Micro-SD card initialisation-problem

I made a discovery the other day. Digi-key is in the middle, no, the west edge of nowhere. As such, although both UPS and FedEx will deliver my package to them in 3 days, it takes 4 days for them to deliver to me (near Wash, DC). I tried USPS Priority and I consistently get 2 day delivery for next to nothing in postage. So unless it is a *serious* rush, I spend $5 and get two day service. I would assume that many locations would get the same level of service.

The post office doing something better than the commercial carriers! Who would have thunk it???

Rick

... snip ...

You seem to have failed to notice that my 'complaints' include a herd of references to standards etc., so that the complainee has a reasonable chance to see the reasons for the practice.

living

Digi-Key is in Minnesota. That isn't the west edge of nowhere by any means---I live in the Continental US about 1500 miles west of DigiKey! ;-)

Interesting. From Minnesota to Oregon, I always get 2nd day air packages within the delivery target time. I haven't tried USPS yet, though. A sticking point for me would be any packages that wouldn't fit in our rural-route mailbox would require the postman to walk up the driveway and ring the bell---or leave a note and have me drive to the post office to get the package.

Mark Borgerson

LOL! I think many of the 'standards' about email and newsgroups were written when 28.8KB modems were all the rage and 'terminal' meant a 300-baud teleprinter if you were lucky! The only things that adapt more slowly than internet 'standards' are organisms that are generally extinct.

Mark Borgerson

NO YOU seem to have failed to notice that your holy war does NO GOOD.

thank you, mother falc> rickman wrote:

FWIW, I believe that there are many of us who appreciate Chuck's efforts to educate new-comers to the customs of this medium. He is curteous, provides background information, takes the heat, and obviates the need for the rest of us to comment. The down side of this, however, is that it sometimes *seems* that he is on a personal crusade.

Thanks Chuck.

Thanks for the engineering effort.

Please leave your jahad at home.

donald

I suggested mid-range because they're likely to be more "well behaved" and you're not getting into the realm of HCSD. The 2GB SanDisk should work OK

- it's more likely in this case that there is a problem with your implementation.

If you were using 4GB ElCheapo then I'd be more ready to suspect the card...

Regards,

Please don't respond when people respond when people compain about top/bottom/oeeo posting. :P

Regards,

Results 1 - 100 of 358 for please do not top post author: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

donald wrote: > Please leave your jahad at home.

Oh my gawd! He's invoked terrorism labeling! I'VE BEEN LABELED! Considered a "fair and balanced" role on Fox News ?

-- Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918

"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key." "Already Gone" by Jack Tempchin (recorded by The Eagles)

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1

sorry, I ment mother falconer.

But you (he) knew that.

It has gone from "net nazi" to "net jahadist".

(sign of the times)

donald

Hello CBFalconer,

I've just taken the time to follow all the links you've provided that should support your bottom-posting stance.

Alas, the first one does not say, as far as I can see, anything about it, and the fourth one just refers to other sites (you allready linked too ...). You might allso want to update the last link.

As for the second link ? Please notice that the person writing it confuses "arguments" with "by definition" (1), having certain pieces of software running (2), a bad comparision (3), hints to make your post even better (4), nonsense (at least when comparedto the way *I* do it) (5), irrelevant stuff (6), ignoring a different formatting (like mine) that *should* make clear that the trailing stuff is *not* part of the message (7), and a "because we say so" (8).

The third link ? The same "you allways read from top to bottom" argumentation, mentioned twice (paragraph 2.3, "Usually, the reading-flow ..." and "And besides: doesn't it look stupid ..."), again ignoring the possibility of another method than their described top and bottom posting.

The last post ? It allso assumes the messages cannot be read other that wholly from top to bottom (Q6 & Q7), which is quite different (I think) from the way I formatted my post.

Having said that, how many times have you gotten a snail-mail letter that had (all) the previous letter(s) attached *infront* of it (making the reply the last page) ? I can say I never have. :-)

In short : currently my feeling is that you 1) have seen me doing something you condemned as being top-posting without even really looking 2) you have done little in actually reading the links you provided as substanciation to your own preference.

Regards, Rudy Wieser

CBFalc> >