Can't see NASA shuttle pic

[Chief McGee]

All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks

[Ron Monroe]

I believe you will have to combine them all together to get one picture.
Sometimes it's hard to know whether the numbering system means a picture is
one in a series or one part of a multipart picture. Anyways, on Outlook
Express, if you right click, and it mentions an option of combine and
decode, then you need to highlight all of the parts, right click, and use
this option. I don't know how the other mail services work.
Ron

"Chief McGee" > wrote in message
news:gZink.290592$yE1.284608@attbi_s21...
> All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks
>

[Mike Barnard]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:46:20 GMT, "Chief McGee" >
wrote:

>All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks
>

All the parts (on my server anyway) aren't uploaded yet. It seems to
be one HUUUUGE file in .rar format. No chance to look at single
pictures, it has to be the whole file with however many are in it.
Bandwith ho!

[J3]

You really need to get WinRAR to combine the files and Quickpar to
rebuild any files which arrived fragmented. Also a real newgrouper
such as Forte. I would never try to handle this post using Outlook.
All in all there are 5100 HiRes shuttle pics.

This post will consist of 325 rar files and 133 par files.


On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:33:56 -0700, "Ron Monroe"
> wrote:

>I believe you will have to combine them all together to get one picture.
>Sometimes it's hard to know whether the numbering system means a picture is
>one in a series or one part of a multipart picture. Anyways, on Outlook
>Express, if you right click, and it mentions an option of combine and
>decode, then you need to highlight all of the parts, right click, and use
>this option. I don't know how the other mail services work.
>Ron
>
>"Chief McGee" > wrote in message
>news:gZink.290592$yE1.284608@attbi_s21...
>> All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks
>>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Chief McGee" > wrote in message
news:gZink.290592$yE1.284608@attbi_s21...
> All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks

You convince people that post unbelievably huge photo files, in obscure
file formats, to post them in a format and size that the majority of uses
can decode, without having to stand on their head and rub their belly, while
patting their heads. They also need to remember that not everyone is an
advanced user.

Really, if you found a picture you wanted to have in real high quality
resolution, and if you were to e-mail the sender, I'll bet any of the
originators would send you a high resolution file of the desired picture.

In the meantime, everyone gets the huge file that nearly all are going to
view on a maximum monitor size of 17 inches. So why do we need a picture
file of over a couple hundred KB? Beats me.

When there is such a massive posting of that many pictures in that huge of
files sizes, (of one object, especially) I never bother even downloading
them.

Shame, too. I'll bet there were some good pictures, but nothing is worth
that much time to download.
--
Jim in NC

[ABLE_1[_2_]]

With all these possible beautiful pictures being posted for the elite.
It would be nice to at least throw a bone or two to those of us that are
poor.
It would be the polite, respectful and kind thing to do.

To do otherwise is spiteful.

Les





"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chief McGee" > wrote in message
> news:gZink.290592$yE1.284608@attbi_s21...
>> All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks
>
> You convince people that post unbelievably huge photo files, in obscure
> file formats, to post them in a format and size that the majority of uses
> can decode, without having to stand on their head and rub their belly,
> while patting their heads. They also need to remember that not everyone
> is an advanced user.
>
> Really, if you found a picture you wanted to have in real high quality
> resolution, and if you were to e-mail the sender, I'll bet any of the
> originators would send you a high resolution file of the desired picture.
>
> In the meantime, everyone gets the huge file that nearly all are going to
> view on a maximum monitor size of 17 inches. So why do we need a picture
> file of over a couple hundred KB? Beats me.
>
> When there is such a massive posting of that many pictures in that huge of
> files sizes, (of one object, especially) I never bother even downloading
> them.
>
> Shame, too. I'll bet there were some good pictures, but nothing is worth
> that much time to download.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"ABLE_1" > wrote in message
. ..
> With all these possible beautiful pictures being posted for the elite.
> It would be nice to at least throw a bone or two to those of us that are
> poor.
> It would be the polite, respectful and kind thing to do.
>
> To do otherwise is spiteful.

They're not for the "elite"; all you need to decode them is save the
attachments to a file and them highlight them and then combine them using
something like WinRar. Quite easy really.

I only have two complaints -

1 It's not "pictures" that are being posted, so additional software (even
something as simple as WinRar) is needed, with no explanation of how to open
the posts.

