Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #186753 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jai Hind <jai.hind@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-14 00:54 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-08-17 01:03 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Browse at the speed of thought Jai Hind <jai.hind@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 00:54 +0000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-13 21:46 -0400
Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 20:21 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:53 +0200
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-14 21:48 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 15:09 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-14 15:25 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 19:43 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-15 21:53 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 23:22 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-16 16:02 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-16 18:44 -0400
mostly OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave (was: Re: Browse at the speed of thought) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 14:41 +0100
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 12:42 -0500
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 18:50 +0100
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 13:23 -0500
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 19:44 +0100
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 14:53 -0500
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-08-18 16:50 +0000
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-18 13:37 -0500
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 16:23 -0400
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-18 07:01 +0100
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-18 09:08 -0500
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-11-24 18:09 -0800
Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:18 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 17:24 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 08:55 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 06:48 -0400
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 12:00 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:16 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-17 22:11 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:07 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 21:12 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought AI User Here <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-17 00:58 +0000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 21:07 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-17 22:23 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-17 22:57 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:49 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 21:30 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 12:54 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 23:00 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:37 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 21:41 +1000
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:02 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:04 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:22 +0100
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 23:10 +1000
OT: driving licences (was: Re: Browse at the speed of thought) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 14:34 +0100
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-19 00:38 +1000
Re: OT: driving licences Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2025-08-18 16:55 +0100
Re: OT: driving licences The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-10-06 11:58 -0700
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-07 22:10 +1100
Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-07 14:36 +0200
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-08 00:00 +1100
Re: OT: driving licences Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 16:15 +0000
Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 11:14 +0200
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-08 22:16 +1100
Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 08:36 +0100
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-25 21:56 +1100
Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 12:41 +0100
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-25 23:04 +1100
Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:58 +0100
Re: OT: driving licences "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-11-25 13:49 +0000
Re: OT: driving licences Tim Slattery <TimSlattery@utexas.edu> - 2025-11-25 10:47 -0500
Re: OT: driving licences "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-11-25 17:40 +0000
Re: OT: driving licences Jim the Geordie <jim@geordieland.com> - 2025-11-25 13:03 +0000
Re: OT: driving licences Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-25 08:22 -0500
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-26 20:51 +1100
Re: OT: driving licences Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-26 06:35 -0500
Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-26 23:14 +1100
Re: OT: driving licences Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-26 13:37 -0500
Re: OT: driving licences Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2025-10-08 17:03 +0100
Re: OT: driving licences Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 17:07 +0000
Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 08:42 +0100
Re: OT: driving licences The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-10-06 12:03 -0700
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 03:42 -0400
Re: Browse at the speed of thought sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 12:28 -0500
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 16:54 -0400
Re: Browse at the speed of thought sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-20 19:32 -0500
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-21 03:06 -0400
Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-11-24 17:12 -0800
Re: Browse at the speed of thought sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-13 22:48 -0500
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 23:26 +0800
Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-14 18:53 -0400
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 20:31 +0800
Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 01:03 +0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Jai Hind <jai.hind@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 00:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Browse at the speed of thought |
| Message-ID | <107jcgc$osjk$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
Get Comet! https://www.perplexity.ai/comet Perplexity's $34.5 billion bid for Google Chrome: Genius or stunt? Vantage with Palki Sharma. Perplexity — the $18 billion AI start-up founded by Aravind Srinivas, who is of Indian origin — has just made a $34.5 billion cash offer to buy Google Chrome. Yes, the world’s most popular browser, owned by one of the richest tech giants. The catch? Chrome is worth far more than Perplexity itself, and no one knows where the money would come from. Is this a genuine bid, a bold regulatory strategy, or the ultimate PR stunt to promote its own AI browser, Comet? Palki Sharma explains. https://youtu.be/s01QuLpjISc Jai Hind!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 21:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107jf5u$6pf8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186753 |
On 8/13/25 8:54 PM, Jai Hind wrote:
> Get Comet!
>
> https://www.perplexity.ai/comet
>
> Perplexity's $34.5 billion bid for Google Chrome: Genius or stunt?
> Vantage with Palki Sharma.
