical pickup for vinyl LPs. I
fussed with anti-static solutions, dust brushes, ionic units to discharge
the vinyl, etc. and never got truly noise free disks. Moreover, the mass
versus compliance of a mechanical stylus inevitably leads to one or more
natural resonances which make the stylus very non-linear. Distortion and
frequency response dips were inevitable. And a really good Ortofon moving
coil cartridge was several hundred dollars in the early 1960's !!
Yikes.....what were we thinking then ??!!
Smarty
As a rabid audiophile, I would have loved an optical pickup for vinyl LPs. I
fussed with anti-static solutions, dust brushes, ionic units to discharge
the vinyl, etc. and never got truly noise free disks. Moreover, the mass
versus compliance of a mechanical stylus inevitably leads to one or more
natural resonances which make the stylus very non-linear. Distortion and
frequency response dips were inevitable. And a really good Ortofon moving
coil cartridge was several hundred dollars in the early 1960's !!
Yikes.....what were we thinking then ??!!
Smarty
J
Jeff Rife
AnthonyR ([email protected]) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
Sony made one "jukebox" changer where the laser was in the center of the
carousel. It would play either side of the disc depending on which side
the disc loaded from, and only needed one laser.
Sony made one "jukebox" changer where the laser was in the center of the
carousel. It would play either side of the disc depending on which side
the disc loaded from, and only needed one laser.
B
Bob
Quit whining and move on.