Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #68773 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-06-13 22:38 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-06-18 08:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-13 22:38 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-14 03:35 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-14 00:29 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-14 16:34 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-15 00:38 +0100
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-14 23:28 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-15 14:04 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-15 21:44 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-14 22:41 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-15 14:19 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-15 18:45 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-15 22:02 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-16 03:00 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-16 01:13 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-17 03:42 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-16 17:52 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-17 03:49 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-17 01:29 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-17 18:20 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-17 23:06 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-18 14:15 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-18 19:38 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-18 00:02 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-06-17 17:30 -0700
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-17 22:38 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-18 03:55 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-18 08:03 -0700
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-18 16:15 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-18 19:41 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-19 22:25 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-19 23:12 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-20 08:36 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-20 20:00 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-21 01:34 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-21 06:50 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-21 19:30 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-22 06:43 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-21 23:57 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-22 01:15 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-21 21:24 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-22 06:14 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-22 02:50 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-22 15:49 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-22 18:22 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-23 00:40 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-23 11:27 -0700
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-24 01:34 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-24 07:52 -0700
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-24 22:24 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-25 09:20 -0700
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-26 03:36 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-06-29 15:20 +0200
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-30 00:01 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-23 18:43 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-22 11:43 +0100
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-22 15:49 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-23 01:01 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-23 18:46 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-24 04:52 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-24 05:06 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-24 01:24 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-24 06:31 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-24 10:19 +0100
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-24 22:25 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-25 02:02 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-25 01:58 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-25 02:17 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-22 15:49 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-22 19:09 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-22 21:55 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-23 02:25 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-23 01:07 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-23 05:52 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-23 05:35 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-23 16:43 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-23 19:11 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-24 01:36 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-24 04:52 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-24 06:47 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-24 01:02 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-22 06:49 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-22 15:49 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-22 02:14 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-17 03:57 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-17 04:08 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-18 22:44 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-15 18:36 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-15 22:40 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-16 04:11 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-16 01:30 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-16 18:15 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-16 09:35 -0700
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-17 04:00 +0000
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-17 04:22 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-17 23:11 -0400
Re: FAA To Finally Ditch Floppy Disks & Win-95 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-18 08:01 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <102uhm4$35n0c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68864 |
In comp.os.linux.misc c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 6/17/25 2:20 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2025-06-17, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> On 6/16/25 1:52 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> Yesterday I felt a something catching while moving the controls >>>> in our small plane. I found that various bits of plumbing >>>> behind the panel had shifted to where they were touching things >>>> they shouldn't. Time to get out those good old nylon zap straps >>>> and tie things back where they belong, just like the mechanics do. >>>> Mind you, we don't get much above 10,000 feet... >>> >>> Always MANY failure modes alas ... >>> >>> However AIRLINE corps are SUPPOSED to keep abreast >>> and ahead of these issues. >> >> <cough>Boeing<cough> >> >>> About the time I quit flying was during a huge OPEC >>> oil embargo. Fuel prices quadrupled or more and too >>> often you couldn't even GET the right fuel for the >>> planes. Valve lock in a 4-cyl engine - NOT good. >>> Green gas was NOT red gas ! >> >> And now it's replaced by blue gas - 100LL (low lead). >> Much less lead than good old green gas (100/130), but >> still three times as much as in the red gas (80/87) >> that a lot of engines were designed for. Beware of >> lead fouling the plugs! > > In the 70s, engines made for Red did NOT take > well to 100LL. It was both ignition and > especially the VALVES. KEPT having valves > stick ... NOT good. Besides, oil embargoes > drove fuel prices through the roof - could > NOT afford it then. Was 'red' a leaded fuel? Tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive provided more than simply an octane boost. The leftover residue from combustion provided a lubricating effect, and as a result for many (most?) engines designed in the days of leaded fuel the designers took advantage of that lubricating effect from the tetraethyl lead for (at least) the valve stems (esp. the exhaust valve, which operated at temperatures that made only oil lubrication difficult) and for cushioning the valve seats when the valves closed. When running unleaded fuel in an engine that took advantage if the lead lubrication effect, eventually one got stuck valves or very worn valve seats.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mpWdnYsm68Gs0871nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #68877 |