>
> Perplexity — the $18 billion AI start-up founded by Aravind Srinivas,
> who is of Indian origin — has just made a $34.5 billion cash offer to
> buy Google Chrome. Yes, the world’s most popular browser, owned by one
> of the richest tech giants. The catch? Chrome is worth far more than
> Perplexity itself, and no one knows where the money would come from. Is
> this a genuine bid, a bold regulatory strategy, or the ultimate PR stunt
> to promote its own AI browser, Comet? Palki Sharma explains.
>
> https://youtu.be/s01QuLpjISc
>
> Jai Hind!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
If I could download it without signing in, I'd like to try it. Sorry Perplexity
--
Linux Mint 22.1, Thunderbird 128.13.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 141.0.3
Alan K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 20:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <107jkoo$7d6l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186754 |
On 8/13/25 18:46, Alan K. wrote:
> On 8/13/25 8:54 PM, Jai Hind wrote:
>> Get Comet!
>>
>> https://www.perplexity.ai/comet
>>
>> Perplexity's $34.5 billion bid for Google Chrome: Genius or stunt?
>> Vantage with Palki Sharma.
>>
>> Perplexity — the $18 billion AI start-up founded by Aravind Srinivas,
>> who is of Indian origin — has just made a $34.5 billion cash offer to
>> buy Google Chrome. Yes, the world’s most popular browser, owned by one
>> of the richest tech giants. The catch? Chrome is worth far more than
>> Perplexity itself, and no one knows where the money would come from. Is
>> this a genuine bid, a bold regulatory strategy, or the ultimate PR stunt
>> to promote its own AI browser, Comet? Palki Sharma explains.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/s01QuLpjISc
>>
>> Jai Hind!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> If I could download it without signing in, I'd like to try it. Sorry Perplexity
Perhaps I'm not sufficiently paranoid because I love perplexity. It's
the only one that lets me copy+paste. It creates a pdf for me to keep.
When I asked how to deal with a problem with an insurance company it
offered to draft an over-ride request letter, then a script for a phone
call to the company, and then an appeal letter. All were excellent, and
I used the points in the phone-call script and got immediate
satisfaction. Perhaps all the AIs behave similarly, but I find it far
more useful for asking how-to questions than googling for instruction
manuals etc.
What worries me is that children will have it too easy and won't have
the faintest idea how to find information themselves. Not my problem,
though.
My identity has been pretty much public (remember printed phone books?)
for decades. If they want to tailor ads to my interests I won't see
them. I worry more about the governments, but they already have
everything they need or want to know about me.
--
Cheers, Bev
"You should be glad that bridge fell down -- I was planning
to build thirteen more to the same design."
-- Attributed to I.K. Brunel, addressing the
Directors of the Great Western Railway
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 12:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mg5tgkFejkoU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186756 |
On 2025-08-14 05:21, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 8/13/25 18:46, Alan K. wrote:
>> On 8/13/25 8:54 PM, Jai Hind wrote:
>>> Get Comet!
>>>
>>> https://www.perplexity.ai/comet
>>>
>>> Perplexity's $34.5 billion bid for Google Chrome: Genius or stunt?
>>> Vantage with Palki Sharma.
>>>
>>> Perplexity — the $18 billion AI start-up founded by Aravind Srinivas,
>>> who is of Indian origin — has just made a $34.5 billion cash offer to
>>> buy Google Chrome. Yes, the world’s most popular browser, owned by one
>>> of the richest tech giants. The catch? Chrome is worth far more than
>>> Perplexity itself, and no one knows where the money would come from. Is
>>> this a genuine bid, a bold regulatory strategy, or the ultimate PR stunt
>>> to promote its own AI browser, Comet? Palki Sharma explains.
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/s01QuLpjISc
>>>
>>> Jai Hind!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If I could download it without signing in, I'd like to try it. Sorry
>> Perplexity
>
> Perhaps I'm not sufficiently paranoid because I love perplexity. It's
> the only one that lets me copy+paste.
I can copy paste from chatgpt, on firefox. Dunno about pdf.
> It creates a pdf for me to keep.
> When I asked how to deal with a problem with an insurance company it
> offered to draft an over-ride request letter, then a script for a phone
> call to the company, and then an appeal letter. All were excellent, and
> I used the points in the phone-call script and got immediate
> satisfaction. Perhaps all the AIs behave similarly, but I find it far
> more useful for asking how-to questions than googling for instruction
> manuals etc.