2 There's so many of them. J3 said he was posting something like 5Gb -
too much.

[hielan' laddie]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:46:20 -0400, Chief McGee wrote
(in article <gZink.290592$yE1.284608@attbi_s21>):

> All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks
>
>

so far all that's been available are .rar files. Typically a complete .rar
set includes .par or .pr2 files. Once all the .rar files and associated .pars
or .pr2s are downloaded, you launch an app which stitches the .rars together
for you, using parity data from the .pars to fill any gaps caused by
corruption or missing files. Most such apps then decode the stitched-together
..rars and you end up with a folder full of binaries. This is a standard way
of distributing very large files or a very large collection of smaller files.
I've been using this for years to email files to people whose ISPs limit the
size of incoming emails and/or who block .zips (for some reason such bozos
have never heard of .rars, so a .rar and .par combo sails right past their
blocks...). I usually use MacPAR deLuxe on Macs and WinRAR on Windows
machines; MacPAR is donationware, WinRAR is shareware. Both will decode and
encode .rars.

The OP says that there will be 330+ .rars and another 130+ .pars, so it's
gonna be a while before the whole thing is down.

[hielan' laddie]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:39:14 -0400, Hap wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:46:20 GMT, "Chief McGee" >
> wrote: <gZink.290592$yE1.284608@attbi_s21>:
>
>> All I get is "code". How do I display the photos? Thanks
>>
> If you're serious I'd suggest asking in one of these groups,
>
> microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
> news.software.readers
>
> Helpful info would include the newsreader you plan to use, the subject
> and date along with the name of this group, plus info given about the
> post. He says it's a 4.7 GB .rar in 325 parts, plus 40% pars files.
>
> 325*35 is a lot of parts to combine manually so you might consider
> something like grabit or altbinz.
>

If you're on Windows and you want to stitch together .rars quickly and
easily, use WinRAR. Just install it, then double-click one of the .pars, and
the app will check out the .rars, check out the .pars, correct
corrupted/missing .rars (if there are enough .pars, which shouldn't be a
problem with 130+ of them in this case) stitch the .rars together, and decode
the whole thing.

MacPAR deLuxe does the same thing for Macs, but it's cheaper and easier to
handle. WinRAR is faster on the same hardware (20" iMac 2.66 Core 2 Duo, in
my case) and can decode some things that MacPAR chokes on, but the latest
version of MacPAR is about 15% faster than the version it replaced and hasn't
yet choked on any files I've fed it.

Both of 'em also do other types of compressed/encoded files, including .zip
and relatives. MacPAR handles more types than WinRAR does, but WinRAR will
sometimes decode a .rar or .zip (the most common types) that MacPAR choked
on. As noted above, the new version of MacPAR seems to have fixed that.

I have had to send several CDs worth of data to someone whose email won't
take files larger than 5MB at a time. The only practical solution was to zip
the files up into a single giant .zip file, then break it down into multiple
4MB .rars and .pars and email 'em out. Took forever, but they don't have
broadband and are highly unlikely to ever get broadband, so most methods of
sending large files simply wouldn't work.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:46:05 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>"ABLE_1" > wrote in message
. ..
>> With all these possible beautiful pictures being posted for the elite.
>> It would be nice to at least throw a bone or two to those of us that are
>> poor.
>> It would be the polite, respectful and kind thing to do.
>>
>> To do otherwise is spiteful.
>
>They're not for the "elite"; all you need to decode them is save the
>attachments to a file and them highlight them and then combine them using
>something like WinRar. Quite easy really.
>
>I only have two complaints -
>
>1 It's not "pictures" that are being posted, so additional software (even
>something as simple as WinRar) is needed, with no explanation of how to open
>the posts.
>
>2 There's so many of them. J3 said he was posting something like 5Gb -
>too much.

There is no such thing as too much.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Never dive into deep concrete.

[Casey Tompkins]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:


>To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>.rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>I'd be interested to know if something has changed.


No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."

I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
one big puppy.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>
>
>>To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>.rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>
>
>No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>
>I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>one big puppy.

I was missing 15 parts. Quickpar ran through it and recreated those
parts using the pars. It did NOT create a huge rar file.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Reboot - to kick a computer in such a way that it turns off and then on again.

