Missing parts for NASA HiRes Shuttle Pics - NASA HiRes Shuttle Pics.part140.rar (01/35)

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:43:42 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

"Lee" wrote in message
. 0.93...

Without checking, I think it was Will Rogers who said, "Everyone is
ignorant about something." Welcome to splits, PARs and RARs.

Technology changes; the technology concerning the internet has changed
radically, with all sorts of different formats coming and going. Only a few
have stood the test of time - .rar and .par are only recent and are only
used to post large numbers of files in one piece.

No it isn't recent.

Oh, and I was one of the people who helped explain .rar to those on this
group who didn't know. So, what am I ignorant of?

One of the things that hasn't been mentioned is that there are different
.rar decompressors for different operating systems. That is not a problem
with conventional files like .jpg etc which are recognised by all current
operating systems.

So is rar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.rar explains the various
versions. Now, if it were that good, why don't all the OS companies simply
incorporate it into their software?

Because most people use zip. But it sux at multipart.

Just like with yEnc - welcome to the world of fad software.

No, it's niche software.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

What does a Scotsman wear under his kilt?
Lipstick, if he's lucky.

Alan Erskine wrote:
"Lee" wrote in message
.93...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in news:OJDpk.28882
:

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:
Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).


And I've known *many* folks with as high or higher IQ's than your
arbitrary
"everything's relative" quotient, who couldn't tie their own shoes...
junior. I've read many of your follow-up postings in this group. You
might consider a re-test. Just a suggestion, hon.

And for your information, there are different IQ tests; each with a
different rating (one one test, I might be 185; but on another I might be
137); the really significant value is the percentage - I'm in the 99th
percentile for my age group - that's the top 1 percent. People in that
range don't have trouble tying their own shoes. I doubt very strongly that
you know anyone in my range of IQ, let alone someone in that range who has
trouble with their shoe laces.


We also tend to be more modest than most people...

--
Moving things in still pictures!

"Alan Erskine" wrote in
news
"Lee" wrote in message
.93...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in news:OJDpk.28882
:

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature
IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17,
2001).



And I've known *many* folks with as high or higher IQ's than your
arbitrary
"everything's relative" quotient, who couldn't tie their own shoes...
junior. I've read many of your follow-up postings in this group.
You might consider a re-test. Just a suggestion, hon.

And for your information, there are different IQ tests; each with a
different rating (one one test, I might be 185; but on another I might
be 137); the really significant value is the percentage - I'm in the
99th percentile for my age group - that's the top 1 percent. People
in that range don't have trouble tying their own shoes. I doubt very
strongly that you know anyone in my range of IQ, let alone someone in
that range who has trouble with their shoe laces.



....But most have distinct difficulties in comprehension. Which you
unknowingly edified for all and articulated with the "different IQ
tests" statement AFTER I said ""everything's relative" quotient."

I've taken a plethora of these tests, the results of which you'd have to
look upward to see. But what they found was that I lack what you have
oceans of... hubris. And a genius as yourself is one of many whining
about having to deal with RARs? Hmmmmmm Edge-i-kate-ed idiots.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:51:41 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article ):

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:29:38 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote

Crippled newsreader, crippled newsfeed, delusions of power. Sucks to be
you.

How old are you?



Old enough to know how to get, and use, a real newsreader.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:41:16 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:17:58 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:13:24 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article ):

"J3" wrote in message
...


I do not intent on resizing them to accommodate anyone. I want my
images large and that is how I keep them

They are not your images.

They're public domain, paid for by taxpayer money.

American taxpayers (chortle)

Yep. Non-Yankees get 'em for free.


Your post has disrupted this group for five days.


He's posted excellent pix. Pity you can't see them, but that's _your_
choice
and _your_ problem. Get a better newsreader or set a killfilter. Your
choice.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:01:34 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article ):

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).



I doubt that very much. If you did, you'd not have made such a truly idiotic
post.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:20:47 -0400, Lee wrote
(in article ):

"Alan Erskine" wrote in news:OJDpk.28882
:

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).



And I've known *many* folks with as high or higher IQ's than your arbitrary
"everything's relative" quotient, who couldn't tie their own shoes...
junior.

