 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Want to buy camera guy with firepay account.
I am having soune funds transfered to firepay and was wondering if anyone knew of any sites that sell gear that accept firepay or anyone know of anyone that accepts firepay. This had a bad topic can it get deleted, thanks lund...@gmail.com wrote: > I am having soune funds transfered to firepay and was wondering if > anyone knew of any sites that sell gear that accept firepay or anyone > know of anyone that accepts firepay. > This had a bad topic can it get deleted, thanks You are the only one who can delete it. >> This had a bad topic can it get deleted, thanks > > You are the only one who can delete it. Even he can't delete it. Cancels haven't worked for years.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > >> This had a bad topic can it get deleted, thanks > > > > You are the only one who can delete it. > > Even he can't delete it. Cancels haven't worked for years. Holy cow - Jeremy? Sheesh, haven't seen your name for ages (ever since I abandoned nana.* to the trolls, flamers, and GruBoursey elements). =:^) How the hell are you? > Holy cow - Jeremy? Sheesh, haven't seen your name for ages (ever since > I abandoned nana.* to the trolls, flamers, and GruBoursey elements). > =:^) > > How the hell are you? Not bad! I abandoned that scene, too. I figure we had the right -- we won the War on Spam, so we got to go home. :) I hang around here, though. Funny who pops up when you least expect it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I hang around here, though. Funny who pops up when you least expect it. Hi, Ken. (Jeremy suggested looking for information here so this is not a surprise for him). My digital is a Nikon D50, lenses 50mm f/1.8, 105mm VR macro, and a 18-70 DX zoom. My film cameras are a screwmount Leica and a Minolta Autocord. IRS Agent is one of the models for a character in my next novel (out from Harper Collins in February 2007), so at least I got something from all that. >> I hang around here, though. Funny who pops up when you least expect it. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from Harper Collins in February 2007), so at least I got something from > all that. Did this particular IRS Agent come from combining Canon and Nikon monikers for image stabilization? SignatureJohn McWilliams > > IRS Agent is one of the models for a character in my next novel (out > > from Harper Collins in February 2007), so at least I got something from > > all that. > > Did this particular IRS Agent come from combining Canon and Nikon > monikers for image stabilization? No. He would be VIRS Agent in that case. > > Holy cow - Jeremy? Sheesh, haven't seen your name for ages (ever since > > I abandoned nana.* to the trolls, flamers, and GruBoursey elements). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not bad! I abandoned that scene, too. I figure we had the right -- we > won the War on Spam, so we got to go home. :) For usenet. In the big-8. If you call it winning. Kinda pyrrhic victory, if you ask me :^( alt.*'s still a mess, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to do any more despamming at present, nor, as you point out, does it do much good, as 95+% of the servers don't honor cancels anymore. > I hang around here, though. Funny who pops up when you least expect it. No kidding. So, what're you shootin' with? What part of the country you hangin' out in these days? > For usenet. In the big-8. If you call it winning. Kinda pyrrhic > victory, if you ask me :^( Spam is no longer a problem. I call that a victory, yes. It's funny -- now I periodically see people talking about blog comment spam, which is the next big thing. They're having the same arguments and making the same mistakes we made ten years ago. It's like watching a replay reel. Now someone is even spamming blogs with an old Dave Hayes essay ("becoming what you oppose"). Those who cannot learn from history, and all that. Blogs, though, are just a poor re-invention of Usenet, so I guess it's to be expected. > alt.*'s still a mess, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to > do any more despamming at present, nor, as you point out, does it do > much good, as 95+% of the servers don't honor cancels anymore. No need. You could always try reading at Supernews, where alt is far from being a mess. :) >> I hang around here, though. Funny who pops up when you least expect it. > > No kidding. So, what're you shootin' with? What part of the country > you hangin' out in these days? Nikon D2x. New Jersey, as ever. You? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>This had a bad topic can it get deleted, thanks >> >>You are the only one who can delete it. > > Even he can't delete it. Cancels haven't worked for years. I've used them recently and they do indeed work on my ISP. That is not to say that the subject entry will be cancelled on machines to which it has propagated. If you cancel within a few minutes of the post, it likely won't get to very many other servers. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Even he can't delete it. Cancels haven't worked for years. > > I've used them recently and they do indeed work on my ISP. That is not > to say that the subject entry will be cancelled on machines to which it > has propagated. If you cancel within a few minutes of the post, it > likely won't get to very many other servers. Median propagation time to major Usenet servers these days tends to be on the order of seconds, not minutes. ("Remember when Usenet was store-and-forward?") SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>Even he can't delete it. Cancels haven't worked for years. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Median propagation time to major Usenet servers these days tends to be > on the order of seconds, not minutes. In my ISP's case, posts can take anywhere from seconds to hours to be propagated (this is the largest ISP provider in Quebec with well over half a million cable-modem subscribers). As many ISP's, including mine, despise usenet, they are not anxious to improve it in anyway. Mine does not add new NG's, for example. So what if a header propagates. If the post is deleted on the posters ISP then all that remains is the header. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > So what if a header propagates. If the post is deleted on the posters > ISP then all that remains is the header. No, that's not how it works. The entire post is replicated. As soon as it leaves your server, it's in the wild, and there's nothing you can do to take it back. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>So what if a header propagates. If the post is deleted on the posters >>ISP then all that remains is the header. > > No, that's not how it works. The entire post is replicated. As soon as > it leaves your server, it's in the wild, and there's nothing you can do > to take it back. Nope. Nothing prevents another server from copying it and reposting it (a la Giganews), but most posts stay on their home server until read. The header does get around. Read the header for this post. It comes from the Polish server where this is posted when you read it. When that server is down (from time to time it is) you can't get at the post even if you have the header. Read my rpe.35mm posts, and they come from the Vidoetron server when you read it. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >>So what if a header propagates. If the post is deleted on the posters > >>ISP then all that remains is the header. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Read my rpe.35mm posts, and they come from the Vidoetron server when you > read it. Alan, you don't know what you're talking about and are making an a.s of yourself. Servers store locally. Anyone who's ever run a news server has a good idea of what's available even if the server is transitorily off line. When I ran a small hobby server, I could read from my own spool, grep for articles on my own spool, and they were stored locally whereever they'd originated. I ran INN. There is one system, DNews, that has local groups but doesn't call for the headers and bodies until someone attempts to access the group. It's considered a fairly unorthodox news system. People who use DNews don't peer with more than one other server. The majority of servers exchange whole message bodies between a range of servers. Even some small hobby sites may have up to five peers (and the first thing exchanged between servers is a message id). First server to offer a unique message ID sends the article. You're wrong in general, but might be right for a small DNews system, though I suspect in those cases, the DNews server isn't getting them from the initial server but from an immediate upstream server which is running more conventional software. Jeremy, you want to tell him more? <snipped> > You're wrong in general, but might be right for a small DNews system, > though I suspect in those cases, the DNews server isn't getting them > from the initial server but from an immediate upstream server which is > running more conventional software. > > Jeremy, you want to tell him more? I may indeed be wrong on this, but it does not explain why, when the gazeta server is down why I can see its headers on other servers but not access the post. It further does not make sense bandwidth wise to operate that way. Header propagation with a link to the OP server is a no brainer right way to operate. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > <snipped> > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gazeta server is down why I can see its headers on other servers but not > access the post. Gazeta may be running DNews and this may be how DNew propagates articles. It's not the customary way that most news servers propagate articles in my experience. > It further does not make sense bandwidth wise to operate that way. > Header propagation with a link to the OP server is a no brainer right > way to operate. Um, no. This requires the server or server system to be up all the time. Servers can send articles out and go off line. In fact, some news readers even work this way. Bandwidth between peers is generally less costly than having your users use bandwidth out to retrieve articles individually unless you don't have many usenet users. The general system works exactly as Jeremy described it. There's a header in your article (and all articles) that shows the path the article took to get from the originating server to the server you're reading on. Path: nwrddc01.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net! gnilink.net!news.glorb.com!feed.xsnet Path: nwrddc02.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net! gnilink.net!news.glorb.com!postnews. All the gnilink servers are legacy servers inside Verizon's news system (I think I'm reading off the DC reader server). Glorb peers with xsnet and has its own users posting also. This means that one server that has popular articles on it doesn't get hammered but that the load is distributed. Even web sites can use Akamai for a similar effect -- and some ISPs use caches so that they can provide local copies of web sites. > Path: > nwrdny02.gnilink.net!cycny02.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!cycny01.gnilink.net!bigfe > ed3.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nnt > p.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!ne > ws.nask.pl!news.nask.org.pl!newsfeed.pionier.net.pl!newsfeed.gazeta.pl!news.ga > zeta.pl!not-for-mail That's all the machines that passed your message between gazeta.pl and the NYC server I read it on (Verizon does load balancing so sometimes I'm reading off the NYC server and sometimes off the DC server, depending on how to best balance the user demands out of Philadelphia). Each machine that accepts and passes the message adds its identifier onto the path header. >>Path: >>nwrdny02.gnilink.net!cycny02.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!cycny01.gnilink.net!bigfe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Each machine that accepts and passes the message adds its identifier > onto the path header. That's routing, not storage. