Anyone recognise this hex format?

:300200009C001C1242296655062759040065A2200888574050FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

:30023000FFFFFFFFFF006EC509A028B32411B68D769211490BA9294E2B992546A9D57C2103B

:30026000956FC3001755DBC16B00012381882085570024624B4D2F087090171A7C209C10742

:3002900012241920880984123F38C4E89521481A129598C0044418F12E4B010A84971110092

:3002C0008195D8EAA223B0048C1062612A633A8041951822321F510D7C00046F005863B8010

:301000005AE7D324D09B7338EA1C03293E01FE3DF7300FEEFF6765FFFFFFFFFFFF0FDE93AA7

I think it is Intel Hex.

: Delimiter 48 byte data record Address Data record Data Checksum

I think its possibly that the line lengths are 48 rather than the normally seen 16. Checksum of the line at 1000 appears to be wrong.

Andrew

I agree, bearing in mind that something has wrapped the records. You should be prepared for length fields from 00 to ff, with 00 usually being an end of file marker.

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Whitespace should be ignored in Intel hex files. What counts as a delimiter it the colon.

Tauno Voipio tauno voipio @ iki fi

... snip ...

Not in the original versions. ANYTHING is ignored after the end of a record before the colon delimiter. That is why the usual usage is limited to 16 or 32 byte long records. The purpose was twofold - to deliver binaries over char only communications, and to make paper tapes.

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

:-)

--
42Bastian
Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use @epost.de instead !

Unless you are using an old unix terminal with a command line driven email client that is humming away in a disused university basement you will have no doubt clicked and read the previous posts in this thread within the last few seconds. So with a single I can see the current post without having to refresh my memory yet once again by scrolling down down down through the previous post(s).

There are a great deal of emails and posts to scan through quickly and not having the luxury of spending all day on them, I really can't see the logic in repeatedly scrolling through previous posts trying to find the relevant detail.

The order is not really 4321 (CBFalconer's footer) but "click click click click". Any quotes or parts thereof from previous posts are purely there for courtesy and reference such as when we are printing it out occasionally or if the original post is very old (as posts go).

my2cents

- Peter Jakacki

:300200009C001C1242296655062759040065A2200888574050FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

:3002C0008195D8EAA223B0048C1062612A633A8041951822321F510D7C00046F005863B8010

:301000005AE7D324D09B7338EA1C03293E01FE3DF7300FEEFF6765FFFFFFFFFFFF0FDE93AA7

42Bastian Schick wrote:

I'm not fanatical, and have been known to post top and bottom depending on the circumstances, but there is one other thing you should take into account - archiving. Most threads would be best archived in /dev/null, but there are many good posts that turn up on web searches, and people reading them see them entirely out of context. For those readers, bottom posting provides a naturally ordered discussion - top posting makes it a lot harder to view.

David

lines):

:300200009C001C1242296655062759040065A2200888574050FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

:3002C0008195D8EAA223B0048C1062612A633A8041951822321F510D7C00046F005863B8010

:301000005AE7D324D09B7338EA1C03293E01FE3DF7300FEEFF6765FFFFFFFFFFFF0FDE93AA7

For long longish posts like yours that only have 1 point, I completely agree. My pet hate is people posting at the bottom, without doing any snipping. Then I have to wade through heaps of crap.

For posts that have multiple points I prefer responding to each point in turn.

cheers,

Al

Peter Jakacki wrote:

:300200009C001C1242296655062759040065A2200888574050FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

:3002C0008195D8EAA223B0048C1062612A633A8041951822321F510D7C00046F005863B8010

:301000005AE7D324D09B7338EA1C03293E01FE3DF7300FEEFF6765FFFFFFFFFFFF0FDE93AA7

Did Groups.google take away the "show thread" opyion and I didn't notice?

"When thou enter a city, abide by its customs."

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet

Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting

+What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"? The advantages of usenet's quoting conventions Why should I place my response below the quoted text? Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings

...which makes your posts very easy to read and understand.

"Top posting classically or stereotypically involves no trimming and of course no contextualizing.of prior posts; contrasted with contextualized posts, which sequence questions and responses in order and context, along with trimming of unnecessary lines. In this contrast, the top post is disorderly, messy, and most notably egocentrical, because it leaves all of the cleaning up and reorganization to the correspondent context posters and because it inappropriately emphasizes the importance of whatever the top poster has to say or ask while mostly disregarding everything anyone else has been said before. It also expects the next reader to try to guess at what part of the previous posts the top poster is referring.and makes it nearly impossible to contextualize hir own responses." -Mike Easter

Having the Usenet police force everyone to post at the bottom and not snip anything forces me to use my mouse three times as much as simply reading a threaded discussion, being able to click on the response and have it right there.

This fanatic anti-toppost stuff just adds to my RSI load. Get a threaded news reader and only copy the bare minimum from the previous message. If I want to read the previous message I'll click on it.

Rob

"Peter Jakacki" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Top posters ought to be shot in the neck, cut into little pieces and fed to the dogs.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

Whoa, whoa, silver. Stop right there. In a decade of Usenet, I've

*never* seen anybody claim that "not snip anything" was part of good Usenet behaviour. Nor does anybody ever do anything as silly as that, in my experience. You're inventing that nonsense out of thin air.

Full-quoting is an abomination that almost invariably comes in a package with top-posting.

And that's setting aside that, at least in this newsgroup, I've yet to see anyone behave anywhere near as self-righteous as to be accusable of thinking they're the "Usenet police". Chuck Falconer's footer is about the most prominent anti-topposting rant to be seen here, and he's generally quite polite about it.

--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

On the contrary, you should snip enthusiastically while bottom (or intermix) posting. The idea is to pack a single throught into a single article, not a complete thread.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
     USE worldnet address!

snip

My remark wasn't targetting anyone in particular. This groups is quite decent, some other groups are horrible. Chuck's tagline is indeed funny, except I have a different opinion on the use of top posting.

As you can see I do adher to the 'rule', but in many cases I'd rather just start with a clean sheet for each response and I'd much rather read a clean response than having to page down through 7 layers of indentation and wrap/cut/mangled junk to read the 2-line response. I'm not inventing this, I'm seeing it almost daily in some other groups. It's those groups that usually also have a couple of self-assigned judges to bash anyone with the guts to top-post.

Rob

Ignorance at it's best. What a laugh I had.

Michael

1> Top-posting encourages full requoting. It would not be necessary to "scroll down down down" through irrelevant crap, headers and signatures if people trimmed their quoted and requoted text. 2> Response points in a properly formatted usenet reply are unambiguously associated with the item to which they are responding. 3> Properly formatted responses have less wasted verbiage, because it's not necessary to assign (verbally) each reply sentence to a topic in the original message. Context is identified positionally.

True, and having them carefully formatted by courteous posters helps a great deal in reading, comprehending and responding to them quickly and efficiently. Top-posting is slovenly and implies a lack of effort beyond hitting "Reply".

The $0.01 and $0.02 coins were abolished in Australia for a good reason, you know.

I would have more sympathy for your point if you had bothered to cut the approximately 100 lines of stuff you _weren't_ responding to.

Have you ever used a yahoo group? Top-posting is rampant. Snipping of text is rare. I have seen single messages with more than 300k of text, of which only the first two lines were new. I gave up having messages delivered by email. I'd give it up completely if it wasn't the primary means of obtaining support for one of my important tools.

Regards,

-=Dave

--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. But at least with a top post, it doesn't really matter (as long as the message doesn't get too big). With a bottom post you'd have to scroll down through all the old junk just to read the few new lines.

Al