Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #183824 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-19 22:34 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-04-21 12:08 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 110 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-19 22:34 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-20 03:48 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-20 09:27 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-20 20:23 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-20 16:55 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-21 14:42 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-21 21:22 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-22 20:15 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-22 16:52 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 00:37 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-23 17:45 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-24 20:56 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:37 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-24 21:48 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-25 05:32 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-25 20:14 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-25 13:37 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-25 23:32 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-25 20:20 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-25 22:02 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 21:00 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-26 20:07 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-26 17:20 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-27 14:17 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-26 19:24 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-26 22:28 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-27 11:36 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-28 00:16 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-28 21:22 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-29 22:37 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:27 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:48 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 21:09 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-30 19:24 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-30 20:20 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:10 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-30 15:49 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:21 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-29 15:26 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:18 -0500
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-30 22:21 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Sam E <no.email@here.invalid> - 2025-05-01 16:46 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 22:39 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:18 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-06 22:44 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-06 14:13 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-01 00:32 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-30 13:10 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:20 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-30 22:24 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 15:23 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 15:07 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 22:51 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-05-04 19:57 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 22:44 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-30 16:19 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:31 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-06 22:53 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:12 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 21:18 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-28 21:42 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-25 19:04 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-25 23:33 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 20:04 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 21:05 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-23 19:26 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Sam E <no.email@here.invalid> - 2025-04-22 23:00 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 00:40 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-20 07:15 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-20 11:11 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-20 12:08 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:38 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:31 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-21 02:38 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 03:52 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-21 11:51 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 21:13 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-22 06:07 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 05:34 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 07:40 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 09:12 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-21 14:54 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-21 15:29 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-21 16:06 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 17:45 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-22 00:15 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-21 23:01 -0500
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-22 06:58 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 05:47 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-22 10:37 -0500
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 14:34 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 11:38 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 18:29 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 22:23 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-21 14:05 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mr Xi Ji Ping <ping@china.cn> - 2025-04-21 15:30 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 11:28 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-15 21:33 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-15 07:41 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-15 14:06 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-15 09:31 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-15 23:36 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-05-15 23:26 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 14:27 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-16 18:38 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-05-16 14:51 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 11:06 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-21 12:08 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-30 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68127618$0$14$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #184158 |
