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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 19:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vui9u4$24aao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184018 |
On 26/04/2025 7:02 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:20:34 +0200 "Carlos E.R." > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 2025-04-25 15:32, Daniel70 wrote: >>> On 25/04/2025 9:37 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-25 12:14, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> On 25/04/2025 6:37 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-04-24 12:56, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>> On 24/04/2025 2:45 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:37:07 +0100 Java Jive >>>>>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 21:52, micky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 22 Apr 2025 >>>>>>>>>> 20:15:04 +1000, Daniel70 >>>>>>>>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let us explain this properly, or at least as best I >>>>>>>>> can without recourse to diagrams ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The earth is spinning around its axis once every 24 >>>>>>>>> hours, and as a consequence is not the perfect sphere >>>>>>>>> that it would be were this not so. >>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>> Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth >>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for >>>>>>>> Easter, RSN. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> WHY?? >>>>>> >>>>>> All christian religions and judaism would have to change >>>>>> the formula, but not the definition. >>>>>> >>>>> WHAT?? As I understand it, MOST Christian religions >>>>> (Orthodox excluded, I think) set Easter according to the >>>>> first FULL MOON following the (Northern) Spring Equinox. >>>>> >>>>> If the Moon moves further away (or nearer), there will still >>>>> be Full MOONs .... so no change .... or no NEED for change. >>>> >>>> But the full moon will happen on different days. The orbit >>>> changes, so the formula changes. >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_Easter#Algorithms> >>>> >>> After a quick browse, from that site .... >>> >>> Quote One can easily see how conversion from day-of-March (22 to >>> 56) to day- and-month (22 March to 25 April) End Quote >>> >>> Where does the 34 days (56 - 22) come from?? Is this assuming The >>> Moon drifts away from Earth so its orbit takes longer?? >> >> No. The algorithm runs with the current orbit assumptions. >> > 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. > Ah!! Right! Thank you. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 21:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vuiedc$286ns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184049 |
On 26/04/2025 7:44 pm, Daniel70 wrote: > On 26/04/2025 7:02 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:20:34 +0200 "Carlos E.R." >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2025-04-25 15:32, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> On 25/04/2025 9:37 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2025-04-25 12:14, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>> On 25/04/2025 6:37 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 12:56, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 24/04/2025 2:45 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:37:07 +0100 Java Jive >>>>>>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 21:52, micky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 22 Apr 2025 >>>>>>>>>>> 20:15:04 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let us explain this properly, or at least as best I >>>>>>>>>> can without recourse to diagrams ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The earth is spinning around its axis once every 24 >>>>>>>>>> hours, and as a consequence is not the perfect sphere >>>>>>>>>> that it would be were this not so. >>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>> Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth >>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for >>>>>>>>> Easter, RSN. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHY?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All christian religions and judaism would have to change >>>>>>> the formula, but not the definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>> WHAT?? As I understand it, MOST Christian religions >>>>>> (Orthodox excluded, I think) set Easter according to the >>>>>> first FULL MOON following the (Northern) Spring Equinox. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the Moon moves further away (or nearer), there will still >>>>>> be Full MOONs .... so no change .... or no NEED for change. >>>>> >>>>> But the full moon will happen on different days. The orbit >>>>> changes, so the formula changes. >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_Easter#Algorithms> >>>>> >>>> After a quick browse, from that site .... >>>> >>>> Quote One can easily see how conversion from day-of-March (22 to >>>> 56) to day- and-month (22 March to 25 April) End Quote >>>> >>>> Where does the 34 days (56 - 22) come from?? Is this assuming The >>>> Moon drifts away from Earth so its orbit takes longer?? >>> >>> No. The algorithm runs with the current orbit assumptions. >>> >> 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. >> > Ah!! Right! Thank you. (WARNING RELIGION ALERT!!) .... and, for many a year, that timing (Full Moon) has seemed WRONG to me!! As part of Christ's Crucifixion on Good Friday, the World is supposed to have gone DARK for several hours. If, rather than it happening on a Full Moon, if it had happened on a New Moon which was also an Eclipse, that would have sent The World dark but only for a few minutes rather than for several hours!! -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 20:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8vjvdlxfnn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #184049 |