[hielan' laddie]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:47:16 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
(in article >):

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>> but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>> QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>> .rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>> I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>>
>>
>> No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>> one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>> d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>>
>> I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>> one big puppy.
>
> I was missing 15 parts. Quickpar ran through it and recreated those
> parts using the pars. It did NOT create a huge rar file.
>

I may have caused confusion when I said 'stitch together' the .rars. WinRAR
doesn't generate a single huge .rar, it just uses the .par info to replace
the bad/missing .rars and then decodes the whole thing.

I don't see what the moaning and groaning is about. I set a filter in my
newsreader which would look for binary data in any post with 'NASA Shuttle
Pics' in it, download that binary data to a folder named 'NASA Shuttle Pics',
and delete the post when done. I checked the folder periodically until I saw
a bunch of .pars in there, then I double-clicked on one of them and MacPAR
deLuxe launched, verified the .pars, assembled the .rars, fixed a few
corrupt/missing .rars, verified the .rars, and decoded the result. I've spent
more time typing up this post to this point than I did to download the Very
Large Number of excellent quality pix. (Thanks, J3, and ignore the
nay-sayers. They have no clue what they're talking about.)

IMHO a proper newsreader does proper filtering; Hogwasher, the newsreader I
use on Macs, for example can filter on _any_ header, can filter for binaries
or text, can generate a folder, save binaries (or text) to that folder, and
do various other things. (This includes tagging the posts of people I
particularly want to read, or _don't_ want to read, with colour, so I can be
sure to read 'em or avoid 'em as necessary. It includes outright killing of
posts, and of course it includes saving a copy of a post, headers and all, to
disk. That last can be very useful when some bozo denies that he said
something...) There are lots of other newsreaders which have equal or better
filtering, for both Mac and Windows. (Sorry, don't know Linux. Tuxers will
have to find such newsreaders for themselves.)

If I had decided that I didn't what to download the pix, I'd simply not have
bothered with the filter. If the sight of .rars in the pristine confines of
a.b.p.a so upset me that I couldn't stand it, setting up a kill filter would
have been even easier than setting up a save filter.

A proper newsreader will read/write common formats used on usenet... which
includes YENC.

There are a rather large number of proper newsreaders which are free or
cheap. Those who, for whatever reason, decline to use a proper newsreader and
who then complain about something which would be cured if they had a proper
newsreader will get no sympathy from me.

Having got the files on disk, WinRAR or QuickPAR or MacPAR deLuxe or any of
several other apps would have decoded it by my simply double-clicking one of
the .pars.

[Bo[_2_]]

You guys have too much time on your hands! Lets get real here.. Most of us
like Outlook Express and don't care or have the time for the detailed,
special doodahs.
"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:47:16 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>>> but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>>> QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>>> .rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>>> I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>>> one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>>> d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>>>
>>> I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>>> one big puppy.
>>
>> I was missing 15 parts. Quickpar ran through it and recreated those
>> parts using the pars. It did NOT create a huge rar file.
>>
>
> I may have caused confusion when I said 'stitch together' the .rars.
> WinRAR
> doesn't generate a single huge .rar, it just uses the .par info to replace
> the bad/missing .rars and then decodes the whole thing.
>
> I don't see what the moaning and groaning is about. I set a filter in my
> newsreader which would look for binary data in any post with 'NASA Shuttle
> Pics' in it, download that binary data to a folder named 'NASA Shuttle
> Pics',
> and delete the post when done. I checked the folder periodically until I
> saw
> a bunch of .pars in there, then I double-clicked on one of them and MacPAR
> deLuxe launched, verified the .pars, assembled the .rars, fixed a few
> corrupt/missing .rars, verified the .rars, and decoded the result. I've
> spent
> more time typing up this post to this point than I did to download the
> Very
> Large Number of excellent quality pix. (Thanks, J3, and ignore the
> nay-sayers. They have no clue what they're talking about.)
>
> IMHO a proper newsreader does proper filtering; Hogwasher, the newsreader
> I
> use on Macs, for example can filter on _any_ header, can filter for
> binaries
> or text, can generate a folder, save binaries (or text) to that folder,
> and
> do various other things. (This includes tagging the posts of people I
> particularly want to read, or _don't_ want to read, with colour, so I can
> be
> sure to read 'em or avoid 'em as necessary. It includes outright killing
> of
> posts, and of course it includes saving a copy of a post, headers and all,
> to
> disk. That last can be very useful when some bozo denies that he said
> something...) There are lots of other newsreaders which have equal or
> better
> filtering, for both Mac and Windows. (Sorry, don't know Linux. Tuxers will
> have to find such newsreaders for themselves.)
>
> If I had decided that I didn't what to download the pix, I'd simply not
> have
> bothered with the filter. If the sight of .rars in the pristine confines
> of
> a.b.p.a so upset me that I couldn't stand it, setting up a kill filter
> would
> have been even easier than setting up a save filter.
>
> A proper newsreader will read/write common formats used on usenet... which
> includes YENC.
>
> There are a rather large number of proper newsreaders which are free or
> cheap. Those who, for whatever reason, decline to use a proper newsreader
> and
> who then complain about something which would be cured if they had a
> proper
> newsreader will get no sympathy from me.
>
> Having got the files on disk, WinRAR or QuickPAR or MacPAR deLuxe or any
> of
> several other apps would have decoded it by my simply double-clicking one
> of
> the .pars.
>

