On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Martin Buck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 03:01:52PM -0500, Robert Lipe wrote:
> I'm actually liking that last idea. It seems the corruption is always theOK, I gave this a try and it seems to work pretty well. To test it, I've
> same; we always lose exactly the first byte, right? It's not like we need
> that byte and it's not like we have to differentiate various forms of
done now 100 downloads with 12000 track points each. I got 61 corrupted
track points and they all were fixed properly.
Sometimes we have to do icky things. This seems like a sound workaround given the hand we're dealt on this one. Thanx for sticking with it. I commtited it. I did drop the warning as it's not like there's anything a user can do about it.