On 2025-04-26 11:44, Daniel70 wrote: > On 26/04/2025 7:02 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:20:34 +0200 "Carlos E.R." >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2025-04-25 15:32, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> On 25/04/2025 9:37 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2025-04-25 12:14, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>> On 25/04/2025 6:37 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 12:56, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 24/04/2025 2:45 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:37:07 +0100 Java Jive >>>>>>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 21:52, micky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 22 Apr 2025 >>>>>>>>>>> 20:15:04 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let us explain this properly, or at least as best I >>>>>>>>>> can without recourse to diagrams ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The earth is spinning around its axis once every 24 >>>>>>>>>> hours, and as a consequence is not the perfect sphere >>>>>>>>>> that it would be were this not so. >>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>> Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth https:// >>>>>>>>>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for >>>>>>>>> Easter, RSN. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHY?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All christian religions and judaism would have to change >>>>>>> the formula, but not the definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>> WHAT?? As I understand it, MOST Christian religions >>>>>> (Orthodox excluded, I think) set Easter according to the >>>>>> first FULL MOON following the (Northern) Spring Equinox. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the Moon moves further away (or nearer), there will still >>>>>> be Full MOONs .... so no change .... or no NEED for change. >>>>> >>>>> But the full moon will happen on different days. The orbit >>>>> changes, so the formula changes. >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_Easter#Algorithms> >>>>> >>>> After a quick browse, from that site .... >>>> >>>> Quote One can easily see how conversion from day-of-March (22 to >>>> 56) to day- and-month (22 March to 25 April) End Quote >>>> >>>> Where does the 34 days (56 - 22) come from?? Is this assuming The >>>> Moon drifts away from Earth so its orbit takes longer?? >>> >>> No. The algorithm runs with the current orbit assumptions. >>> >> 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. >> > Ah!! Right! Thank you. I remember, long ago, I think that I was in high school, that the magazine Scientific American, here translated as Investigación y Ciencia (Investigation and Science) carried an article, perhaps on the section Mathematical Games, which described an algorithm to calculate the date of Easter Sunday for maybe two hundred years. I remember I used my programmable calculator (TI-57 or 58C) I had back then to run it. It seemed magic. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 17:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vujim9$37q7s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184066 |
On Sat, 4/26/2025 2:07 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-04-26 11:44, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 26/04/2025 7:02 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:20:34 +0200 "Carlos E.R." >>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-25 15:32, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> On 25/04/2025 9:37 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-04-25 12:14, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>> On 25/04/2025 6:37 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 12:56, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 24/04/2025 2:45 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:37:07 +0100 Java Jive >>>>>>>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 21:52, micky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 22 Apr 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>> 20:15:04 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let us explain this properly, or at least as best I >>>>>>>>>>> can without recourse to diagrams ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The earth is spinning around its axis once every 24 >>>>>>>>>>> hours, and as a consequence is not the perfect sphere >>>>>>>>>>> that it would be were this not so. >>>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>>> Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119 >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for >>>>>>>>>> Easter, RSN. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WHY?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All christian religions and judaism would have to change >>>>>>>> the formula, but not the definition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> WHAT?? As I understand it, MOST Christian religions >>>>>>> (Orthodox excluded, I think) set Easter according to the >>>>>>> first FULL MOON following the (Northern) Spring Equinox. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the Moon moves further away (or nearer), there will still >>>>>>> be Full MOONs .... so no change .... or no NEED for change. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the full moon will happen on different days. The orbit >>>>>> changes, so the formula changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_Easter#Algorithms> >>>>>> >>>>> After a quick browse, from that site .... >>>>> >>>>> Quote One can easily see how conversion from day-of-March (22 to >>>>> 56) to day- and-month (22 March to 25 April) End Quote >>>>> >>>>> Where does the 34 days (56 - 22) come from?? Is this assuming The >>>>> Moon drifts away from Earth so its orbit takes longer?? >>>> >>>> No. The algorithm runs with the current orbit assumptions. >>>> >>> 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. >>> >> Ah!! Right! Thank you. > > I remember, long ago, I think that I was in high school, that the magazine Scientific American, here translated as Investigación y Ciencia (Investigation and Science) carried an article, perhaps on the section Mathematical Games, which described an algorithm to calculate the date of Easter Sunday for maybe two hundred years. I remember I used my programmable calculator (TI-57 or 58C) I had back then to run it. > > It seemed magic. > That's probably a Martin Gardner article. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-27 14:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tqj1elxram.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #184078 |