On 6/18/25 10:15 AM, Rich wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 6/17/25 2:20 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> On 2025-06-17, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/16/25 1:52 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yesterday I felt a something catching while moving the controls >>>>> in our small plane. I found that various bits of plumbing >>>>> behind the panel had shifted to where they were touching things >>>>> they shouldn't. Time to get out those good old nylon zap straps >>>>> and tie things back where they belong, just like the mechanics do. >>>>> Mind you, we don't get much above 10,000 feet... >>>> >>>> Always MANY failure modes alas ... >>>> >>>> However AIRLINE corps are SUPPOSED to keep abreast >>>> and ahead of these issues. >>> >>> <cough>Boeing<cough> >>> >>>> About the time I quit flying was during a huge OPEC >>>> oil embargo. Fuel prices quadrupled or more and too >>>> often you couldn't even GET the right fuel for the >>>> planes. Valve lock in a 4-cyl engine - NOT good. >>>> Green gas was NOT red gas ! >>> >>> And now it's replaced by blue gas - 100LL (low lead). >>> Much less lead than good old green gas (100/130), but >>> still three times as much as in the red gas (80/87) >>> that a lot of engines were designed for. Beware of >>> lead fouling the plugs! >> >> In the 70s, engines made for Red did NOT take >> well to 100LL. It was both ignition and >> especially the VALVES. KEPT having valves >> stick ... NOT good. Besides, oil embargoes >> drove fuel prices through the roof - could >> NOT afford it then. > > Was 'red' a leaded fuel? Tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive > provided more than simply an octane boost. The leftover residue from > combustion provided a lubricating effect, and as a result for many > (most?) engines designed in the days of leaded fuel the designers took > advantage of that lubricating effect from the tetraethyl lead for (at > least) the valve stems (esp. the exhaust valve, which operated at > temperatures that made only oil lubrication difficult) and for > cushioning the valve seats when the valves closed. When running > unleaded fuel in an engine that took advantage if the lead lubrication > effect, eventually one got stuck valves or very worn valve seats. You got that basically right. Red was leaded gasoline. The residues DID act as a lubricant. The burn rate was different from 100LL too. Aircraft engines are built more 'on the edge' than automobile engines because you have to keep the weight down and because of heat- management concerns. Unleaded gasoline was NEW at the time. There were SOME problems in SOME automobiles, but it was amplified in aircraft engines. Formulas have been adjusted since then, unleaded is ok now. The lead has been replaced with toluene and a few other things to push up the 'octane rating'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <102svmu$2mtm4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68831 |
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:52:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > You missed the notation on the chart: those altitudes are in meters, not > feet. We call them “metres”. Since when do we use Yank spelling for units that Yanks don’t even use anyway?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-17 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <102t1b1$2eqt2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68858 |
On 6/17/25 17:02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:52:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> You missed the notation on the chart: those altitudes are in meters, not >> feet. > > We call them “metres”. Since when do we use Yank spelling for units that > Yanks don’t even use anyway? For quite a while,. and we use centimeters 2.54 to one inch. parking meters too many in every block, kilometers and meters 1,000 in every kilometer . As I was taught in HS in the 1950s. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-17 22:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7W6dncD4ub0qu8_1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #68858 |
On 6/17/25 8:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:52:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> You missed the notation on the chart: those altitudes are in meters, not >> feet. > > We call them “metres”. Since when do we use Yank spelling for units that > Yanks don’t even use anyway? The sci/tech side DOES use those units and has for a very long time. Meters, metres (my spellcheck doesn't like that) are convenient, but centimeters/millimeters are too small - the English units are more, well, 'human scale'. Oh well, the USA could have stuck to Whitworth measures :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 03:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mberljF2tnjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68863 |
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 22:38:31 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Meters, metres (my spellcheck doesn't like that) > are convenient, but centimeters/millimeters are too small - the > English units are more, well, 'human scale'. Nothing wrong with 9 millimeter, or .356 inches if you prefer. Besides when you're working under a car 'gimme a damn 9' works better with your significant other than 'could you hand me a 11/32, darling?' Of course US cars and bikes of a certain vintage have both. That's the nice thing about working on the Toyota or either Suzuki; they're metric, end of story. Besides 'metre' goes back to the French National Assembly that wanted to reinvent everything including 10 day weeks with the days named after plants. At least the Marshmallow of Thermidor didn't survive. When I was a kid I was fascinated when I realized you could invent your own measurements (and language). Afaik the Harvard Bridge between Cambridge and Boston is still marked off in smoots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 08:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250618080351.00007899@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #68867 |
On 18 Jun 2025 03:55:32 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > Besides 'metre' goes back to the French National Assembly that wanted > to reinvent everything including 10 day weeks with the days named > after plants. Frustratingly, the year persisted in having 365.25[...] days no matter how severely they threatened to guillotine it ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NCB4Q.1264685$6%s6.96991@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #68879 |
On 2025-06-18, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 Jun 2025 03:55:32 GMT > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> Besides 'metre' goes back to the French National Assembly that wanted >> to reinvent everything including 10 day weeks with the days named >> after plants. > > Frustratingly, the year persisted in having 365.25[...] days no matter > how severely they threatened to guillotine it ;) Just as pi has resisted any attempts to re-define it as 3. (355/113 works pretty well, though...) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 19:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mpWdnYom68FB0871nZ2dnZfqn_oAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #68880 |
On 6/18/25 12:15 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-06-18, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 18 Jun 2025 03:55:32 GMT >> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> >>> Besides 'metre' goes back to the French National Assembly that wanted >>> to reinvent everything including 10 day weeks with the days named >>> after plants. >> >> Frustratingly, the year persisted in having 365.25[...] days no matter >> how severely they threatened to guillotine it ;) > > Just as pi has resisted any attempts to re-define it as 3. > (355/113 works pretty well, though...) > Well, just change to base-pi ... then it's conveniently 1 Might be a bit messy to calculate how to make change at the convenience store however :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-19 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <P705Q.463508$IJr4.95857@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #68890 |