On 29 Apr 2025 17:21:55 GMT, Mark Lloyd wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 21:22:49 +0100, John wrote: > > [snip] > >> And there was TMA-1 in 2001 or a couple of years before that. There >> was at least one Moonbase then, too, as well as a human-filled ship to >> Jupiter. > > I remember seeing that movie in a theater in 1700. Strange mistake. As you may have figured out, it was 1970. > In the beginning when > they showed a bunch of apes grunting (before the appearance of TMA-0), > there was a caption saying "our forefathers" and several people laughed. > I've seen the movie a couple of dozen times since then and never noticed > the caption. > > Maybe it was removed, something about too many people failing to > understand what "millions of years" means. > > Another interesting bit was when an ape throws a bone into the sky and > it seems to turn into a space station. > >> We've had lots of Moonbases in the last thirty-odd years. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "My God, it's full of stars!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-29 21:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <i8l7elxi4d.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #184128 |
On 2025-04-28 22:22, John wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:16:42 +1000, Daniel70 > <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: > >> On 27/04/2025 8:36 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 22:28:27 +0200 >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-26 21:24, Mark Lloyd wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 22:02:35 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>> And it varies by 34 days because Easter is declared to be the first >>>>>> Sunday after a Full Moon after the Spring Equinox . But don't blame me, >>>>>> I didn't start the religion. >>>>> >>>>> The rule I heard (for Easter date) said "ecclesiastical full moon". I >>>>> don't know how that differs from the real full moon. >>>>> >>>> >>>> «An ecclesiastical full moon is formally the 14th day of the >>>> ecclesiastical lunar month (an ecclesiastical moon) in an ecclesiastical >>>> lunar calendar. The ecclesiastical lunar calendar spans the year with >>>> lunar months of 30 and 29 days which are intended to approximate the >>>> observed phases of the Moon.» >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_full_moon >>>> >>> Luckily it the moon cycle (mostly) reoccurs after 19 years, to give >>> an algorithm that's OK for a few thousand years. But there's drift as the >>> Moon Earth double planet system settles down. The Moon will fly off after >>> a bit, but not as dramatically as in MoonBase Alpha. >>> >> OH!!! BUT I saw it on T.V.!! It HAS to occur!! ;-P > > But didn't it occur in Space? In 1999? That was a hell of a long time > ago. Didn't she come back after a couple of years? I seem to remember > the finale being a great return of Luna into Earth orbit. Argh! Don't spoil it for me, I still have not seen it! > > There was another serial documentary which had a huge Moonbase full > of pretty girls. That one happened in 1980. > > And there was TMA-1 in 2001 or a couple of years before that. There > was at least one Moonbase then, too, as well as a human-filled ship to > Jupiter. > > We've had lots of Moonbases in the last thirty-odd years. :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-28 21:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <52qv0khqpvuam4pu4jddvo431vta4euoe5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #184100 |
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:36:39 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 22:28:27 +0200
>"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-04-26 21:24, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 22:02:35 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> And it varies by 34 days because Easter is declared to be the first
>> >> Sunday after a Full Moon after the Spring Equinox . But don't blame me,
>> >> I didn't start the religion.
Did anyone? I mean any *one* person?
>> >
>> > The rule I heard (for Easter date) said "ecclesiastical full moon". I
>> > don't know how that differs from the real full moon.
One is real the other is not. "Eccesiastical" means "imaginary" and
"dictated by a committee of thousands that has been running since the
4th Century".
>> >
>>
>> «An ecclesiastical full moon is formally the 14th day of the
>> ecclesiastical lunar month (an ecclesiastical moon) in an ecclesiastical
>> lunar calendar. The ecclesiastical lunar calendar spans the year with
>> lunar months of 30 and 29 days which are intended to approximate the
>> observed phases of the Moon.»
Somebody's been using the Wicked-P.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_full_moon
See? There it is.
>>
>Luckily it the moon cycle (mostly) reoccurs after 19 years, to give
>an algorithm that's OK for a few thousand years. But there's drift as the
>Moon Earth double planet system settles down.
The Moon-Earth system is not, quite, a double planet - the centre of
the mutual orbit is inside the Earth, making the Moon technically a
satellite. Also, Luna is too small. Pluto-Charon comes closer but
still is not because some eejits decided that neither Pluto nor Charon
are planets. There may not be one of those in the Solar System, not
even teenty, little asteroidal ones.
Had Selene gathered more stuff during her wanderings through the
Great Disk at the beginning of the System, we could have ended up with
a double world. That might have caused either a huge surge in the
sciences of Ecology and Biology or millions of devastating wars.
Having seen a human, I'd guess the latter was more likely. :)
> The Moon will fly off after
>a bit, but not as dramatically as in MoonBase Alpha.
Nope. The Moon is receding due to change in angular momentum by tidal
effects at 1.5" or 3.8 cm per year. That means it will take 30,000 or
so years to recede by a kilometre. To recede to twice its current
distance will take about twelve milliards of years, 12,000,000,000 or
so. Sol isn't going to be a Main Sequence, White Moderately Giant star
for that long. Indeed, Sol might cook the Earth and the Moon sometime
between now and five milliards of years from now. Our lovely little
Sun which is so calm and nice and warming is going to bloat up to a
Red Giant, swallow Mercury and Venus and possibly swallow the Earth.
The gravitational field will change, too and the other planets, the
puffy ones and Pluto, could drift out a bit or a lot or even be lost.
Earth and the Moon might survive by drifting outwards, too. We'll just
have to wait to see.
Earth isn't ever going to lose its moon, not until we lose Earth,
too. The tidal drift is just too little.
We're probably not even going to run out of total Solar Eclipses any
time soon, which reminds me:
If Luna is between Earth and Sol that is a Solar Eclipse;
If Earth is between Luna and Sol that is a Lunar Eclipse;
If Sol is between Earth and Luna ....... that is a really *bad* day.
John's Law of Terrestrial Eclipses. :)
J.
