Laser marking/directing system

On a sunny day (Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:49:57 +0100) it happened David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in <spq1m5$u5c$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 20/12/2021 08:54, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:39:20 -0500) it happened Joe Gwinn
>> <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in <fb9vrgdmvfj3rbei3k1ksi8f1ken7vh9vr@4ax.com>:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 17:14:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:01 -0000 (UTC)) it happened
>>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in
>>>> <spnk1s$10p1$2@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:spmqm5$fdm$1@gioia.aioe.org: 
>>>>>
>
>>>>>  When you post a link in Usenet, lazy boy, you encapsulate it in 
>>>>> brackets...  <link>  Thusly.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about that in rfc977
>>>> the reference I used to write this newsreader, get a clue
>>>> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/index.html
>>>
>>> Yes, but RFC977 is from 1986, and was obsoleted by RFC3977, which was
>>> later updated by RFC6048, and so on...  
>> 
>> I have rfc3977 too, not the rfc6048
>> 
>>> Brackets are a good idea these days.  
>> 
>> Well I have seen all sort of things in Usenet, at one time people started posting in html
>> that has stopped, binary attachements....
>> There is, AFAIK no standard on how to put a link.
>
>There /is/ a standard - you put < > brackets around the link.  It has
>been the standard of Usenet and email for a long time (probably since
>email and the web left the realms of universities and technical users,
>and became popular with the great unwashed).  Every decent client
>program understands < > around a link to ensure that it works correctly
>regardless of where the text line breaks go.
>
>> Brackets are a nuisance as links are just text and cut and paste (Linux double click)
>> then also takes the brackets that you then have to remove.
>
>Bracketed links are single-click from any decent newsreader on Linux.
>
>> I usually put the links on an empty line
>> I can have cut and paste remove any brackets, but thare is more than usenet links to copy.
>> Many people do their own thing, Usenet is a free world, imposing your ideas on others is your problem,
>> I do not HAVE to use / read it.
>> 
>> 
>
>This newsgroup is a fine testament to people writing exactly what they
>want with a total disregard for anyone else.  But if you want people to
>follow your links, then it is best to follow the standards.

Usenet is specified by rfc977 and friends
Point me to a text that sais '<link>' is required
Maybe you noticed or maybe not, many people put links here,
most do not bother with your concepts and do not use '<>'.

That maybe YOUR reader only wants '<>' means you should get a real one!

Bye

On 20/12/2021 16:07, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:49:57 +0100) it happened David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in <spq1m5$u5c$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> On 20/12/2021 08:54, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:39:20 -0500) it happened Joe Gwinn
>>> <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in <fb9vrgdmvfj3rbei3k1ksi8f1ken7vh9vr@4ax.com>:
>>>

>>>> Brackets are a good idea these days.  
>>>
>>> Well I have seen all sort of things in Usenet, at one time people started posting in html
>>> that has stopped, binary attachements....
>>> There is, AFAIK no standard on how to put a link.
>>
>> There /is/ a standard - you put < > brackets around the link.  It has
>> been the standard of Usenet and email for a long time (probably since
>> email and the web left the realms of universities and technical users,
>> and became popular with the great unwashed).  Every decent client
>> program understands < > around a link to ensure that it works correctly
>> regardless of where the text line breaks go.
>>
>>> Brackets are a nuisance as links are just text and cut and paste (Linux double click)
>>> then also takes the brackets that you then have to remove.
>>
>> Bracketed links are single-click from any decent newsreader on Linux.
>>
>>> I usually put the links on an empty line
>>> I can have cut and paste remove any brackets, but thare is more than usenet links to copy.
>>> Many people do their own thing, Usenet is a free world, imposing your ideas on others is your problem,
>>> I do not HAVE to use / read it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This newsgroup is a fine testament to people writing exactly what they
>> want with a total disregard for anyone else.  But if you want people to
>> follow your links, then it is best to follow the standards.
> 
> Usenet is specified by rfc977 and friends
> Point me to a text that sais '<link>' is required
> Maybe you noticed or maybe not, many people put links here,
> most do not bother with your concepts and do not use '<>'.
> 
> That maybe YOUR reader only wants '<>' means you should get a real one!
> 

Sorry, but you have /completely/ missed the point.

Brackets around links are not a Usenet-specific feature.  They are
standard for text-based information exchange, including emails and
Usenet.  They were introduced long after the original Usenet RFC's.

But it's your choice.  You can continue to post links in a somewhat
unhelpful manner - you are not alone in that.  Or you can post links in
a way that is more convenient for everyone else.  Consider /why/ you are
posting a link - is it for your own benefit, or for other people?

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 07:54:36 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:39:20 -0500) it happened Joe Gwinn
><joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in <fb9vrgdmvfj3rbei3k1ksi8f1ken7vh9vr@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 17:14:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:01 -0000 (UTC)) it happened
>>>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in
>>><spnk1s$10p1$2@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>
>>>>Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:spmqm5$fdm$1@gioia.aioe.org: 
>>>>
>>>>> On a sunny day (Sat, 18 Dec 2021 23:44:14 -0800 (PST)) it happened
>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> <529f5bab-5701-4a58-9126-810c380d1c73n@googlegroups.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>Jan Panteltje puked more vomit :
>>>>>>============================
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >** RC servos cannot reverse direction near fast enough for your
>>>>>>> >idea. 
>>>>>>> Wrong 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>** It's 100%, totally fucking correct  -   you wog nut case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://panteltje.com/pub/horizontal_IR_target_tracking_4686.avi 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>** dead link. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>  When you post a link in Usenet, lazy boy, you encapsulate it in 
>>>>brackets...  <link>  Thusly.
>>>
>>>Nothing about that in rfc977
>>>the reference I used to write this newsreader, get a clue
>>> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/index.html
>>
>>Yes, but RFC977 is from 1986, and was obsoleted by RFC3977, which was
>>later updated by RFC6048, and so on...  
>
>I have rfc3977 too, not the rfc6048

Got away from you...