With dialogues with chatgpt I have solved several computer problems,
that normally I would have asked here, and extend for days or weeks;
instead, minutes, or hours if I had to try the suggestions, then come
back with the errors.
>
> What worries me is that children will have it too easy and won't have
> the faintest idea how to find information themselves. Not my problem,
> though.
>
> My identity has been pretty much public (remember printed phone books?)
> for decades. If they want to tailor ads to my interests I won't see
> them. I worry more about the governments, but they already have
> everything they need or want to know about me.
>
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 21:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <107kie9$f61o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186756 |
On 14/08/2025 1:21 pm, The Real Bev wrote: <Snip> > What worries me is that children will have it too easy and won't have > the faintest idea how to find information themselves. Not my problem, > though. Hey, Bev, did you know everything forty years or so ago, .... or did you read BOOKS and/or get advice from your Parents/Teachers/Friends?? Didn't you have it 'too easy' back then?? Just the starting point has moved so far down the track. ;-P -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <107lmre$oeik$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186765 |
On 8/14/25 04:48, Daniel70 wrote: > On 14/08/2025 1:21 pm, The Real Bev wrote: > > <Snip> > >> What worries me is that children will have it too easy and won't have >> the faintest idea how to find information themselves. Not my problem, >> though. > > Hey, Bev, did you know everything forty years or so ago, .... or did you > read BOOKS and/or get advice from your Parents/Teachers/Friends?? > > Didn't you have it 'too easy' back then?? No. In 1985 I didn't have access to a personal computer, although I could submit FORTRAN decks to a Univac 1100. Books, libraries, encyclopedias, the card catalog, all that good stuff. This is stuff we'd had to do in school or flunk our classes. We understood the concepts. 10 years later was email and usenet and we could ask usenet people questions and get answers. Then came google. We still had to wade through the links it fed us. Problem-solving was still involved. It was a habit. Now all we have to do is ask a question and apply some sanity-checking. Do the kids even understand that concept? Do they even use computers, or is everthing framed in small easy-to digest bites? > Just the starting point has moved so far down the track. ;-P Yeah, but are your kids as well-informed as you were at their age? Do they understand as much? What do your parents say about you? -- Cheers, Bev Of course SoCal has four seasons: Earthquake, Mudslide, Brushfire, and Riot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mg763cFmga7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186770 |
The Real Bev wrote: > Now all we have to do is ask a question and apply some sanity-checking. > Do the kids even understand that concept? Do they even use computers, > or is everthing framed in small easy-to digest bites? They (verbally) ask their phone and get a verbal answer. Not very 'thorough' and not even necessarily accurate; but 'easy'. -- Mike Easter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <107m6rk$rtaf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186772 |
On 8/14/25 15:25, Mike Easter wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Now all we have to do is ask a question and apply some sanity-checking.
>> Do the kids even understand that concept? Do they even use computers,
>> or is everthing framed in small easy-to digest bites?
>
> They (verbally) ask their phone and get a verbal answer.
>
> Not very 'thorough' and not even necessarily accurate; but 'easy'.
And this makes me afraid. What happens when the last competent people
die out and only the consumers are left?