Note: our Sol is white, not yellow, and she is much larger than 90% of
the stars in the Galaxy which makes her moderately Giant. Calling her
a "yellow dwarf" is simply *rude*. :)
Sol looks yellow because her light reaches us after running through a
blue fluid. Her peak radiation amplitude is in the bright green.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 19:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vugis6$hasb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183918 |
On 2025-04-23 17:45, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: > > So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for Easter, RSN. I think not RSN! The timing of Easter has been a contentious issue throughout the history of the Christian Faith, and, perhaps rather ironically to modern minds, unintentionally gave rise to modern science in the Enlightenment. Prof Simon Schaffer, in the first episode "Let There Be Light" of the BBC Series "Light Fantastic", beginning 29:47 mins in, enters the Basilica Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri in Rome, where he demonstrates how a hole in the wall of the church allows light to fall on a brass strip in the floor, that was used to determine the timing of the seasons, and thus allow the correct calculation of Easter. AFAICR, the series was shown nearly 20 years ago so is unlikely ever to be available even to UK citizens via iPlayer unless the BBC "in their infinite wisdom" decide to repeat it. However, that actual clip is available to all, though sadly in atrocious quality, in YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVTdfVWp5Rk -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 23:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <plbtdlxrcn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #183993 |
On 2025-04-25 20:04, Java Jive wrote: > On 2025-04-23 17:45, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> >> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for Easter, RSN. > > I think not RSN! > > The timing of Easter has been a contentious issue throughout the history > of the Christian Faith, and, perhaps rather ironically to modern minds, > unintentionally gave rise to modern science in the Enlightenment. Prof > Simon Schaffer, in the first episode "Let There Be Light" of the BBC > Series "Light Fantastic", beginning 29:47 mins in, enters the Basilica > Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri in Rome, where he demonstrates > how a hole in the wall of the church allows light to fall on a brass > strip in the floor, that was used to determine the timing of the > seasons, and thus allow the correct calculation of Easter. > > AFAICR, the series was shown nearly 20 years ago so is unlikely ever to > be available even to UK citizens via iPlayer unless the BBC "in their > infinite wisdom" decide to repeat it. However, that actual clip is > available to all, though sadly in atrocious quality, in YouTube: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVTdfVWp5Rk Indeed, the quality is atrocious. The sound is fine, though. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 20:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vuib2t$257c0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183993 |
On 26/04/2025 4:04 am, Java Jive wrote: > On 2025-04-23 17:45, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> >> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for Easter, RSN. > > I think not RSN! > > The timing of Easter has been a contentious issue throughout the history > of the Christian Faith, and, perhaps rather ironically to modern minds, > unintentionally gave rise to modern science in the Enlightenment. Prof > Simon Schaffer, in the first episode "Let There Be Light" of the BBC > Series "Light Fantastic", beginning 29:47 mins in, enters the Basilica > Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri in Rome, where he demonstrates > how a hole in the wall of the church allows light to fall on a brass > strip in the floor, that was used to determine the timing of the > seasons, and thus allow the correct calculation of Easter. In a related (but unrelated) aspect, yesterday (April 25th) was A.N.Z.A.C. Day in Australia and New Zealand celebrating a famous failure turned Victory in WWI (1915). In Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, the commemorative A.N.Z.A.C. Day March ends at The Shrine of Remembrance ... https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8264985,144.9652694,15z?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQyMy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D where there is an aperture through the Roof/Celling which, at 11:00 on 11th Nov, a beam of light shines on an engraving .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_Remembrance Quote The sanctuary contains the marble Stone of Remembrance, upon which is engraved the words "Greater love hath no man" (John 15:13); once per year, on 11 November at 11 a.m. (Remembrance Day), a ray of sunlight shines through an aperture in the roof to light up the word "Love" in the inscription End Quote -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 21:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vuiemp$28fdr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184051 |