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > Each machine that accepts and passes the message adds its identifier > > onto the path header. > > That's routing, not storage. When have you actually run a news server? You're arguing with with a pro and an amateur who peered with him. Transit servers do handle articles differently than reader machines -- but they're a dedicated breed of cat. I'd suggest that you download the INN source and read the documentation. > I may indeed be wrong on this, but it does not explain why, when the > gazeta server is down why I can see its headers on other servers but not > access the post. No, it doesn't explain that, but I'm not sure what would; Usenet has simply never worked that way. Your original posting server has nothing whatever to do with the process of me reading your post. When you post to your news server, within seconds (normally, unless it's a very small server) it has sent your post -- in its entirety -- to all of its peer sites. It is replicated with a flood-fill algorithm. There isn't any such thing as a separation between "headers" and "body"; a post is just a post. > It further does not make sense bandwidth wise to operate that way. > Header propagation with a link to the OP server is a no brainer right > way to operate. Except that it's not, and Usenet hasn't ever worked that way. Can you imagine Usenet relying on everyone's posting server being up and running, forever, just so people can read a newsgroup? Or the load on your server if it happens to be small but you post to a popular newsgroup and thousands of people try to read it all at the same time? Usenet is not the web, and that's a feature, not a bug. It's completely decentralized, even with regard to any given person's posts. Your posts exist on my server, and mine on yours, or we wouldn't see them at all. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>I may indeed be wrong on this, but it does not explain why, when the >>gazeta server is down why I can see its headers on other servers but not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > decentralized, even with regard to any given person's posts. Your posts > exist on my server, and mine on yours, or we wouldn't see them at all. What you suggest is much worse. It implies that all the binary posts (which are becoming GB level and greater) are sent all over the internet to thousands of servers to be stored. This makes very little sense where a header (essentially a pointer) is most economically stored on all of the servers. Posts on the originating server are not expected to be there forever, but for a reasonable amount of time (weeks). Specialty servers like Giganews are pay for storage to keep things accessible for longer periods. Likewise Google. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> I may indeed be wrong on this, but it does not explain why, when the >>> gazeta server is down why I can see its headers on other servers but [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > (which are becoming GB level and greater) are sent all over the internet > to thousands of servers to be stored. So? Maybe that's why not all news servers carry binaries? > This makes very little sense > where a header (essentially a pointer) is most economically stored on > all of the servers. It's economy versus availability, availability wins here. > Posts on the originating server are not expected to > be there forever, but for a reasonable amount of time (weeks). Same with the rest of the servers. > Specialty servers like Giganews are pay for storage to keep things > accessible for longer periods. Likewise Google. Google doesn't keep binaries accessible if you hadn't noticed. From Giganews: "With the world's longest newsgroup binary retention of 90 days and text retention of 1216 days, you'll get all the articles you're looking for without having to camp out in your favorite groups." Why would they bother with retention periods if the post was available from another to server to a Giganews client? Also from Giganews: "This extensive network of Usenet peering relationships is also what allows us to push your posts out to Usenet servers around the world." It says posts, doesn't say anything about headers. You're not going to continue pursuing this argument, are you? Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>> I may indeed be wrong on this, but it does not explain why, when the >>>> gazeta server is down why I can see its headers on other servers but [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Google doesn't keep binaries accessible if you hadn't noticed. I didn't mean to imply that, just that there are a very few services that keep posts long term. > From Giganews: "With the world's longest newsgroup binary retention of > 90 days and text retention of 1216 days, you'll get all the articles > you're looking for without having to camp out in your favorite groups." > Why would they bother with retention periods if the post was available > from another to server to a Giganews client? Giganews is a different case than the typical ISP newsserver. Giganews (in exchange for money) keep posts for a longer period than most ISP newsservers will keep them. It's a revenue service (and at that articles expire there too, in time). There purpose is to allow more time to get at more data. > Also from Giganews: "This extensive network of Usenet peering > relationships is also what allows us to push your posts out to Usenet > servers around the world." It says posts, doesn't say anything about > headers. That's what gets posts originating at GN out. It could just be simplifying the text for ease of understanding while obfuscating the method. Much like a directory listing on a computer is not listing the files, just the titles and some detail while hiding the links and the actual file. > You're not going to continue pursuing this argument, are you? I haven't seen anything but opinions to date. Several years ago I was told by an admin of a major usenet provider that it works as I say. I've seen nothing to show that it is otherwise or has changed (other than the opinions of a few people here). Again, consider somebody posting a 2 hour video at fairly high res. The bandwidth to get it to every news server in the world and the storage required is beyond reasonable ... whereas storing pointers (headers) is trivial in comparison. And if the odd server is offline for a while, so what? Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> From Giganews: "With the world's longest newsgroup binary retention >> of 90 days and text retention of 1216 days, you'll get all the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > articles expire there too, in time). There purpose is to allow more > time to get at more data. It IS just another news server. They're a commercial service so to differentiate themselves from low end news servers at ISPs they provide better value. They probably also farm out their services to ISPs that don't want to maintain their own servers. I know Supernews provides Usenet access for my ISP. >> You're not going to continue pursuing this argument, are you? I see in your more recent post that you found some documentation supporting Jeremy's real life experience with Usenet so it looks like this subthread is done. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > I haven't seen anything but opinions to date. Several years ago I was > told by an admin of a major usenet provider that it works as I say. > I've seen nothing to show that it is otherwise or has changed (other > than the opinions of a few people here). I will ignore you in the future when you have anything to say about cameras, thanks. There are reasons that people like Jeremy might not want to post that they are news administrators. I suspect that someone blew you off by agreeing with you rather than get into a wrangle with you about how Usenet should work. > What you suggest is much worse. It implies that all the binary posts > (which are becoming GB level and greater) are sent all over the internet > to thousands of servers to be stored. I'm not implying it; I'm saying that is exactly how it works. All of the posts, including binaries, are replicated from one server to another. And the binaries are well into the TB/day range now. > This makes very little sense where a header (essentially a pointer) is > most economically stored on all of the servers. Posts on the > originating server are not expected to be there forever, but for a > reasonable amount of time (weeks). What you're essentially describing is called "the web", and it exists. That is not, however, how Usenet works, nor how it has ever worked. Yes, the full (including binaries) Usenet feed is pretty big, but that's how it works. I've been running news servers for quite a while now. Trust me. :) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>What you suggest is much worse. It implies that all the binary posts >>(which are becoming GB level and greater) are sent all over the internet [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I've been running news servers for quite a while now. Trust me. :) Okay, I just found an article that explains it, and you are right and I am wrong. However the same article also states that the system is monstrously inefficient for the reasons I mention esp. with todays highspeed networks and server reliability. I suppose it is "too late" to re-engineer it to work properly. While having an article replicated at several sites (redundancy, geographic distribution) makes sense, having like articles on *every* server (thousands) in the world is blatently innefficient. It is probably a key reason why my ISP does not carry this newsgroup. (It carries most of the rec.photo.* but not the newest ones. If it were just storing headers/pointers then the retention period would be much longer as only originating posts would be kept at most servers. It is a testament to cheap memory (disks) and servers that this occurs today, yet, for my ISP (and many others) it is a reason to stop adding NGs. Proof that the current system is past due for a re-structuring. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I suppose it is "too late" to re-engineer it to work properly. While > having an article replicated at several sites (redundancy, geographic > distribution) makes sense, having like articles on *every* server > (thousands) in the world is blatently innefficient. Every so often, someone comes along and makes this argument. It's been made for years, since way back when you really could run Usenet on a single PC. The thing is, it really wouldn't be better to have it work that way; it would just be the web. > It is probably a key reason why my ISP does not carry this newsgroup. > (It carries most of the rec.photo.* but not the newest ones. No, that is not the reason. This group is tiny. The reason is because this is a new group, and they're not paying attention, and they don't care. Most ISP servers these days are basically on autopilot, and whoever is responsible for them doesn't even really know what Usenet is, and certainly doesn't use it. It's a sad fact that Usenet isn't sexy enough to get a lot of attention any more; we don't have a buzzword like the idiotic "Web 2.0". > If it were just storing headers/pointers then the retention period would > be much longer as only originating posts would be kept at most servers. Except that the whole thing would fall apart very quickly. Also, the retention period for a group like this can be stupidly long without taking up much space at all; it just doesn't matter. > It is a testament to cheap memory (disks) and servers that this occurs > today, yet, for my ISP (and many others) it is a reason to stop adding > NGs. Proof that the current system is past due for a re-structuring. Storage and bandwidth don't even enter into the reason they don't carry this newsgroup or add other new ones. Usenet needs better marketing, that's all. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I've been running news servers for quite a while now. Trust me. :) I wasn't going to out you. (I peered with Jeremy's employers). > What you suggest is much worse. It implies that all the binary posts > (which are becoming GB level and greater) are sent all over the internet [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Specialty servers like Giganews are pay for storage to keep things > accessible for longer periods. Likewise Google. Dude, it make not make sense to you, but it is how things work. Different servers expire binaries at different rates (Verizon and my former employer, Netaxs, had binaries on short expire times; other Usenet servers do things to suit their customers). I wonder if your camera advice is better than your knowledge of how Usenet works. (I used to peer with some commercial Usenet providers when I ran a hobby server). Telling people who do know how the system works what you think about how it should work is getting tedious. > You're wrong in general, but might be right for a small DNews system, > though I suspect in those cases, the DNews server isn't getting them > from the initial server but from an immediate upstream server which is > running more conventional software. Yes, even with a DNews server, the post is coming from the master reader server; the original server it was posted to has nothing to do with it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.