--
Cheers, Bev
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the
majority, but to be insane in such a useful way that
they can't commit you." -- Mark Edwards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-15 21:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <107n749$13m45$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186770 |
On 15/08/2025 8:09 am, The Real Bev wrote: > On 8/14/25 04:48, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 14/08/2025 1:21 pm, The Real Bev wrote: >> >> <Snip> >> >>> What worries me is that children will have it too easy and won't have >>> the faintest idea how to find information themselves. Not my >>> problem, though. >> >> Hey, Bev, did you know everything forty years or so ago, .... or did you >> read BOOKS and/or get advice from your Parents/Teachers/Friends?? >> >> Didn't you have it 'too easy' back then?? > > No. In 1985 I didn't have access to a personal computer, although I > could submit FORTRAN decks to a Univac 1100. Books, libraries, > encyclopedias, the card catalog, all that good stuff. This is stuff > we'd had to do in school or flunk our classes. We understood the > concepts. 10 years later was email and usenet and we could ask usenet > people questions and get answers. > > Then came google. We still had to wade through the links it fed us. > Problem-solving was still involved. It was a habit. > > Now all we have to do is ask a question and apply some sanity-checking. > Do the kids even understand that concept? Do they even use computers, > or is everthing framed in small easy-to digest bites? > >> Just the starting point has moved so far down the track. ;-P > > Yeah, but are your kids as well-informed as you were at their age? Do > they understand as much? What do your parents say about you? > No kids, myself, just nieces and a nephew. And I don't think they are as well-informed .... but they know where to go ..... and it isn't to the Oxford English Dictionary or Encyclopaedia Britannica (or the equivalents)!! -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-15 23:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <107p82h$1hp41$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186777 |
On 8/15/25 04:53, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 15/08/2025 8:09 am, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 8/14/25 04:48, Daniel70 wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2025 1:21 pm, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>> What worries me is that children will have it too easy and won't have
>>>> the faintest idea how to find information themselves. Not my
>>>> problem, though.
>>>
>>> Hey, Bev, did you know everything forty years or so ago, .... or did you
>>> read BOOKS and/or get advice from your Parents/Teachers/Friends??
>>>
>>> Didn't you have it 'too easy' back then??
>>
>> No. In 1985 I didn't have access to a personal computer, although I
>> could submit FORTRAN decks to a Univac 1100. Books, libraries,
>> encyclopedias, the card catalog, all that good stuff. This is stuff
>> we'd had to do in school or flunk our classes. We understood the
>> concepts. 10 years later was email and usenet and we could ask usenet
>> people questions and get answers.
>>
>> Then came google. We still had to wade through the links it fed us.
>> Problem-solving was still involved. It was a habit.
>>
>> Now all we have to do is ask a question and apply some sanity-checking.
>> Do the kids even understand that concept? Do they even use computers,
>> or is everthing framed in small easy-to digest bites?
>>
>>> Just the starting point has moved so far down the track. ;-P
>>
>> Yeah, but are your kids as well-informed as you were at their age? Do
>> they understand as much? What do your parents say about you?
>>
> No kids, myself, just nieces and a nephew. And I don't think they are as
> well-informed .... but they know where to go ..... and it isn't to the
> Oxford English Dictionary or Encyclopaedia Britannica (or the equivalents)!!
You go to the OED for FUN, for chrissake! BTW... William F. Buckley was
supposed to have this fantastic vocabulary, right? Well he probably
did, but I just happened to see a totally unknown and unused word as the
heading of one of the columns (I have the 2-volume set with the
magnifying glass) while I was looking for something else and he just
happened to use it the next time I happened to see his show -- a rarity.
Not the sort of word anyone even with a huge vocabulary (and mine is
actually pretty large -- I've been tested!) would have. Pure
coincidence, but telling... I wish I could remember the word. Not that
there's anything wrong in trolling the OED for obscure words...
--
Cheers, Bev
Organized people will never know the sheer joyous ecstasy of finding
something that was believed to have been irretrievably lost.