On 26/04/2025 8:04 pm, Daniel70 wrote: > On 26/04/2025 4:04 am, Java Jive wrote: >> On 2025-04-23 17:45, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>> >>> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for Easter, RSN. >> >> I think not RSN! >> >> The timing of Easter has been a contentious issue throughout the >> history of the Christian Faith, and, perhaps rather ironically to >> modern minds, unintentionally gave rise to modern science in the >> Enlightenment. Prof Simon Schaffer, in the first episode "Let There >> Be Light" of the BBC Series "Light Fantastic", beginning 29:47 mins >> in, enters the Basilica Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri in >> Rome, where he demonstrates how a hole in the wall of the church >> allows light to fall on a brass strip in the floor, that was used to >> determine the timing of the seasons, and thus allow the correct >> calculation of Easter. > > In a related (but unrelated) aspect, yesterday (April 25th) was > A.N.Z.A.C. Day in Australia and New Zealand celebrating a famous failure > turned Victory in WWI (1915). > > In Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, the commemorative A.N.Z.A.C. Day > March ends at The Shrine of Remembrance ... > > https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8264985,144.9652694,15z?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQyMy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D > > > where there is an aperture through the Roof/Celling which, at 11:00 on > 11th Nov, a beam of light shines on an engraving .... (As 'we' are in 'Daylight Savings' from Oct to Apr, now-a-days, some jiggery-pockery has to be carried out to make the Light-beam be in the right place at the right time!! ;-) ) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_Remembrance > > Quote > The sanctuary contains the marble Stone of Remembrance, upon which is > engraved the words "Greater love hath no man" (John 15:13); once per > year, on 11 November at 11 a.m. (Remembrance Day), a ray of sunlight > shines through an aperture in the roof to light up the word "Love" in > the inscription > End Quote -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 19:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vuabnl$2nlkk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183897 |
On 23/04/2025 6:52 am, micky wrote: > In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 22 Apr 2025 20:15:04 +1000, Daniel70 > <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: >> On 21/04/2025 6:55 am, micky wrote: >>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:23:46 +0200, "Carlos >>> E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> isible with a filter. >>>> >>>> The gyroscopic effect when removing one from a test cady is very >>>> noticeable. Surprised me. >>> >>> I've thought about this. With all the harddrives spinning all over the >>> world, and the difficulty of changing their orientation, because of the >>> gyroscopic effect, isn't that going to interfere with the rotation of >>> the earth. And that will make days longer, and thus years will also be >>> longer. >>> >> Ah!! Is that why, now-a-days, things seem to have shorter lives .... the > > Yes, especially appliances. > >> Days and Years are actually getting longer?? ;-P > > Yes, exactly. So I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I think > there were also articles in Scientific American and National Geographic > that confirm this. > I seem to recall, in 1980 or so, the term "Planned Obsolescence" came into existence. Everything has a limited lifetime .... even cars!! -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam E <no.email@here.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68081f81$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183884 |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 20:15:04 +1000, Daniel70 wrote: [snip] > Ah!! Is that why, now-a-days, things seem to have shorter lives .... the > Days and Years are actually getting longer?? ;-P IIRC longer days/years means Earth's orbit is becoming slower, which means farther from the sun. I do remember hearing of something called "global dimming". -- "It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either." [Mark Twain]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vu99d8$1ln2u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183898 |
On 2025-04-23 00:00, Sam E wrote: > > IIRC longer days/years means Earth's orbit is becoming slower, which means > farther from the sun. See my other post for an explanation of that wrt the moon orbiting the earth, exactly the same principles apply to the earth orbiting the sun. > I do remember hearing of something called "global > dimming". Totally different, atmospheric pollution blocking sunlight from reaching the earth's surface. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 07:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu2kvb$3mfcu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183824 |