On 2025-04-26 23:20, Paul wrote: > On Sat, 4/26/2025 2:07 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-04-26 11:44, Daniel70 wrote: >>> On 26/04/2025 7:02 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:20:34 +0200 "Carlos E.R." >>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 2025-04-25 15:32, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>> On 25/04/2025 9:37 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-04-25 12:14, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25/04/2025 6:37 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 12:56, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 24/04/2025 2:45 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:37:07 +0100 Java Jive >>>>>>>>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 21:52, micky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 22 Apr 2025 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 20:15:04 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let us explain this properly, or at least as best I >>>>>>>>>>>> can without recourse to diagrams ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is spinning around its axis once every 24 >>>>>>>>>>>> hours, and as a consequence is not the perfect sphere >>>>>>>>>>>> that it would be were this not so. >>>>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>>>> Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119 >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> So The Pope's minions will have to find a new formula for >>>>>>>>>>> Easter, RSN. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WHY?? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All christian religions and judaism would have to change >>>>>>>>> the formula, but not the definition. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHAT?? As I understand it, MOST Christian religions >>>>>>>> (Orthodox excluded, I think) set Easter according to the >>>>>>>> first FULL MOON following the (Northern) Spring Equinox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the Moon moves further away (or nearer), there will still >>>>>>>> be Full MOONs .... so no change .... or no NEED for change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the full moon will happen on different days. The orbit >>>>>>> changes, so the formula changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_Easter#Algorithms> >>>>>>> >>>>>> After a quick browse, from that site .... >>>>>> >>>>>> Quote One can easily see how conversion from day-of-March (22 to >>>>>> 56) to day- and-month (22 March to 25 April) End Quote >>>>>> >>>>>> Where does the 34 days (56 - 22) come from?? Is this assuming The >>>>>> Moon drifts away from Earth so its orbit takes longer?? >>>>> >>>>> No. The algorithm runs with the current orbit assumptions. >>>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> Ah!! Right! Thank you. >> >> I remember, long ago, I think that I was in high school, that the magazine Scientific American, here translated as Investigación y Ciencia (Investigation and Science) carried an article, perhaps on the section Mathematical Games, which described an algorithm to calculate the date of Easter Sunday for maybe two hundred years. I remember I used my programmable calculator (TI-57 or 58C) I had back then to run it. >> >> It seemed magic. >> > > That's probably a Martin Gardner article. Probably, I remember that name. I asked chatgpt. You said: Can you locate an article by Martin Gardner in Scientific American magazine about calculation of easter date? ChatGPT said: Yes, Martin Gardner authored several articles in Scientific American that delve into the calculation of Easter dates. One notable example is his column titled "Mathematical Games," which appeared in the October 1969 issue of the magazine. In this piece, Gardner explored the mathematical intricacies behind determining the date of Easter, shedding light on the complex interplay between lunar cycles and the ecclesiastical calendar. Academia+2SpringerLink+2Redbubble+2 For a comprehensive understanding of Gardner's work on this topic, you might consider referring to "Fractal Music, Hypercards, and More: Mathematical Recreations from Scientific American," a collection of his columns published in 1991. This compilation includes his writings from Scientific American between 1978 and 1979, offering a broader perspective on his mathematical explorations, including those related to calendar calculations. Academia Additionally, the article "A Quarter Century of Recreational Mathematics" provides insights into Gardner's contributions to the field and his approach to mathematical puzzles. This piece reflects on his extensive work and its impact on the mathematical community. Scientific American These resources should provide you with a deeper appreciation of Martin Gardner's exploration of Easter date calculations and his broader contributions to recreational mathematics. ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info. Unfortunately, <https://www.academia.edu/9665113/Martin_Gardner_Fractal_Music_Hypercards_and_More_Mathematical_Recreations_from_Scientific_American_1991_?utm_source=chatgpt.com> requires registration. <https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/a-quarter-century-of-recreational-m-2010-05-26/?utm_source=chatgpt.com> does not contain the word "easter" -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <680d32fb$2$14$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #184018 |
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. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Carl Sagan]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-26 22:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b8svdlxga8.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #184070 |
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 -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-27 11:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20250427113639.ca1f70db28fb39d732765efd@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #184073 |
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. -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-28 00:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vule88$v6fj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184100 |
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 -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-28 21:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qiov0k10cfn3fh9fph83nu3drvhmb4kt49@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #184105 |
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.