>>Brackets are a good idea these days.  
>
>Well I have seen all sort of things in Usenet, at one time people started posting in html
>that has stopped, binary attachements....
>There is, AFAIK no standard on how to put a link.

Yes and no.  The most common way is <>.  A standard is emerging in the
field, as always driven by necessity.  Or more to the point, annoyance
with wrapped urls not working, and often being impractical to sort
out.  

This kind of experience driven development is precisely how all the
RFCs came about, and TCP/IP vanquished ISO-OSI and the seven layers.


>Brackets are a nuisance as links are just text and cut and paste (Linux double click)
>then also takes the brackets that you then have to remove.

Not necessary to remove the brackets.  Just click the link within, and
the browser or email client or whatever should be able to figure it
out, despite line breaks.

I'll grant that there are older browsers and clients that don't do
this, or do it correctly, but most current-update versions do.


>I usually put the links on an empty line

Which works for short links.  Which links grow longer as the email
trail grows with nested quoting.


>I can have cut and paste remove any brackets, but thare is more than usenet links to copy.
>Many people do their own thing, Usenet is a free world, imposing your ideas on others is your problem,
>I do not HAVE to use / read it.

True enough.  There are no bracket police to fight off with a
sharpened penguin.


Joe Gwinn

Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in
news:oss1sg9rnk4on1b33d8vu05qgsta96uol5@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 07:54:36 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:39:20 -0500) it happened Joe
>>Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in
>><fb9vrgdmvfj3rbei3k1ksi8f1ken7vh9vr@4ax.com>: 
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 17:14:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>><pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:45:01 -0000 (UTC)) it
>>>>happened DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in
>>>><spnk1s$10p1$2@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>
>>>>>Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:spmqm5$fdm$1@gioia.aioe.org: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> On a sunny day (Sat, 18 Dec 2021 23:44:14 -0800 (PST)) it
>>>>>> happened Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> <529f5bab-5701-4a58-9126-810c380d1c73n@googlegroups.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>Jan Panteltje puked more vomit :
>>>>>>>============================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >** RC servos cannot reverse direction near fast enough for
>>>>>>>> >your idea. 
>>>>>>>> Wrong 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>** It's 100%, totally fucking correct  -   you wog nut case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://panteltje.com/pub/horizontal_IR_target_tracking_4686.
>>>>>>>> avi 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>** dead link. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>  When you post a link in Usenet, lazy boy, you encapsulate it
>>>>>  in 
>>>>>brackets...  <link>  Thusly.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing about that in rfc977
>>>>the reference I used to write this newsreader, get a clue
>>>> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/index.html
>>>
>>>Yes, but RFC977 is from 1986, and was obsoleted by RFC3977, which
>>>was later updated by RFC6048, and so on...  
>>
>>I have rfc3977 too, not the rfc6048
> 
> Got away from you...
> 
> 
>>>Brackets are a good idea these days.  
>>
>>Well I have seen all sort of things in Usenet, at one time people
>>started posting in html that has stopped, binary attachements....
>>There is, AFAIK no standard on how to put a link.
> 
> Yes and no.  The most common way is <>.  A standard is emerging in
> the field, as always driven by necessity.  Or more to the point,
> annoyance with wrapped urls not working, and often being
> impractical to sort out.  
> 
> This kind of experience driven development is precisely how all
> the RFCs came about, and TCP/IP vanquished ISO-OSI and the seven
> layers. 
> 
> 
>>Brackets are a nuisance as links are just text and cut and paste
>>(Linux double click) then also takes the brackets that you then
>>have to remove. 
> 
> Not necessary to remove the brackets.  Just click the link within,
> and the browser or email client or whatever should be able to
> figure it out, despite line breaks.
> 
> I'll grant that there are older browsers and clients that don't do
> this, or do it correctly, but most current-update versions do.
> 
> 
>>I usually put the links on an empty line
> 
> Which works for short links.  Which links grow longer as the email
> trail grows with nested quoting.
> 
> 
>>I can have cut and paste remove any brackets, but thare is more
>>than usenet links to copy. Many people do their own thing, Usenet
>>is a free world, imposing your ideas on others is your problem, 
>>I do not HAVE to use / read it.
> 
> True enough.  There are no bracket police to fight off with a
> sharpened penguin.
> 
> 
> Joe Gwinn
> 

It is all about being considerate of others.  Or as is in this case, 
deliberately NOT being considerate of others, despite the convention 
being around for quite some time.  He ain't shittin' this kid.  He 
knew about it.  He's one of those 'thumbs his nose at conventions' 
kind of guy.  Works for great progress in some instances, typically 
not, however as the last 5 years have succinctly proven