[hielan' laddie]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:27:55 -0400, Bo wrote
(in article >):

> You guys have too much time on your hands! Lets get real here.. Most of us
> like Outlook Express and don't care or have the time for the detailed,
> special doodahs.

Cool. By all means use the newsreader you like to use.

But then don't complain when others use features of proper newsreaders which
you don't have because you elected to use a crippled newsreader.

> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:47:16 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>>>> but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>>>> QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>>>> .rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>>>> I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>>>> one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>>>> d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>>>>
>>>> I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>>>> one big puppy.
>>>
>>> I was missing 15 parts. Quickpar ran through it and recreated those
>>> parts using the pars. It did NOT create a huge rar file.
>>>
>>
>> I may have caused confusion when I said 'stitch together' the .rars.
>> WinRAR
>> doesn't generate a single huge .rar, it just uses the .par info to replace
>> the bad/missing .rars and then decodes the whole thing.
>>
>> I don't see what the moaning and groaning is about. I set a filter in my
>> newsreader which would look for binary data in any post with 'NASA Shuttle
>> Pics' in it, download that binary data to a folder named 'NASA Shuttle
>> Pics',
>> and delete the post when done. I checked the folder periodically until I
>> saw
>> a bunch of .pars in there, then I double-clicked on one of them and MacPAR
>> deLuxe launched, verified the .pars, assembled the .rars, fixed a few
>> corrupt/missing .rars, verified the .rars, and decoded the result. I've
>> spent
>> more time typing up this post to this point than I did to download the
>> Very
>> Large Number of excellent quality pix. (Thanks, J3, and ignore the
>> nay-sayers. They have no clue what they're talking about.)
>>
>> IMHO a proper newsreader does proper filtering; Hogwasher, the newsreader
>> I
>> use on Macs, for example can filter on _any_ header, can filter for
>> binaries
>> or text, can generate a folder, save binaries (or text) to that folder,
>> and
>> do various other things. (This includes tagging the posts of people I
>> particularly want to read, or _don't_ want to read, with colour, so I can
>> be
>> sure to read 'em or avoid 'em as necessary. It includes outright killing
>> of
>> posts, and of course it includes saving a copy of a post, headers and all,
>> to
>> disk. That last can be very useful when some bozo denies that he said
>> something...) There are lots of other newsreaders which have equal or
>> better
>> filtering, for both Mac and Windows. (Sorry, don't know Linux. Tuxers will
>> have to find such newsreaders for themselves.)
>>
>> If I had decided that I didn't what to download the pix, I'd simply not
>> have
>> bothered with the filter. If the sight of .rars in the pristine confines
>> of
>> a.b.p.a so upset me that I couldn't stand it, setting up a kill filter
>> would
>> have been even easier than setting up a save filter.
>>
>> A proper newsreader will read/write common formats used on usenet... which
>> includes YENC.
>>
>> There are a rather large number of proper newsreaders which are free or
>> cheap. Those who, for whatever reason, decline to use a proper newsreader
>> and
>> who then complain about something which would be cured if they had a
>> proper
>> newsreader will get no sympathy from me.
>>
>> Having got the files on disk, WinRAR or QuickPAR or MacPAR deLuxe or any
>> of
>> several other apps would have decoded it by my simply double-clicking one
>> of
>> the .pars.
>>
>
>

[Lee[_2_]]

hielan' laddie > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:27:55 -0400, Bo wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> You guys have too much time on your hands! Lets get real here..
>> Most of us like Outlook Express and don't care or have the time for
>> the detailed, special doodahs.
>
> Cool. By all means use the newsreader you like to use.
>
> But then don't complain when others use features of proper newsreaders
> which you don't have because you elected to use a crippled newsreader.
>


Amen, Amen, Amen. You go, bro!