On 4/19/2025 10:34 PM, micky wrote: > The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 > 2) Do you keep your backup files for an old computer, when you've copied > everythign to the newer computer? Since all the data files have been > copied to the new computer, I could, to save m money, erase the old > computer files and use it for the new one and I wouldn't have to buy a > new drive. Good idea? > Why not just do some housecleaning? Everything I have, and everything I've backed up, wouldn't fill 500 GB. Are you *really* ever, possibly, going to want to access most of those files? Do you really need 17 3-MB photos of the 2010 July 4th cookout?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 11:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu32rd$2ata$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183828 |
On Sun, 4/20/2025 7:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote: > On 4/19/2025 10:34 PM, micky wrote: >> The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 > >> 2) Do you keep your backup files for an old computer, when you've copied >> everythign to the newer computer? Since all the data files have been >> copied to the new computer, I could, to save m money, erase the old >> computer files and use it for the new one and I wouldn't have to buy a >> new drive. Good idea? >> > > Why not just do some housecleaning? Everything I have, > and everything I've backed up, wouldn't fill 500 GB. Are > you *really* ever, possibly, going to want to access most > of those files? Do you really need 17 3-MB photos of the > 2010 July 4th cookout? > These ideas are partially for disaster recovery If a primary drive fails, it's a lot easier to just restore from backup, than to try to remember what used to be on there. It's a convenience thing. To give an example, a guy in another newsgroup got ransomware in the computer room. These are the things he told me. 0) Initial pickup of ransomware, was a Godaddy domain renewal form, which wasn't actually from Godaddy and was a phishing email. 1) All computers wiped out, it spread over the LAN. 2) He didn't know which license key belonged with which computer. 3) Took around three months, to get the computers relatively close to how they were before. 4) He had *no backups*. In other words, he was just as prepared as the average user. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 12:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu364f$4tn8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183829 |
On 4/20/2025 11:11 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> These ideas are partially for disaster recovery
>
> If a primary drive fails, it's a lot easier to just restore
> from backup, than to try to remember what used to be on there.
> It's a convenience thing.
>
I understand. I'm questioning why people keep buying
more backup without thinking to clean up. I also
have files backed up. And I maintain disk images. But
Micky is talking about buying a second 2TB drive just for
backup. I'm just saying, before you call the contractor to
build you a 6th garage, why not figure out whether you
really need all the stuff in the first five garages? If you
clean up then you might even be able to fit your car in
the garage. :)
People often say, "Ah, storage is so cheap these days."
But it's not cheap if you keep buying it and don't actually
need it. And it's not storage if there's so much junk that
you don't know what's there.
External storage devices are also a waste of money.
A $20 USB adapter can be used as a case for a laptop.
On a desktop one can just plug the disk in internally when
making a backup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 12:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu37up$6llp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183829 |
Paul wrote: > On Sun, 4/20/2025 7:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote: >> On 4/19/2025 10:34 PM, micky wrote: >>> The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 >> >>> 2) Do you keep your backup files for an old computer, when you've copied >>> everythign to the newer computer? Since all the data files have been >>> copied to the new computer, I could, to save m money, erase the old >>> computer files and use it for the new one and I wouldn't have to buy a >>> new drive. Good idea? >>> >> >> Why not just do some housecleaning? Everything I have, >> and everything I've backed up, wouldn't fill 500 GB. Are >> you *really* ever, possibly, going to want to access most >> of those files? Do you really need 17 3-MB photos of the >> 2010 July 4th cookout? >> > > These ideas are partially for disaster recovery > > If a primary drive fails, it's a lot easier to just restore > from backup, than to try to remember what used to be on there. > It's a convenience thing. > > To give an example, a guy in another newsgroup got ransomware > in the computer room. These are the things he told me. > > 0) Initial pickup of ransomware, was a Godaddy domain renewal form, > which wasn't actually from Godaddy and was a phishing email. > 1) All computers wiped out, it spread over the LAN. > 2) He didn't know which license key belonged with which computer. > 3) Took around three months, to get the computers relatively close > to how they were before. > 4) He had *no backups*. > > In other words, he was just as prepared as the average user. > > Paul > It's unclear, atm what 'backup' includes. - data files(data-document types, pics, music, o/s images, program installers, drivers) etc. -- ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 12:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu37hp$6amk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183824 |
