Prev: Bad Sector Count
Next: chkdsk c: /f gives "An unspecified error occurred" error message
From: Rod Speed on 6 Feb 2007 01:30
Vanguard <no(a)mail.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> Vanguard <no(a)mail.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Vanguard <no(a)mail.invalid> wrote

>>>>> Unfortunately it costs to get copies of the ATA specs from
>>>>> http://www.t13.org/

>>>> The drafts are readily available for free and that detail didnt change.

>>> They are?

>> Yep.

>>> Got a URL for the free copy of the full specs for all ATA revisions?

>> I never said anything about all ATA revisions.

>>> What I see at
>>> http://www.t13.org/Standards/Default.aspx?DocumentType=3&DocumentStage=2
>>> is a list (but no links for them) and the comment "Copies of
>>> published standards may be purchased from: ANSI, ...". Where are the free copies then?

>> http://www.t13.org/Documents/Default.aspx?DocumentType=4&DocumentStage=2
>> http://www.t13.org/Documents/Default.aspx?DocumentType=4&DocumentStage=1

> I was asking about the actual ratified and approved specifications, not drafts of proposals for
> those specs.

I already told you that that detail didnt change significantly
between the draft and the ratified standard.

And the later drafts include the ratified standard too.

> I don't believe "drafts" are the actual standard.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and
utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not believe in spades.

> I had asked about getting the standards spec.

And I told you how to see those for free, most obviously when a
later draft includes the earlier ratified detail on the security mode.

Not ever a single mention of the drive doing any encryption, which
is all that is needed to prove that you have never had a clue.

> I didn't realizer you were pointing at a list that contained some drafts that proposed those
> specs. Some entries are just 2-page descriptions or placeholders, hardly what would be called a
> standard specification.

Pity about the other ones that cover that security mode completely.

> Some are docs containing corrections, so hardly a specification.

Pity about the other ones that cover that security mode completely.

> Some are just entries in the table listing but with no link to an actual doc.

Pity about the other ones that cover that security mode completely.

> The specs still cost money.

Not when a later draft includes that ratified spec they dont.

Rule of Holes, child. When you are in one STOP DIGGING.


From: Folkert Rienstra on 6 Feb 2007 14:50
"Vanguard" <no(a)mail.invalid> wrote in message news:bpOdnX8OYsuqmlXYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)comcast.com
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:52noruF1pa94kU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> > Vanguard <no(a)mail.invalid> wrote
> > > Rod Speed wrote
> > > > Vanguard <no(a)mail.invalid> wrote
> >
> > > > > Unfortunately it costs to get copies of the ATA specs from
> > > > > http://www.t13.org/
> >
> > > > The drafts are readily available for free and that detail didnt
> > > > change.
> >
> > > They are?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > Got a URL for the free copy of the full specs for all ATA revisions?
> >
> > I never said anything about all ATA revisions.
> >
> > > What I see at
> > > http://www.t13.org/Standards/Default.aspx?DocumentType=3&DocumentStage=2
> > > is a list (but no links for them) and the comment "Copies of
> > > published standards may be purchased from: ANSI, ...".
> > > Where are the free copies then?
> >
> > http://www.t13.org/Documents/Default.aspx?DocumentType=4&DocumentStage=2
> > http://www.t13.org/Documents/Default.aspx?DocumentType=4&DocumentStage=1

> I was asking about the actual ratified and approved specifications,

Which obviously will wildly deviate from the last draft just before they
applied the stamp of approval to it.

> not drafts of proposals for those specs. I don't believe "drafts" are
> the actual standard. I had asked about getting the standards spec.

Idjut.

> I didn't realizer you were pointing at a list that contained some drafts
> that proposed those specs. Some entries are just 2-page descriptions or
> placeholders, hardly what would be called a standard specification.
> Some are docs containing corrections, so hardly a specification. Some
> are just entries in the table listing but with no link to an actual doc.
> The specs still cost money.
From: Vanguard on 6 Feb 2007 21:44
Thanks for verifying that the real specs for the standards cost money.
From: Rod Speed on 7 Feb 2007 00:06
Vanguard <no(a)mail.invalid> wrote

> Thanks for verifying that the real specs for the standards cost money.

No they dont when you have enough of a clue to read the NEXT draft
that includes what was PREVIOUSLY ratified and you can see that
nothing changed with the bit you are interested from THAT draft.

Rule of Holes, child. When you are in one STOP DIGGING.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Bad Sector Count
Next: chkdsk c: /f gives "An unspecified error occurred" error message