Microsoft has been 'Hiring People Like Mad' for third-generation 'Xbox 720'

The author said: "My theory is the supply shortage of Xbox 360s might be from the Chinese New Year vacations and all the Chinese assembly plant workers had the week off to play Halo and eat MOON CAKES."

He should learn some Chinese history before writing a stupid comment.

The OP is a strange child who thinks that people in c.a.e care about his video game world. It's a pity Google Groups won't let one filter out posters like this.

I assume you can't use a real newsreader from there.

It'll probably run a Cell processor and have a built-in blu-reay drive...

Most of my life is spent in places where I have no access to NNTP directly. My only option is a web interface.

I do not see much wrong with the Google groups interface, works fine for me, too. I am sort of puzzled why people are willing to accept obvious cheats (terranews or whatever it was - they claim to be free, until you click further to find out they are not) and moan about Google, who do offer a reasonably well working service for free, after all.

Dimiter

larwe wrote:

Teranews is free. The only cost to me was about three US dollars to sign-on, about two years ago. Not a further penny. The service has some problems.

You deleted all attributions in your original message. Please do not do this. Without the attributions we cannot tell who wrote what.

$3 is not free.

No I did not - you just have to read them in the message.

Dimiter

CBFalc> >

In message , Didi writes

As good as.

Yes you did. ( hate to agree with CBF. :-) Also you are top posting. Both are considered very rude and a breach of netiquete.

So you think that "as good as" is an expression without any meaning. Why bother typing it at all in this case then? Or is someone claiming to offer you something for free and when you reach asks you for $3 not a cheat by your standards?

No, I did not. Try reading again. All details I deem of less common interest are archived into the message, see the part which makes you use the phrase "top posted".

No, look at the message again. The sentences I have quoted are exactly where they belong (where I want them to be, that is), which is in a way you would probably call "bottom posting". I realise this is a bit confusing for the "posting" religion followers, but it is their (your?) problem, not mine. I format my messages the way I see fit - and they are no less readable than anyones. In fact, I do usually provide the complete context in a "top posting" manner with some redundancy to the "bottom posted" excerpts so a message carries the complete context for all usenet readers, also those who do not use Google or a threading reader.

I'll start accepting orders on my messages format from anyone who manages to hire me as an office secretary. Or I might follow some advice on that if someone comes up with something new to me which I like and choose to adopt. Until then, read and enjoy.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

Chris H wrote:

The following is probably what everyone is complaining about

You will observe it at the top of this message. You will not observe something similar in the messages that you post. It the world of research it is the equivalent of a citation

Actually they are less readable. Especially if you include posts from someone else who also hasn't trimmed but left the entire post intact in the reply. My usual reader (and most of the good ones work this way AFAIK) allows single key reading. I just hit the space bar and it scrolls through the message and moves to the next one as it reaches the end of the first. A very fluid and natural way to read news. Your technique means I need to scroll through a lot of irrelevant litter and the information I want to refer to is not near the information it relates to. Attributions get lost in a muddle very quickly with your technique.

Robert

In the old days of FidoNet, there was a good rule that the quoted part should not be more then two times of the size of the text of yours.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

Not at all. I put attributions at the top of the entire quoted message or at the very message beginning, depending on how relevant I believe the quoted author is. If you are not used to read credentials at the book end (or document end, or at the page bottom), then you just lack reading experience and my posting format is the least of your problems, although you may believe otherwise.

Your message (to which I reply here) does quote me in a manner which can be seen as "out of context". You have left out parts of my text which carry information which is indivisible of that you have chosen to put in the quote - now this is an information issue, not stupid nagging on which end of the egg I should crack.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

It is not an issue of whether or not your "style" is logical. The issue is one of consistency within a domain. Over time, USENET and its predecessors have generally settled on certain conventions. These conventions have become supported by tools (news readers) and their wet counter-parts (humans). Introducing a new conventions rather than conforming to existing conventions only wastes the energies of everyone involved.

Well, Michael, "the times they are a changin' ", Dylan was right (I have been meaning to ask you to what you refer with your Beatles quote, I do not seem to get it, please help).

The change I have introduced is minor enough to any reader. Only religious fanatics can have an issue with that. Change 1: in addition to the old "bottom posting" style quotes I append (usually) the complete message to which I reply. Bandwidth has changed many times more than my change asks for, and so has disk space; providing the complete quote is good because noone can accuse me of quoting him out of context. I tend to limit the size of what I append to something reasonable, of course.

Change 2: The name of the author, to whom I reply, may appear at the bottom-posted style message end if I believe most readers would not be that keen on who wrote the quoted text than they would be keen on what the text contains (i.e. to avoid bloating of the quotation).

Both changes I have made are what I believe is a better way to use the English language, and both are barely noticeable to the normal reader.

Those who have a problem with my message format and keep on repeating their "do not top post" etc. stupid remarks are free to ignore my posts. Some of them (the most fanatic religion followers) do sound like they need a doctor - which I am sure is not the case, they are just full of hatred and apparent lack of anything interesting to do. Well, sometimes I am tired (like now, have had only 4 hours sleep) and being no good for anything else I get involved with egg-cracking endianness talk. Looking forward to continue it for a few more hours today until I resign to the bed and hopefully get in sync with the planets day/night cycle. At least I may find out what that mysterious Beatles reference of yours is about (mind you, I do not think there is a song of theirs I would not know... but I don't get it).

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

Michael N. Moran wrote:

In message , Didi writes

You will when you have been on line as long as the rest of us....

There are plenty of free news readers.

BTW the mighty google thought it could change the Usenet conventions. It lost and had to modify it's interface.

So if google changed to meet Usenet rather than the other way around what do you think you are going to do? Especially as you don't appear to have anything to offer the group?

Incidentally it's not just this group but all 40,000 others that work this way. You going to convince all 40K groups to change?

Other than a number of times your expertise, you mean?

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

Chris H wrote:

Usenet may be a lot of things. One thing it is not is a book. You are not the first to try to treat it as a book but formal literary fits very badly. Your modified form has downsides as well which is what I was pointing out.

"Not at all" ;)

You said that your format was as easy to read as other formats. I find it otherwise and said why I found that to be the case. I quoted the portion (with attribution) where you stated that your format was easier to read. I do not think extra was needed to follow the discussion, the rest not being germane to whether I found your format harder to read.

I do agree that trimming can be a bit of an art and we all err in one direction or the other from time to time. I don't think the solution is to include a copy of the entire discussion though.

Usenet conventions have generally evolved for a reason.

Robert