-- D. Stern
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-16 16:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107q6hc$1n0cg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186784 |
On 2025/8/16 7:22:8, The Real Bev wrote: > On 8/15/25 04:53, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 15/08/2025 8:09 am, The Real Bev wrote: [] >>> Yeah, but are your kids as well-informed as you were at their age? Do >>> they understand as much? What do your parents say about you? >>> >> No kids, myself, just nieces and a nephew. And I don't think they are as >> well-informed .... but they know where to go ..... and it isn't to the >> Oxford English Dictionary or Encyclopaedia Britannica (or the equivalents)!! And, the new methods _are_ very seductive. A recent discussion suggested (I think) that Germany was using the LW band in ways beyond just broadcasting - much as we do for power-load switching, but to a greater extent. I decided to try to find out, so googled for a bit - without much success; then I gave in and went to ChatGPT. I was able to determine that in fact Germany does not use the LW band for _anything_ - broadcast or otherwise. Yes, this assumes chatGPT knows (or can find) the answer - but in this case, I suspect it could do so at least as well as I could, and certainly considerably more quickly. So I can see it rapidly becoming the go-to place to ask questions.> > You go to the OED for FUN, for chrissake! BTW... William F. Buckley was I'm glad to find someone else for whom that is the case! (And my brother who works for it would be too, I think.) Though beware - such things aren't inviolate; moves to terminate the equivalent in Australia are at a dangerously advanced stage, possibly now unstoppably so. [] > Not the sort of word anyone even with a huge vocabulary (and mine is > actually pretty large -- I've been tested!) would have. Pure (Where do you get such a test?) > coincidence, but telling... I wish I could remember the word. Not that > there's anything wrong in trolling the OED for obscure words... > (-:The basic concern, though, that people increasingly don't know how to do certain things, is definitely valid; the one sometimes mentioned in UK is "know how to wire a plug" (fix the wires in a mains lead [US: line cord] into the bit that goes into the wall outlet). But also, the willingness to _find out_: I have a moderate amateur knowledge of plumbing - household pipework/taps/etc. - but I've found it out entirely myself, as necessary. I'm not boasting there - I only have practical experience of the more expensive methods involving olives, none of soldered connections; I just give it as an example of the willingness to find out. So many others would call a plumber at an earlier stage. (You could of course just accuse me of miserliness, but that's beside the point, and not _entirely_ true: my inclination when encountering a problem is not "who do I get to fix this" but "how does one fix this".) In the computing or wider reference case, I fear - as some others in this discussion are fearing - that _reliance_ on AI could become dangerous. But I definitely see the temptation! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-16 18:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107r1kq$1viji$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186786 |
On Sat, 8/16/2025 11:02 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/16 7:22:8, The Real Bev wrote: >> On 8/15/25 04:53, Daniel70 wrote: >>> On 15/08/2025 8:09 am, The Real Bev wrote: > > [] > >>>> Yeah, but are your kids as well-informed as you were at their age? Do >>>> they understand as much? What do your parents say about you? >>>> >>> No kids, myself, just nieces and a nephew. And I don't think they are as >>> well-informed .... but they know where to go ..... and it isn't to the >>> Oxford English Dictionary or Encyclopaedia Britannica (or the equivalents)!! > > And, the new methods _are_ very seductive. A recent discussion suggested > (I think) that Germany was using the LW band in ways beyond just > broadcasting - much as we do for power-load switching, but to a greater > extent. I decided to try to find out, so googled for a bit - without > much success; then I gave in and went to ChatGPT. I was able to > determine that in fact Germany does not use the LW band for _anything_ - > broadcast or otherwise. Yes, this assumes chatGPT knows (or can find) > the answer - but in this case, I suspect it could do so at least as well > as I could, and certainly considerably more quickly. > > So I can see it rapidly becoming the go-to place to ask questions.> >> You go to the OED for FUN, for chrissake! BTW... William F. Buckley was > > I'm glad to find someone else for whom that is the case! (And my brother > who works for it would be too, I think.) Though beware - such things > aren't inviolate; moves to terminate the equivalent in Australia are at > a dangerously advanced stage, possibly now unstoppably so. > > [] > >> Not the sort of word anyone even with a huge vocabulary (and mine is >> actually pretty large -- I've been tested!) would have. Pure > > (Where do you get such a test?) > >> coincidence, but telling... I wish I could remember the word. Not that >> there's anything wrong in trolling the OED for obscure words... >> > (-:The basic concern, though, that people increasingly don't know how to > do certain things, is definitely valid; the one sometimes mentioned in > UK is "know how to wire a plug" (fix the wires in a mains lead [US: line > cord] into the bit that goes into the wall outlet). But also, the > willingness to _find out_: I have a moderate amateur knowledge of > plumbing - household pipework/taps/etc. - but I've found it out entirely > myself, as necessary. I'm not boasting there - I only have practical > experience of the more expensive methods involving olives, none of > soldered connections; I just give it as an