I suspect that he _thinks_ (if what he does can be called thought...) that I
am considerably younger than I am. Clue for the clueless: I've been on USENET
since 1994, and before that I had spent years on various BBSes.

I've read many of your follow-up postings in this group. You
might consider a re-test. Just a suggestion, hon.

I doubt very much that he's ever had an IQ test.


Without checking, I think it was Will Rogers who said, "Everyone is
ignorant about something." Welcome to splits, PARs and RARs.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:56:48 -0400, Morgans wrote
(in article ):


"Wayne Paul" wrote

It is obvious that very few of you care whether I am here or not;

Not the case at all.

All they want is for you (and or others) to post within limitations that
allow non geek people to look at all of the pictures posted.

I believe that would be summarized by:

Not too many pictures per day. 40 has been suggested as a top number.

'Suggested' by you. Not out to control things, eh? Yeah. Right.


Post using formats that the newsreader used by the vast majority of reader
use. That would be jpegs, and OE, respectively.

So those who have real newsreaders must scale back to cater to those who
can't be arsed to get a real newsreader? Not bloody likely.

You have to remember that not everyone has the geek skills to do much more
than that, or the aptitude or desire to learn any higher geek skills.

Then bloody well killfilter the files you don't want to see. Don't tell
others that they can't post 'em.


Post in resolutions that require no more than (my arbitrary limit) of 250
KB. You have to remember that many people do not have broadband
connections, and are not able to, either by limitations of money or distance
from telephone switches for DSL or by the lack of cable systems in their
neighborhoods that offer cable modems.

Tough.


I hope you reconsider, and can continue within the limitations that many on
the group have expressed as deal killers for them.

hielan' laddie wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:56:48 -0400, Morgans wrote
(in article ):


"Wayne Paul" wrote


It is obvious that very few of you care whether I am here or not;

Not the case at all.

All they want is for you (and or others) to post within limitations that
allow non geek people to look at all of the pictures posted.

I believe that would be summarized by:

Not too many pictures per day. 40 has been suggested as a top number.


'Suggested' by you. Not out to control things, eh? Yeah. Right.


Post using formats that the newsreader used by the vast majority of reader
use. That would be jpegs, and OE, respectively.


So those who have real newsreaders must scale back to cater to those who
can't be arsed to get a real newsreader? Not bloody likely.


You have to remember that not everyone has the geek skills to do much more
than that, or the aptitude or desire to learn any higher geek skills.


Then bloody well killfilter the files you don't want to see. Don't tell
others that they can't post 'em.


Post in resolutions that require no more than (my arbitrary limit) of 250
KB. You have to remember that many people do not have broadband
connections, and are not able to, either by limitations of money or distance
from telephone switches for DSL or by the lack of cable systems in their
neighborhoods that offer cable modems.


Tough.


I hope you reconsider, and can continue within the limitations that many on
the group have expressed as deal killers for them.





Have another drink, your post show your soused.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:59:07 -0400, JRW wrote
(in article ):

hielan' laddie wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:56:48 -0400, Morgans wrote
(in article ):


"Wayne Paul" wrote


It is obvious that very few of you care whether I am here or not;

Not the case at all.

All they want is for you (and or others) to post within limitations that
allow non geek people to look at all of the pictures posted.

I believe that would be summarized by:

Not too many pictures per day. 40 has been suggested as a top number.


'Suggested' by you. Not out to control things, eh? Yeah. Right.


Post using formats that the newsreader used by the vast majority of reader
use. That would be jpegs, and OE, respectively.


So those who have real newsreaders must scale back to cater to those who
can't be arsed to get a real newsreader? Not bloody likely.


You have to remember that not everyone has the geek skills to do much more
than that, or the aptitude or desire to learn any higher geek skills.


Then bloody well killfilter the files you don't want to see. Don't tell
others that they can't post 'em.


Post in resolutions that require no more than (my arbitrary limit) of 250
KB. You have to remember that many people do not have broadband
connections, and are not able to, either by limitations of money or
distance
from telephone switches for DSL or by the lack of cable systems in their
neighborhoods that offer cable modems.


Tough.


I hope you reconsider, and can continue within the limitations that many
on
the group have expressed as deal killers for them.





Have another drink, your post show your soused.

Actually not.