Anyone who uses Outlook Express to do just about anything is
just begging for trouble.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:26:43 -0400, hielan' laddie
> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:47:16 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>>> but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>>> QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>>> .rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>>> I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>>> one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>>> d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>>>
>>> I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>>> one big puppy.
>>
>> I was missing 15 parts. Quickpar ran through it and recreated those
>> parts using the pars. It did NOT create a huge rar file.
>>
>
>I may have caused confusion when I said 'stitch together' the .rars. WinRAR
>doesn't generate a single huge .rar, it just uses the .par info to replace
>the bad/missing .rars and then decodes the whole thing.
>
>I don't see what the moaning and groaning is about. I set a filter in my
>newsreader which would look for binary data in any post with 'NASA Shuttle
>Pics' in it, download that binary data to a folder named 'NASA Shuttle Pics',
>and delete the post when done. I checked the folder periodically until I saw
>a bunch of .pars in there, then I double-clicked on one of them and MacPAR
>deLuxe launched, verified the .pars, assembled the .rars, fixed a few
>corrupt/missing .rars, verified the .rars, and decoded the result. I've spent
>more time typing up this post to this point than I did to download the Very
>Large Number of excellent quality pix. (Thanks, J3, and ignore the
>nay-sayers. They have no clue what they're talking about.)
>
>IMHO a proper newsreader does proper filtering; Hogwasher, the newsreader I
>use on Macs, for example can filter on _any_ header, can filter for binaries
>or text, can generate a folder, save binaries (or text) to that folder, and
>do various other things

Can it filter on body? That's something I've only seen Opera do,
which is very useful.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

__NNNNL_.
JNNNNNNNNNNN.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNN)
JNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN)
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN)
NNNN""NNNNF"4NNN)
(NN NN) (NN
4N. .NNL JN`
NNNNNN(NNNNN)
NNNNN (NNNN)
"NNNNNNF`
N.NNNN`N`
(NL___NN
_. `NNNNF
(NNN. `NN` JNN
(NNNNL .NNNN
.NNNNNNNNL. .JNNNNNNL
`NN" `"NNNNNL.JNNNN"` 4NN
`4NNNNN"
.JNNNNNNN.
.NNNN" `NNNNL
_NNNNNNN" `NNNNNNL.
(NNNNNNF `NNNNNN
4NNNNN (NNF"
`" ``

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:41:06 -0700, Hap > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
> wrote:
>:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>>but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>>QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>>.rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>>I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>>
>>
>>No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>>one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>>d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>>
>You're right of course thanks for taking time to make the correction
>and apologies for the error.
>
>In fact I took a look at the web site to see what the latest is and it
>says WinRAR now "supports files and archives up to 8,589 billion
>gigabytes in size". Obviously that's a little big for obf on any
>system. Thanks again.

If only all programs looked that far in advance.

>>I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>>one big puppy.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

To confirm the discontinuation of stopping the startup, click cancel.

[hielan' laddie]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:02 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
(in article >):

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:26:43 -0400, hielan' laddie
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:47:16 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>>>> but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>>>> QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>>>> .rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>>>> I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>>>> one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>>>> d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>>>>
>>>> I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>>>> one big puppy.
>>>
>>> I was missing 15 parts. Quickpar ran through it and recreated those
>>> parts using the pars. It did NOT create a huge rar file.
>>>
>>
>> I may have caused confusion when I said 'stitch together' the .rars. WinRAR
>> doesn't generate a single huge .rar, it just uses the .par info to replace
>> the bad/missing .rars and then decodes the whole thing.
>>
>> I don't see what the moaning and groaning is about. I set a filter in my
>> newsreader which would look for binary data in any post with 'NASA Shuttle
>> Pics' in it, download that binary data to a folder named 'NASA Shuttle
>> Pics',
>> and delete the post when done. I checked the folder periodically until I
>> saw
>> a bunch of .pars in there, then I double-clicked on one of them and MacPAR
>> deLuxe launched, verified the .pars, assembled the .rars, fixed a few
>> corrupt/missing .rars, verified the .rars, and decoded the result. I've
>> spent
>> more time typing up this post to this point than I did to download the Very
>> Large Number of excellent quality pix. (Thanks, J3, and ignore the
>> nay-sayers. They have no clue what they're talking about.)
>>
>> IMHO a proper newsreader does proper filtering; Hogwasher, the newsreader I
>> use on Macs, for example can filter on _any_ header, can filter for
>> binaries
>> or text, can generate a folder, save binaries (or text) to that folder, and
>> do various other things
>
> Can it filter on body? That's something I've only seen Opera do,
> which is very useful.
>