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.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-29 22:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vuqh6u$1qafp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184128 |
On 29/04/2025 6:22 am, 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: <Snip> >>> 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. > > 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. "last thirty-odd years"?? How about 55-odd years .... for "2001:A Space Odyssey" ... for which I paid AU$75 for a (used/rental) Beta tape in 1981-2 .... and then brought a DVD of somewhere along the line. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1 And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't they?? ;-) -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-29 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68110c16$0$15$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #184150 |
[snip] > And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't > they?? ;-) IIRC, Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. The novels contain a lot of stuff omitted from the movies. There's some disadvantage of being aliterate (knowing how to read but unwilling to do it). The books contain other stuff (that's where I found out about TMA-0 and TMA-2). There's also the (really complicated) instructions for the zero- gravity toilet. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ We provide a special tax-reducing savings account for very rich people. -30% interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-29 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vuraeg.3vo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #184159 |
Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote: > > [snip] > > > And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't > > they?? ;-) > > IIRC, Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. The urban legend is that it refers to 'IBM', shifted one letter. Don't know if there's any truth in that. [...] > > We provide a special tax-reducing savings account for very rich people. > -30% interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-29 21:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gnk7elxh4d.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #184163 |
On 2025-04-29 19:48, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't >>> they?? ;-) >> >> IIRC, Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. > > The urban legend is that it refers to 'IBM', shifted one letter. Don't > know if there's any truth in that. Arthur C. Clarke negated that, adamantly. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-30 19:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vusq89$3vlia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184174 |
On 30/04/2025 5:09 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-04-29 19:48, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't >>>> they?? ;-) >>> >>> IIRC, Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. >> >> The urban legend is that it refers to 'IBM', shifted one letter. Don't >> know if there's any truth in that. > > Arthur C. Clarke negated that, adamantly. > Oh, you Spoil Sport, Carlos!! And, Frank, I thought the one letter shifting was to indicate HAL was (atleast) one better/before than IBM!! ;-) -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-30 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20250430202056.f8f1de709691e9fc291654d8@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #184193 |
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:24:21 +1000 Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: > On 30/04/2025 5:09 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > On 2025-04-29 19:48, Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>> [snip] > >>> > >>>> And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't > >>>> they?? ;-) > >>> > >>> IIRC, Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. > >> > >> The urban legend is that it refers to 'IBM', shifted one letter. Don't > >> know if there's any truth in that. > > > > Arthur C. Clarke negated that, adamantly. > > > Oh, you Spoil Sport, Carlos!! > > And, Frank, I thought the one letter shifting was to indicate HAL was > (atleast) one better/before than IBM!! ;-) As we're digging up old letter shifts: VMS->WNT -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-30 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <681275a1$0$14$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #184163 |
On 29 Apr 2025 17:48:43 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> > And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't >> > they?? ;-) >> >> IIRC, Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. > > The urban legend is that it refers to 'IBM', shifted one letter. Don't > know if there's any truth in that. I heard that one, and that it's not true, before hearing the other. [snip] BTW, my automatically-chosen "quote of the day" is from the movie. The last thing Dave says before entering TMA-2. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "My God, it's full of stars!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-30 15:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p6d41kp6nmaf5htgo8e72bln5jeri81ard@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #184150 |
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 22:37:49 +1000, Daniel70
<daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>On 29/04/2025 6:22 am, 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:
>
><Snip>
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> There was another serial documentary which had a huge Moonbase full
>> of pretty girls. That one happened in 1980.
That is, the *actions* and *stories* happened in 1980, according to
the introduction, the actual movies were made in about 1969 by the
"Thunderbirds" team.
And those Moonbase girls were amazingly gorgeous. A few of the males
were finely built, too.
>>
>> 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.
Or maybe Saturn?
>>
>> We've had lots of Moonbases in the last thirty-odd years.
>
>"last thirty-odd years"?? How about 55-odd years .... for "2001:A Space
>Odyssey" ... for which I paid AU$75 for a (used/rental) Beta tape in
>1981-2 .... and then brought a DVD of somewhere along the line.
55 years?
Oh. Yes. I first saw "2001" in Stirling University's Student Union
way back in the early 1970's. They were probably still landing Humans
on the rock when I first watched it and the possibility of real, live
Moonbases was still very real.
"2001" was, at the time, fucking *amazing*!
It is still spectacular, even considering the advances in special
effects over the last half of a century.
Strangely, I thought the others were pretty poor in comparison. Even
the books were tedious.
It's rather like the "Rama" series. The first one was brilliant, the
rest were boring and not interesting.
What was the topic of this thread?
>
>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1
>
>And everyone knows why the Computer in "2001" was called "HAL" don't
>they?? ;-)
Yep. It's because Hal (Harold) was Art's favourite uncle and the
writer wanted the gentleman to be immortalised in his novelisation. It
was also the name of one of Art's sea turtles which he kept while
living a little south of India - the turtle of course being named in
honour of the uncle. "South of India" being either Sri Lanka or
Ceylon, I can't remember which.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-29 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68110ab3$0$15$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #184128 |
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. 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/ We provide a special tax-reducing savings account for very rich people. -30% interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-29 15:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vur95e$2gblu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184158 |
On Tue, 4/29/2025 1:21 PM, 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. 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.
The movie has likely been re-cut or re-packaged
a number of times since original filming.
"The film was re-released in 1974, 1977, 1980 and 1993.
In 2001, a restoration of the 70 mm version was screened..."
The framing and what is in the 70mm version versus the 35mm
version, would be different. As would the TV cropping
versus what is seen in a movie theater. Maybe you've seen
other wide screen productions, where the movie is ruined
by the TV cropping, cutting all the detail off the sides.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web