Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: GNU
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:19:23 -0700
Organization: Dis One
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <mn.c3d37ea32a815bdb.127094@snitoo>
References: <10oj4iv$256in$7@dont-email.me>   <10ojmjv$2ashr$1@dont-email.me> <10okvro$2qvnj$1@dont-email.me> <r0kj8mx0qd.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10p7bp4$1g2jr$1@dont-email.me> <10p8ukd$1vi0v$9@dont-email.me> <u20grkhqqhapi66ff4iruh91ksc611tvnr@4ax.com> <10p901u$1vi0v$16@dont-email.me> <10pa3ad$2ea0n$1@dont-email.me> <u2tirkdf5go1jonupadpdoje5jj22rvit8@4ax.com> <d6uo8mxm8o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1rs9q42.1kx6c2g1st83xnN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <gm839mx25s.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1rscbyq.16ibu7476l1mN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <37049mxvst.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1rsd9sr.ldpxj412nkz4wN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <mu959mxkin.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1rsdpkr.1s26yir1xsuuslN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbk0sk511im446o6nl6l056onl4a97tkdb@4ax.com> <1rse8o6.3zughso4pqtkN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10pptc8$3mise$3@dont-email.me> <1rsf3c4.1muk5iqj5v8myN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10ptkl7$t2gt$1@dont-email.me> <1rsh358.1v7rfo5ir8tnaN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10pv2o5$1eb4h$5@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: snidely.too@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:19:36 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d23111b83c06f58319c91bfa015ad44c"; logging-data="1564309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ezC3e5zpZj8W8tOKlh8Cn1VGUjvaQKb0="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cQwj2undRhpFhE9ZkZw4I43iGrA=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 543516788
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:83924 alt.usage.english:1140688

Lawrence D’Oliveiro presented the following explanation :
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 11:49:50 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 11:57:54 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> 
>>>> As for daily practice at sea: the ships chronometer could of
>>>> course be carried up to the deck for reading it with the
>>>> culmination of the sun. What I have read about it says that they
>>>> preferred to leave it safely and undisturbed and at rest in the
>>>> captains cabin,
>>> 
>>> The ones that Harrison built were far too large and heavy to be
>>> easily portable.
>> 
>> Certainly, but this is not relevant to my text above.
>
> Your text above was talking about moving the chronometer up and down,
> to and from the deck, to make daily observations. I was pointing out
> why that wasn’t feasible.

And he claims that it is feasible BUT preferable (as in lower risk to 
instrument) to not move the chronometer.

> Maybe you feel that refutations of your claims are somehow “not
> relevant” to your claims ... but that’s not how logic works.

Each of you has the opportunity to point to specific instruments (many 
are available in maritime museums, no?).  Perhaps the development 
timeline is also a factor here.

/dps

-- 
insecticide,patricide,fungicide,decide,....