Re: PIR interfering with wireless network

"Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:28:19 -0000, Les Cargill <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:14:08 -0000, Dave J. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 02 Feb 2009
>>>> 21:22:30
>>>> -0000, in comp.os.ms-windows.networking.misc, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What an idiot.
>>>>>> Not his fault if he can't spell RFC..
>>>>> Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
>>>> It's not a rule, it's a standard. There's no obligation to follow it,
>>>> it's
>>>> just there in case you want to cooperate with the majority.
>>>
>>> There are two standards.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> Here's old and weary standard RFC 977:
>>
>> "...Text is sent as a series of
>> successive lines of textual matter, each terminated with CR-LF pair."
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc977.html
>>
>> Section 2.4.1
>>
>> So if you expect people to see things in lines, you're on
>> the hook to add the carriage returns/line feeds. If you don't
>> some boogerhead might complain about it
>>
>> Debate-fun is what it is, but ... your position isn't
>> that tenable. "Be liberal in what you accept, and
>> conservative in what you send." - Jon Postrel,
>> RFC760/RFC1122 .
>>
>> (All this noise is simply here to inform, not to score
>> points or something. It should be merely interesting.)
>
> But there is also this (which ties in with the more advanced auto-wrapping
> capablities of every word processor):
> http://joeclark.org/ffaq.html
>


Usenet have nothing to do with a "word processor" ...

"Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:23:15 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:28:19 -0000, Les Cargill <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:14:08 -0000, Dave J. <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 02 Feb 2009
>>>>>> 21:22:30
>>>>>> -0000, in comp.os.ms-windows.networking.misc, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>> Not his fault if he can't spell RFC..
>>>>>>> Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
>>>>>> It's not a rule, it's a standard. There's no obligation to follow it,
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> just there in case you want to cooperate with the majority.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two standards.
>>>>
>>>> Not really.
>>>>
>>>> Here's old and weary standard RFC 977:
>>>>
>>>> "...Text is sent as a series of
>>>> successive lines of textual matter, each terminated with CR-LF pair."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc977.html
>>>>
>>>> Section 2.4.1
>>>>
>>>> So if you expect people to see things in lines, you're on
>>>> the hook to add the carriage returns/line feeds. If you don't
>>>> some boogerhead might complain about it
>>>>
>>>> Debate-fun is what it is, but ... your position isn't
>>>> that tenable. "Be liberal in what you accept, and
>>>> conservative in what you send." - Jon Postrel,
>>>> RFC760/RFC1122 .
>>>>
>>>> (All this noise is simply here to inform, not to score
>>>> points or something. It should be merely interesting.)
>>>
>>> But there is also this (which ties in with the more advanced
>>> auto-wrapping
>>> capablities of every word processor):
>>> http://joeclark.org/ffaq.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> Usenet have nothing to do with a "word processor" ...
>
> Both display paragraphs of text on your screen. Why should the display
> engine be different?

Usenet is *not* a display engine - it's a way for communicating with a
maximum of persons using a lot of different usenet-clients. Politely i'ts
better to permit every body to read your text, so the limit of 80 chars is a
good idea - specially when some usenet-client truncate long lines rending
your text unreadable.

"Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:51:06 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:23:15 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:28:19 -0000, Les Cargill <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:14:08 -0000, Dave J. <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 02 Feb 2009
>>>>>>>> 21:22:30
>>>>>>>> -0000, in comp.os.ms-windows.networking.misc, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>>> It's not a rule, it's a standard. There's no obligation to follow
>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> just there in case you want to cooperate with the majority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are two standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's old and weary standard RFC 977:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...Text is sent as a series of
>>>>>> successive lines of textual matter, each terminated with CR-LF pair."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc977.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 2.4.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you expect people to see things in lines, you're on
>>>>>> the hook to add the carriage returns/line feeds. If you don't
>>>>>> some boogerhead might complain about it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Debate-fun is what it is, but ... your position isn't
>>>>>> that tenable. "Be liberal in what you accept, and
>>>>>> conservative in what you send." - Jon Postrel,
>>>>>> RFC760/RFC1122 .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (All this noise is simply here to inform, not to score
>>>>>> points or something. It should be merely interesting.)
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is also this (which ties in with the more advanced
>>>>> auto-wrapping
>>>>> capablities of every word processor):
>>>>> http://joeclark.org/ffaq.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Usenet have nothing to do with a "word processor" ...
>>>
>>> Both display paragraphs of text on your screen. Why should the display
>>> engine be different?
>>
>> Usenet is *not* a display engine - it's a way for communicating with a
>> maximum of persons using a lot of different usenet-clients. Politely i'ts
>> better to permit every body to read your text, so the limit of 80 chars
>> is a
>> good idea - specially when some usenet-client truncate long lines rending
>> your text unreadable.
>
> Why should I cater for people with out of date shite?
>
This is exactly the reason why i wrote "Politely"....

"Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:29:06 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:51:06 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:23:15 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:28:19 -0000, Les Cargill
>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's old and weary standard RFC 977:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "...Text is sent as a series of
>>>>>>>> successive lines of textual matter, each terminated with CR-LF
>>>>>>>> pair."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc977.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Section 2.4.1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you expect people to see things in lines, you're on
>>>>>>>> the hook to add the carriage returns/line feeds. If you don't
>>>>>>>> some boogerhead might complain about it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Debate-fun is what it is, but ... your position isn't
>>>>>>>> that tenable. "Be liberal in what you accept, and
>>>>>>>> conservative in what you send." - Jon Postrel,
>>>>>>>> RFC760/RFC1122 .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (All this noise is simply here to inform, not to score
>>>>>>>> points or something. It should be merely interesting.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there is also this (which ties in with the more advanced
>>>>>>> auto-wrapping
>>>>>>> capablities of every word processor):
>>>>>>> http://joeclark.org/ffaq.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usenet have nothing to do with a "word processor" ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Both display paragraphs of text on your screen. Why should the
>>>>> display
>>>>> engine be different?
>>>>
>>>> Usenet is *not* a display engine - it's a way for communicating with a
>>>> maximum of persons using a lot of different usenet-clients. Politely
>>>> i'ts
>>>> better to permit every body to read your text, so the limit of 80 chars
>>>> is a
>>>> good idea - specially when some usenet-client truncate long lines
>>>> rending
>>>> your text unreadable.
>>>
>>> Why should I cater for people with out of date shite?
>>>
>> This is exactly the reason why i wrote "Politely"....
>
> I don't do polite when people can't look after themselves. Are you polite
> to someone who makes a mistake while driving?

In this case nobody do mistakes ....except you.

(End of discussion - plonk)

"Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newsp.uo3r49nk4buhsv@i7...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:48:50 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:29:06 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:51:06 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:23:15 -0000, ray
>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Usenet have nothing to do with a "word processor" ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both display paragraphs of text on your screen. Why should the
>>>>>>> display
>>>>>>> engine be different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usenet is *not* a display engine - it's a way for communicating with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> maximum of persons using a lot of different usenet-clients. Politely
>>>>>> i'ts
>>>>>> better to permit every body to read your text, so the limit of 80
>>>>>> chars
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> good idea - specially when some usenet-client truncate long lines
>>>>>> rending
>>>>>> your text unreadable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I cater for people with out of date shite?
>>>>>
>>>> This is exactly the reason why i wrote "Politely"....
>>>
>>> I don't do polite when people can't look after themselves. Are you
>>> polite
>>> to someone who makes a mistake while driving?
>>
>> In this case nobody do mistakes ....except you.
>
> Try to write in English.

Je regrette, ma langue maternelle est le français - Comme je n'ai jamais vu
un individu aussi borné et aussi impoli que vous, je ne m'exprimerais plus
avec vous - BYE.

"Dave J." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gmsc90$6s8$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In MsgID<(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:36:32
> -0000, in comp.os.ms-windows.networking.misc, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:
>
>>>>> Usenet is *not* a display engine - it's a way for communicating with a
>>>>> maximum of persons using a lot of different usenet-clients. Politely
>>>>> i'ts
>>>>> better to permit every body to read your text, so the limit of 80
>>>>> chars
>>>>> is a
>>>>> good idea - specially when some usenet-client truncate long lines
>>>>> rending
>>>>> your text unreadable.
>>>>
>>>> Why should I cater for people with out of date shite?
>>>>
>>> This is exactly the reason why i wrote "Politely"....
>
>
>>I don't do polite when people can't look after themselves. Are you polite
>>to
>>someone who makes a mistake while driving?
>
> Well, if you really want to continue a rather inappropriate analogy
>
> I'd be polite enough to continue using visible flashing lights along with
> the 'latest invention' of (say) RF based turn and brake indicators. I
> would continue to use the visible version even if I knew that 99.9 percent
> of people could receive the RF signals.
>
> In other words, my 'standard' is to send information in an 'old fashioned'
> format (that's certainly accepted by everyone) even if I know that 'the
> new standard' has been almost universally adopted. Pretty much as most
> internet RFCs recommend.
>
> I believe *that's* what he meant by 'polite'
>
Thanks Dave .... exactly what i was thinking.
and another example .... some people add in their signature url's -> doing
spam ... plus some extra lines(too much) of a joke that nobody want ...
forgetting the signification of a "bandwidth".

"Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newsp.upcw68164buhsv@i7...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:27:32 -0000, Dave J. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Why continue to use something which only benefits a small minority?
You are arrogant.

>
> The autowrap function is what fucks things up most of the time. When
> EVERYONE is wrapping. Stupid newsclients wrap quoted text, so you get
> orphaned words.
My newsreader doesnot wrap. - sorry ...
Therefore i use more than stupid newsreader.
As i said before "You are arrogant."

>
> Do you always follow conventions? A bit like a sheep? Try thinking for
> yourself, make the world better.
This is not because we follow conventions that we are a sheep .... we are
just not "arrogant" ....
"Try thinking for yourself, make the world better" .... is not true, it's
just a selfish point of vue...
Try thinking for the other .... the world would be better

"Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newsp.upemmta84buhsv@i7...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:57:54 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>>> Do you always follow conventions? A bit like a sheep? Try thinking for
>>> yourself, make the world better.
>> This is not because we follow conventions that we are a sheep .... we are
>> just not "arrogant" ....
>> "Try thinking for yourself, make the world better" .... is not true, it's
>> just a selfish point of vue...
>> Try thinking for the other .... the world would be better
>
> I think for the other, but not when they are a minority.


No, no, you said."Try thinking for yourself, make the world better" ....

"but not when they are a minority." ... Therefore you think that the time
when the green ligth is on to permit the pedestrians to cross the road but
be decreased ... just to allow "only the majority" .... the rest of people,
you don't care ....very egoïst attitude ....

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:28:23 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newsp.upemmta84buhsv@i7...
>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:57:54 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Do you always follow conventions? A bit like a sheep? Try thinking for
>>>>> yourself, make the world better.
>>>> This is not because we follow conventions that we are a sheep .... we are
>>>> just not "arrogant" ....
>>>> "Try thinking for yourself, make the world better" .... is not true, it's
>>>> just a selfish point of vue...
>>>> Try thinking for the other .... the world would be better
>>> I think for the other, but not when they are a minority.
>>
>> No, no, you said."Try thinking for yourself, make the world better" ....
>>
>> "but not when they are a minority." ... Therefore you think that the time
>> when the green ligth is on to permit the pedestrians to cross the road but
>> be decreased ... just to allow "only the majority" .... the rest of people,
>> you don't care ....very egoïst attitude ....
>
> The green light is on only when they press the button.
>
>
He did not speak about the start time, but he speak about "the time
during the green ligth is on". Following your theory, this time must be
decreased to permit just "fast enough" people to cross the street.
I agree with his conclusion: ... the rest of people, you don't care
.....very egoïst attitude ....

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:18:59 -0000, Rambo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:28:23 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Hucker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message newsp.upemmta84buhsv@i7...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:57:54 -0000, ray <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you always follow conventions? A bit like a sheep? Try thinking for
>>>>>>> yourself, make the world better.
>>>>>> This is not because we follow conventions that we are a sheep .... we are
>>>>>> just not "arrogant" ....
>>>>>> "Try thinking for yourself, make the world better" .... is not true, it's
>>>>>> just a selfish point of vue...
>>>>>> Try thinking for the other .... the world would be better
>>>>> I think for the other, but not when they are a minority.
>>>> No, no, you said."Try thinking for yourself, make the world better" ....
>>>>
>>>> "but not when they are a minority." ... Therefore you think that the time
>>>> when the green ligth is on to permit the pedestrians to cross the road but
>>>> be decreased ... just to allow "only the majority" .... the rest of people,
>>>> you don't care ....very egoïst attitude ....
>>> The green light is on only when they press the button.
>>>
>>>
>> He did not speak about the start time, but he speak about "the time
>> during the green ligth is on". Following your theory, this time must be
>> decreased to permit just "fast enough" people to cross the street.
>> I agree with his conclusion: ... the rest of people, you don't care
>> ....very egoïst attitude ....
>
> The green light is on for the average person. It certainly does not allow for zimmer speed.
"zimmer spped" ? write in english please !
>
> And unless you're a complete moron, you don't sit at a red light waiting for someone who has finished crossing ages ago.
You are the moron while understanding "start time" and "time length". My
reply was to explain it to you.

And i repeat i agree with his conclusions about not using
CRLF (CarriageReturn - LineFeed)