On 2025-06-18, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 6/18/25 12:15 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2025-06-18, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 18 Jun 2025 03:55:32 GMT >>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Besides 'metre' goes back to the French National Assembly that wanted >>>> to reinvent everything including 10 day weeks with the days named >>>> after plants. >>> >>> Frustratingly, the year persisted in having 365.25[...] days no matter >>> how severely they threatened to guillotine it ;) >> >> Just as pi has resisted any attempts to re-define it as 3. >> (355/113 works pretty well, though...) > > Well, just change to base-pi ... then it's > conveniently 1 > > Might be a bit messy to calculate how to make > change at the convenience store however :-) Yeah, and then you have all those people who just got converted to base e and don't want to change again. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-19 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10325h4$6iji$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68907 |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:25:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Yeah, and then you have all those people who just got converted to base > e and don't want to change again. Attempts to determine how many are actually doing this keep running into calculation problems. Even round-figure estimates seem too complex to work out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-20 08:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1033kl9$th0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68907 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > On 2025-06-18, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> On 6/18/25 12:15 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2025-06-18, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 18 Jun 2025 03:55:32 GMT >>>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Besides 'metre' goes back to the French National Assembly that wanted >>>>> to reinvent everything including 10 day weeks with the days named >>>>> after plants. >>>> >>>> Frustratingly, the year persisted in having 365.25[...] days no matter >>>> how severely they threatened to guillotine it ;) >>> >>> Just as pi has resisted any attempts to re-define it as 3. >>> (355/113 works pretty well, though...) >> >> Well, just change to base-pi ... then it's >> conveniently 1 >> >> Might be a bit messy to calculate how to make >> change at the convenience store however :-) > > Yeah, and then you have all those people who just got converted > to base e and don't want to change again. MIDI's variable-length values are basically base-128. The Sumerians and Babylonians used base-60. The Aztecs used base-20. Programmers use base-16. The gomers use base-10. Digital Equipment Corporation used base-8. strtol() allows any base up to 35. -- I'm an idiot.. At least this [bug] took about 5 minutes to find. Disquieting ... -- Gonzalo Tornaria in response to Linus Torvalds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-20 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mblsvbF9qfoU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68941 |
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Programmers use base-16. And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into style.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 01:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dh6cnSeRzYPO2cv1nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #68953 |
On 6/20/25 4:00 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Programmers use base-16. > > And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into > style. I always did a lot of that ... microcontrollers with SMALL ram/flash, mostly for field data-loggers. Had to SQUEEZE, take advantage of every byte and bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 06:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10362qd$10ote$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68953 |
rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Programmers use base-16. > > And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into > style. Dang, I forgot about base 2! Base 8 is kind of annoying, you know. -- It doesn't much signify whom one marries, for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else. -- Will Rogers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mbofjcFnavnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68984 |
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 06:50:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Programmers use base-16. >> >> And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into >> style. > > Dang, I forgot about base 2! > > Base 8 is kind of annoying, you know. For some processors octal works well for opcodes. Then there is chmod and friends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 06:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1038mo2$fq2l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68988 |
rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 06:50:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >> >>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> Programmers use base-16. >>> >>> And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into >>> style. >> >> Dang, I forgot about base 2! >> >> Base 8 is kind of annoying, you know. > > For some processors octal works well for opcodes. Then there is chmod and > friends. Good point. I have UNIX underpants. chmod 700 baby! -- "The human brain is like an enormous fish -- it is flat and slimy and has gills through which it can see." -- Monty Python
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 23:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DFH5Q.378160$K3w3.127069@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #68984 |
On 2025-06-21, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: > rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Programmers use base-16. >> >> And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into >> style. > > Dang, I forgot about base 2! There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't. > Base 8 is kind of annoying, you know. "Base 8 is just like base 10, really - if you're missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mbp3ooFqebsU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68992 |
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:57:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-06-21, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: > >> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >> >>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> Programmers use base-16. >>> >>> And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into >>> style. >> >> Dang, I forgot about base 2! > > There are 10 kinds of people: > those who understand binary and those who don't. > >> Base 8 is kind of annoying, you know. > > "Base 8 is just like base 10, really - if you're missing two fingers." > -- Tom Lehrer It sounds far-fetched but supposedly one culture used base 8 because they counted with the spaces between their fingers rather than their fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 21:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8judncOVBsnUxsr1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #68993 |
On 6/21/25 9:15 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:57:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2025-06-21, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >> >>> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>> >>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:36:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> Programmers use base-16. >>>> >>>> And 2, 8, and 10. ARM processors are bringing bit twiddling back into >>>> style. >>> >>> Dang, I forgot about base 2! >> >> There are 10 kinds of people: >> those who understand binary and those who don't. >> >>> Base 8 is kind of annoying, you know. >> >> "Base 8 is just like base 10, really - if you're missing two fingers." >> -- Tom Lehrer > > It sounds far-fetched but supposedly one culture used base 8 because they > counted with the spaces between their fingers rather than their fingers. Still wonder about the Babylonian base-60 thing ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web