Yep. It can filter on _anything_. And the filters can be as complex or as
simple as you like. The Hog isn't even the best at filtering; MT-Newswatcher,
on Mac, has better filters, and Agent, on Windows, has at least as good,
better in some ways. (Free Agent is deliberately crippled. If you want the
full abilities, you have to give Forte money. But it's not much money.) The
Hog does well enough for most purposes. If I want _serious_ filtering, I dig
out MTNW or Agent.

Allegedly Thoth, another Mac newsreader, has even better filters than MTNW,
but using Thoth means dealing with Brian Clarke and hell will freeze over
before I give that scumbag one penny. I'll use MSOE before I'll use Thoth...
and there's no way that I'll use MSOE.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:16:24 -0400, hielan' laddie
> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:02 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:26:43 -0400, hielan' laddie
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:47:16 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:43:29 GMT, Casey Tompkins
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:31:49 -0700, Hap > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> To clarify authenticity and recovery options are available in WinRAR
>>>>>> but TMK it isn't able to make use of .par2 files. A person would want
>>>>>> QuickPar to first rejoin the .rar volumes back to a single 4.7GB (!!)
>>>>>> .rar, and then use WinRAR or it's equivalent to unpack the archive.
>>>>>> I'd be interested to know if something has changed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you don't need the .par files, nor do you need to rebuild it into
>>>>> one giant .RAR files. Just (assuming you want to burn the bandwidth)
>>>>> d/l all the parts, right-click on part1, and select "Extract files."
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that more than one .RAR would have been more workable. That's
>>>>> one big puppy.
>>>>
>>>> I was missing 15 parts. Quickpar ran through it and recreated those
>>>> parts using the pars. It did NOT create a huge rar file.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I may have caused confusion when I said 'stitch together' the .rars. WinRAR
>>> doesn't generate a single huge .rar, it just uses the .par info to replace
>>> the bad/missing .rars and then decodes the whole thing.
>>>
>>> I don't see what the moaning and groaning is about. I set a filter in my
>>> newsreader which would look for binary data in any post with 'NASA Shuttle
>>> Pics' in it, download that binary data to a folder named 'NASA Shuttle
>>> Pics',
>>> and delete the post when done. I checked the folder periodically until I
>>> saw
>>> a bunch of .pars in there, then I double-clicked on one of them and MacPAR
>>> deLuxe launched, verified the .pars, assembled the .rars, fixed a few
>>> corrupt/missing .rars, verified the .rars, and decoded the result. I've
>>> spent
>>> more time typing up this post to this point than I did to download the Very
>>> Large Number of excellent quality pix. (Thanks, J3, and ignore the
>>> nay-sayers. They have no clue what they're talking about.)
>>>
>>> IMHO a proper newsreader does proper filtering; Hogwasher, the newsreader I
>>> use on Macs, for example can filter on _any_ header, can filter for
>>> binaries
>>> or text, can generate a folder, save binaries (or text) to that folder, and
>>> do various other things
>>
>> Can it filter on body? That's something I've only seen Opera do,
>> which is very useful.
>>
>
>Yep. It can filter on _anything_. And the filters can be as complex or as
>simple as you like. The Hog isn't even the best at filtering; MT-Newswatcher,
>on Mac, has better filters, and Agent, on Windows, has at least as good,
>better in some ways. (Free Agent is deliberately crippled. If you want the
>full abilities, you have to give Forte money. But it's not much money.) The
>Hog does well enough for most purposes. If I want _serious_ filtering, I dig
>out MTNW or Agent.
>
>Allegedly Thoth, another Mac newsreader, has even better filters than MTNW,
>but using Thoth means dealing with Brian Clarke and hell will freeze over
>before I give that scumbag one penny. I'll use MSOE before I'll use Thoth...
>and there's no way that I'll use MSOE.

I don't filter that much, but I ahve a few useful ones. Opera allows
filtering on body. Agent does regular expressions. Although I have
never understood regular expressions.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Women do not snore, burp, sweat, or fart.
Therefore, they must "bitch" or they will blow up.