idrankwhat 0 #26 June 18, 2009 I think it was fine for the State Dept to request the delay in upgrade. I don't feel that Twitter has to necessarily comply but they certainly should be able to understand the reason for the request. Also, there was a related piece on NPR this morning regarding Twitter and some "work arounds" that are popping up in response to Iran's crackdown on internet traffic. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105572565 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #27 June 18, 2009 QuoteQuote"IGBT's (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors) have (sic) appear to be less than ideal for high bias Class A/B audio amplifiers, but seem to be superior to MOSFETs (Metal Oxide Field Effect Transistors) in EV (Electric Vehicle) PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) (motor) controllers." MOSFETs rule below 200 volts. Fair enough (for this discussion). But the point of my (crappy) analogy was: Instead of just tossing out acronyms, at least expand them in parentheses so that some level of understanding of a post might be attained without doing an acronym search. As the acronyms were adjunct examples of programs rather than critical to the content & ideas of the post, they did not limit comprehensibility. Alternatively, did your response change with the explanation of the acronyms? Or was it just an opportunity to criticize me? I didn't need an explanation of the acronyms you used either; if I did I would ask. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #28 June 19, 2009 Quote Quote Quote "IGBT's (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors) have (sic) appear to be less than ideal for high bias Class A/B audio amplifiers, but seem to be superior to MOSFETs (Metal Oxide Field Effect Transistors) in EV (Electric Vehicle) PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) (motor) controllers." MOSFETs rule below 200 volts. Fair enough (for this discussion). But the point of my (crappy) analogy was: Instead of just tossing out acronyms, at least expand them in parentheses so that some level of understanding of a post might be attained without doing an acronym search. As the acronyms were adjunct examples of programs rather than critical to the content & ideas of the post, they did not limit comprehensibility. Alternatively, did your response change with the explanation of the acronyms? Or was it just an opportunity to criticize me? I didn't need an explanation of the acronyms you used either; if I did I would ask. /Marg The acronyms may have been adjunct examples, but they are important to me as your reader. They must be there for a reason. Even without defining them, simply expanding them would be helpful. An example: ITAR, or ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations)? It's clear which one conveys more meaning. No, I was not criticizing you, just your use of unexpanded acronyms. I DID need an explanation of the acronyms you used, so I did a few quick searches. Guess I'm just not very bright. You seem to be just a bit sensitive about this, but I'm NOT saying "SIUCC"If my attempt to make a techie/humorous/smartass comment about your posting style came across as rude or insulting, please understand that it wasn't intentional, and I'm sorry if it came across wrong. You are one of a very small handful of people I look up to in this forum. jim EDIT to add "smartass" to my description of my comments... "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #29 June 19, 2009 Quote the sad thing is that I sort of understood what both of you were talking about... LaughTongue Yes, very sad "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kool-Aid 0 #30 June 19, 2009 Quote Lame. Twitter is a private business. The State department (and the rest of the government) should mind it's own business and let Twitter mind itself. Honestly, if Twitter is getting that much traffic from Iran, I'd expect them to want to delay the shutdown on their own anyway. They've been pretty careful to build their brand with events like this, and it'd be silly of them to miss the opportunity. But in the end, it's their business--not the State departments. The CIA is working around the clock in Iran right now and I am surprised they "asked" at all!Oh Yea!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