micky wrote: > The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 > years ago is now $80. I thought computer stuff was supposed to get > cheaper with time!! (Well, that was last week. tonight it's down to > 70.) > https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06W55K9N6?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_2 > > It's mechanical. A solid state drive the same size is almost twice as > much. (The cheapest on Amazon is $112. Well, Vanzuny is 109, but I > never heard of Vanzuny.) > > 1) Would you spend almost twice as much for a drive just used for > backups? Speed is not an issue. The current one is plenty fast. And > damage is not an issue: I rarely go out of town and when I do I don't > take my bacup drive, although in the past they were 5 1/2" drives. Now > they are much smaller and I could if you told me I should.) > > 2) Do you keep your backup files for an old computer, when you've copied > everythign to the newer computer? Since all the data files have been > copied to the new computer, I could, to save m money, erase the old > computer files and use it for the new one and I wouldn't have to buy a > new drive. Good idea? > Sometime it may help adding more info. e.g. the 'old' computer's(not the backup 2TB WD Elements spinner) drive(s) that could also be considered as backup disk storage. i.e. if replacing a computer with a newer one, it may be possible to harvest the old computers drive(ss[spinner or SSD) for use in a disk caddy that supports SSD or HD or both. Whichever route is chosen...using the old Elements spinner, harvesting old drivers for use in a caddy(much cheaper than a new drive purchase - Spinner HD or SSD), or harvesting old... ... => the capacity of backup storage you need is another piece of missing information. -- ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vu4b2g$18hi8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183824 |
For me, I prefer cheaper and bigger old fashion HDDs over expensive
SSDs. I remember paying over 100 USD for a 5 TB USB3 ext. HDD from
Costco.com and Amazon.com. I'm still waiting for SSDs to be match HDD on
their prices and sizes.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4
> years ago is now $80. I thought computer stuff was supposed to get
> cheaper with time!! (Well, that was last week. tonight it's down to
> 70.)
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06W55K9N6?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_2
> It's mechanical. A solid state drive the same size is almost twice as
> much. (The cheapest on Amazon is $112. Well, Vanzuny is 109, but I
> never heard of Vanzuny.)
> 1) Would you spend almost twice as much for a drive just used for
> backups? Speed is not an issue. The current one is plenty fast. And
> damage is not an issue: I rarely go out of town and when I do I don't
> take my bacup drive, although in the past they were 5 1/2" drives. Now
> they are much smaller and I could if you told me I should.)
> 2) Do you keep your backup files for an old computer, when you've copied
> everythign to the newer computer? Since all the data files have been
> copied to the new computer, I could, to save m money, erase the old
> computer files and use it for the new one and I wouldn't have to buy a
> new drive. Good idea?
--
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" --1 Corinthians 15:55. Hi :) Easter! Jesus lives! Thanks God 4 going 2 church yesterday instead of 2day.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 03:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu4tg4$1oi63$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183844 |
On Sun, 4/20/2025 10:38 PM, Ant wrote: > For me, I prefer cheaper and bigger old fashion HDDs over expensive > SSDs. I remember paying over 100 USD for a 5 TB USB3 ext. HDD from > Costco.com and Amazon.com. I'm still waiting for SSDs to be match HDD on > their prices and sizes. > I don't believe projections like this. "The guy who owns a pony, keeps drawing charts where the pony wins." https://blocksandfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wikibon-SSD-less-than-HDD-in-2026.jpg To bump the chart along, will require someone to make another storage type. There was Optane, but the last devices shipped cost $3000 each, to give some idea why they no longer exist as a competitor. No denying it had nice characteristics (it could be written at individual locations, rather than large blocks). Because the Optane had a speed advantage at one point, it forced one of the NAND companies to reduce their latency by a factor of 2. Which would never have happened, unless there was a faster pony coming up from behind. I think everyone watching that, could enjoy the humor of it. the other party, having to get off their lazy butt and fix something. I don't think the lower latency part, still ships today. And that's because of the process of optimization, you squeeze every penny out of the thing, and there is only one way to make the cheapest part. So the lower latency just has to go. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 11:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o9qc0k9cobnq25m3jf5m0gl16jru3cv0n0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #183846 |
