ubuntu: destroy a huge binary file and make it non-readable.

[Ryan Gauger]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Jan 2014, at 17:10, Paul Smith <paul at mad-scientist.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 16:50 -0500, Ping wrote:
>> This is Sth I couldn't understand ... Is top post that sin? Ive been
>> working in my career for many years and I never seen bottom post in
>> the work..
> 
> Top-posting is fine, and often preferred, for individual email or email
> that's sent to a specific list of people, particularly in a business
> setting.  These messages are usually not archived anywhere, and if you
> want to add new people to the list of recipients then it's handy if they
> have the complete conversation available (although it's usually
> inconvenient to read through it all, at least it's possible).
> 
> However, this method is really crappy for public mailing lists, where
> there are a LOT more recipients and all the history is archived anyway.
> Top-posting means that (a) it's hard to figure out what exactly you're
> replying to, and (b) hundreds of copies of the SAME MESSAGE are archived
> over and over, as everyone replies and each reply contains a complete
> copy of all previous replies... and on and on.
> 
> 
> When people say "don't top-post", they DON'T mean "do exactly the same
> thing as top-post but just write at the bottom instead of the top".
> That would be ridiculous: not only are you not improving anything (it's
> still hard to figure out what you're replying to and you still archive
> hundreds of copies of the same message), but in addition people have to
> scroll all the way down to the end of the email to see your message
> (which is, unfortunately, often something uninteresting like "I agree!")
> 
> 
> When people say "don't top-post", they REALLY mean "please reply using a
> trimmed, interleaved style".  That means that you should take the time
> to (a) remove all parts of the email you're replying to that are not
> needed to understand your reply, including quotes of previous emails if
> they're not relevant, and (b) if there are multiple points you want to
> respond to, add a break into the quoting of the original email directly
> after each point, and put your response to that point there.
> 
> In other words, you should assume the readers have already read and
> understood all the previous messages to the list, and make it easy for
> them to read and understand your reply as well.
> 
> Why, you ask, should you go to this trouble?  Consider that (1) you're
> asking for help and it's wise to be polite to and considerate of the
> people who you would like to help you, and (2) compare the amount of
> time it takes you to write a clear, readable email versus the cumulative
> amount of time it will take the thousands of mailing lists subscribers
> to read a messy, difficult, confusing email... and ask yourself if your
> time is really so much more important than everyone else's time.  Then
> go back and read point (1) again :-).
> 
> Cheers!
Is this good then? :) I understand how it might be difficult to read of you haven't been keeping up with a conversation, so I think I know what to do now when replying :)

> 
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

"If your eyes are on the storm, you wonder if I love you still, but if your eyes are on the cross, you know I always have and I always will"
---Jesus