example of the willingness to > find out. So many others would call a plumber at an earlier stage. (You > could of course just accuse me of miserliness, but that's beside the > point, and not _entirely_ true: my inclination when encountering a > problem is not "who do I get to fix this" but "how does one fix this".) > In the computing or wider reference case, I fear - as some others in > this discussion are fearing - that _reliance_ on AI could become > dangerous. But I definitely see the temptation! > First, I start with a Wiki, to find some ground truth and to find some terminology for my topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave DCF77 in Frankfurt, Germany, on 77.5 kHz, 50 kW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCF77 Operation at that frequency, requires some amount of power. One of the installations of that nature, has three generators onsite providing power for transmitter operation. Because of the expense, there is a temptation to turn the things off. ******* You can certainly make mistakes doing plumbing. Your first mistake, is buying your materials at the plumbing store :-) Inflationary spiral, my ass. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 14:41 +0100 |
| Subject | mostly OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave (was: Re: Browse at the speed of thought) |
| Message-ID | <107sm6u$1n0cg$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186790 |
On 2025/8/16 23:44:39, Paul wrote: > On Sat, 8/16/2025 11:02 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote: [] >> And, the new methods _are_ very seductive. A recent discussion suggested >> (I think) that Germany was using the LW band in ways beyond just >> broadcasting - much as we do for power-load switching, but to a greater >> extent. I decided to try to find out, so googled for a bit - without >> much success; then I gave in and went to ChatGPT. I was able to >> determine that in fact Germany does not use the LW band for _anything_ - >> broadcast or otherwise. Yes, this assumes chatGPT knows (or can find) >> the answer - but in this case, I suspect it could do so at least as well >> as I could, and certainly considerably more quickly. >> >> So I can see it rapidly becoming the go-to place to ask questions.> [] > First, I start with a Wiki, to find some ground truth and to find > some terminology for my topic. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave > > DCF77 in Frankfurt, Germany, on 77.5 kHz, 50 kW > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCF77 > > Operation at that frequency, requires some amount of power. One of > the installations of that nature, has three generators onsite providing > power for transmitter operation. Because of the expense, there is a > temptation to turn the things off. Yes, at least one search I did came up with that as well. Possibly because it's within " the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) low frequency (LF, 30–300 kHz)". However, I was/we were talking about the "long wave" _broadcast_ band (which I understand is not used in USA [less and less so in Europe now], which is 148.5 and 283.5 kHz (Wikipedia: "With the adoption of the Geneva Frequency Plan of 1975, long-wave carrier frequencies are exact multiples of 9 kHz; ranging from 153 to 279 kHz.") [It seems odd to me that region 1 does not use the LW band; a single LW transmitter covers a larger area, and I'd have thought the larger sizes of several countries in region 1 - such as USA, Canada, and Brazil - would make it desirable, or at least so when broadcasting started.] The LW band is being less and less used now - mainly due to increased levels of interference, mainly from power switching devices; Germany does not use it for anything, broadcast or otherwise. (Though I've seen mention of a _new_ station starting, in Finland.)> > ******* > > You can certainly make mistakes doing plumbing. Indeed! Always find out where your stopcock (main shut-off valve) is before you start! (and secondary one for hot water if you have a hot water tank.) And don't even attempt to work on gas pipework unless you're a qualified gas engineer.> > Your first mistake, is buying your materials at the plumbing store :-) > Inflationary spiral, my ass. Or, here, from the primary DIY chain; the secondary one is often cheaper, and is less likely to leave out parts you need.> > Paul John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have the courage to be ordinary - people make themselves so desperately unhappy trying to be clever and totally original. (Robbie Coltrane, RT 8-14 Nov. 1997.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 12:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave |
| Message-ID | <107t49e$29skn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186804 |
On 8/17/2025 8:41 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > And don't even attempt to work on gas pipework unless > you're a qualified gas engineer.> Nonsense. I don't think you're fearmongering, but you simply don't know what you're talking about here. Gas pipe could even be said to be easier than copper pipe, since the typical black pipe job doesn't get soldered joints. If you personally feel unqualified to cut pipe, connect, and check for leaks, you should not be doing it. If for peace of mind alone. I certainly am not a "qualified gas engineer" and I have done gas pipe jobs many times. Most men, with a bare minimum of research and a few specialty tools, can successfully do gas pipe and save a ton of money. If you do have a professional do it, you should still check his work. -- Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 18:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave |
| Message-ID | <mgej2uFso66U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186811 |