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 21 Apr 2025 03:52:35 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 4/20/2025 10:38 PM, Ant wrote: >> For me, I prefer cheaper and bigger old fashion HDDs over expensive >> SSDs. I remember paying over 100 USD for a 5 TB USB3 ext. HDD from >> Costco.com and Amazon.com. I'm still waiting for SSDs to be match HDD on >> their prices and sizes. >> > >I don't believe projections like this. "The guy who owns a pony, >keeps drawing charts where the pony wins." > > https://blocksandfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wikibon-SSD-less-than-HDD-in-2026.jpg I think I saw a similar graph that showed SSDs the same price as HDDs in 2030. >To bump the chart along, will require someone to make another >storage type. There was Optane, but the last devices shipped >cost $3000 each, to give some idea why they no longer exist >as a competitor. No denying it had nice characteristics >(it could be written at individual locations, rather than >large blocks). > >Because the Optane had a speed advantage at one point, it forced >one of the NAND companies to reduce their latency by a factor of 2. >Which would never have happened, unless there was a faster pony >coming up from behind. I think everyone watching that, could >enjoy the humor of it. the other party, having to get off their >lazy butt and fix something. I don't think the lower latency >part, still ships today. And that's because of the process of >optimization, you squeeze every penny out of the thing, and >there is only one way to make the cheapest part. So the lower >latency just has to go. > > Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 21:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu6qg6$3dhrt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183860 |
On Mon, 4/21/2025 11:51 AM, micky wrote: > In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 21 Apr 2025 03:52:35 -0400, Paul >> >> I don't believe projections like this. "The guy who owns a pony, >> keeps drawing charts where the pony wins." >> >> https://blocksandfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wikibon-SSD-less-than-HDD-in-2026.jpg > > I think I saw a similar graph that showed SSDs the same price as HDDs in 2030. I just did a search for "4TB drive" at my local computer store web site, and for some reason, the SSDs have shifted up a bit since the last time I looked, and they're more than the 4TB hard drives. The topper, was a PCIe Rev5 NVME 4TB for $800 CDN, which is about twice the price of a Rev4 one. That's why there can't be an 8TB one of those, because it would cost $1600, which is above any "magic number" storage people can think of. The stuff that was storage and cost $1200 in the past, no one was buying it. At this point, the product is totally smoke and mirrors. (This is the US pricing) https://www.newegg.com/SAMSUNG-4TB-9100-PRO-NVMe-2-0/p/N82E16820147904 (And this is the kind for a reference price for 4TB of storage, vacation trip friendly but still steal-able by the hotel cleaning lady) https://www.newegg.com/SAMSUNG-4TB-870-EVO-Series-SATA/p/N82E16820147795 This is one that's really ready to go on vacation. These aren't perfect, but unlike ordinary USB sticks, this one is more of an SSD inside and more likely (not proven) to have wear leveling. I expect that's going to get warm in usage (just the controller will get warm). https://www.newegg.com/patriot-model-pef1tbrpmw32u/p/N82E16820225289 Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vu7bm6$3vf75$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183846 |
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 4/20/2025 10:38 PM, Ant wrote:
> > For me, I prefer cheaper and bigger old fashion HDDs over expensive
> > SSDs. I remember paying over 100 USD for a 5 TB USB3 ext. HDD from
> > Costco.com and Amazon.com. I'm still waiting for SSDs to be match HDD on
> > their prices and sizes.
> >
> I don't believe projections like this. "The guy who owns a pony,
> keeps drawing charts where the pony wins."
> https://blocksandfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wikibon-SSD-less-than-HDD-in-2026.jpg
> To bump the chart along, will require someone to make another
> storage type. There was Optane, but the last devices shipped
> cost $3000 each, to give some idea why they no longer exist
> as a competitor. No denying it had nice characteristics
> (it could be written at individual locations, rather than
> large blocks).
> Because the Optane had a speed advantage at one point, it forced
> one of the NAND companies to reduce their latency by a factor of 2.
> Which would never have happened, unless there was a faster pony
> coming up from behind. I think everyone watching that, could
> enjoy the humor of it. the other party, having to get off their
> lazy butt and fix something. I don't think the lower latency
> part, still ships today. And that's because of the process of
> optimization, you squeeze every penny out of the thing, and
> there is only one way to make the cheapest part. So the lower
> latency just has to go.
It says 2021 at the bottom. With stupid enforced traffics in USA, I doubt this will happen. :(
--
"But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." --1 Corinthians 15:57. Wow @ TLOU S2 E2. Bad Mon? RIP, Pope after Easter Sun.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web