sticks wrote: > Gas pipe could even be said to be easier than copper pipe, since the > typical black pipe job doesn't get soldered joints. Probably a UK/USA difference, but domestic gas pipes have been almost exclusively copper here for decades ... yes you can still buy black iron pipe and fittings at real plumbers merchants, but not likely in DIY sheds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 13:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave |
| Message-ID | <107t6m6$2gcfm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186812 |
On 8/17/2025 12:50 PM, Andy Burns wrote: > sticks wrote: > >> Gas pipe could even be said to be easier than copper pipe, since the >> typical black pipe job doesn't get soldered joints. > > Probably a UK/USA difference, but domestic gas pipes have been almost > exclusively copper here for decades ... yes you can still buy black iron > pipe and fittings at real plumbers merchants, but not likely in DIY sheds. Thanks, I was unaware of that. Yes, different materials can be used here too, even plastics now if you can believe that! Black iron is still number one here in USA, I think. I have always preferred copper for water pipe, but I finally did my first PEX water job a few months ago. Felt like I was going to the dark side. -- Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 19:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave |
| Message-ID | <mgem94Fu49fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186813 |
sticks wrote: > different materials can be used here too, even plastics now if you can > believe that! Black iron is still number one here in USA, I think. Plastic is used in the street, but it must change to metal as it comes inside. Plastic-coated corrugated stainless steel "tracpipe" is becoming more popular, it can be ordered to length, with pre-made flare fittings, so no soldering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 14:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave |
| Message-ID | <107tc05$2gcfm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186814 |
On 8/17/2025 1:44 PM, Andy Burns wrote: > sticks wrote: > >> different materials can be used here too, even plastics now if you can >> believe that! Black iron is still number one here in USA, I think. > > Plastic is used in the street, but it must change to metal as it comes > inside. Yes, we have that here for outside supply lines for some time now. I once had a project reconstructing a city street and though all the services did have locate wires buried with the pipe, the gas company knew all the lines were in the cut and didn't want to bother lowering them for the project. We were advised to simply dig through all of them and then kink them shut held by a vice grips and give them a call. For weeks they came at the end of the day, added pipe and connected the lines, and buried them in the new grade. Even knowing they were they and you were going to cut them, it took a little getting used to hearing that blowing noise and smelling the gas after always training people NOT to do that. -- Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 16:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave |
| Message-ID | <68a359d4$0$17$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #186815 |
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:53:41 -0500, sticks wrote: [snip] > Even knowing they were they and you were going to cut them, it took a > little getting used to hearing that blowing noise and smelling the gas > after always training people NOT to do that. I have been around when they needed to purge the gas line to my water heater (gas had been off because of a faulty regulator). I was surprised at how LOUD it was when the gas came through. BTW, I might have made the noise to remind myself, but didn't because it would scare the cat. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Pastor: One employed by the wicked to prove to them by his example that virtue doesn't pay." [H.L. Mencken]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 13:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave |
| Message-ID | <107vru0$398nk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186847 |
On 8/18/2025 11:50 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:53:41 -0500, sticks wrote: > > [snip] > >> Even knowing they were they and you were going to cut them, it took a >> little getting used to hearing that blowing noise and smelling the gas >> after always training people NOT to do that. > > I have been around when they needed to purge the gas line to my water > heater (gas had been off because of a faulty regulator). I was surprised > at how LOUD it was when the gas came through. > > BTW, I might have made the noise to remind myself, but didn't because it > would scare the cat. You'd be amazed at what you hear when an 8" MOP (maximum operating pressure) lines gets hit. It's really damn scary. If you happen to be the operator that has done the damage, it takes courage to do what is right. You have to get the machine turned off, especially if it is a diesel. Most simply immediately turn off the engine and run like hell. If you're gutsy enough, you try and get backed up enough to be out of the way for repair and if a fire breaks out the machine doesn't go down with the ship. You've only got a short time to decide. If you ever drive near a big gas leak, you should know this. With a gas engine, you can simply turn off the key and this will kill the ignition and no spark will go to the cylinders to ignite any gas. A diesel is different. They don't need spark and operate on compression and heat. So if you are close enough for the gas to get sucked into the intake, the engine can take off and run away at revs that will blow the hell out of everything, and most likely cause a big fire. I've never seen this happen, but have talked to guys who have. Once it starts, there is literally nothing you can do until it runs out of gas. -- Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web