Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #150402 > unrolled thread

very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 13:24 -0700
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2015-08-25 13:35 -0800
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 23:19 +0100
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-08-25 17:36 -0500
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-08-25 19:41 -0400
      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 09:16 -0700
        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 09:47 -0700
          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-26 10:00 -0700
            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:18 +0000
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:37 -0400
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-27 08:31 -0400
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 14:41 -0500
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 20:17 +0000
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:59 -0500
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:01 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-29 13:46 -0500
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-26 21:00 -0500
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 19:41 -0700
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 07:28 -0700
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 12:47 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 20:17 +0000
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 23:02 +0000
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 09:38 +0000
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 07:47 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 19:24 +0000
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:42 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:57 +0000
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:54 +0000
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-30 18:44 +0000
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:19 -0500
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-27 18:58 -0500
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 17:57 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 17:59 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 18:26 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 14:57 -0500
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-28 14:09 -0600
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0500
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0500
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:38 -0500
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 06:06 -0400
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 15:22 -0500
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:49 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 15:51 -0700
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:28 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:34 +0000
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-10-28 22:11 +0000
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:59 +0000
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:31 +0000
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 20:07 -0700
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 03:57 -0600
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 10:20 +0000
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 04:51 -0600
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 07:08 -0400
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 12:29 +0000
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-31 12:04 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 06:11 -0600
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-31 12:37 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 13:20 +0000
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:18 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 10:41 -0600
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-31 15:21 +0100
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 15:13 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-31 12:49 -0500
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 -0500
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:04 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 07:48 -0600
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-01 13:56 +0000
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-01 18:33 +0000
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-10-31 11:30 +0000
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:15 -0700
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 02:55 +0000
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 07:36 -0700
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:33 -0600
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-29 18:03 -0500
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-29 11:44 -0600
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 16:03 -0400
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:15 -0600
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 21:51 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:20 -0700
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 07:28 -0400
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-30 14:57 -0500
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:26 -0700
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0500
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:32 -0700
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 23:10 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 19:09 -0700
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 16:35 +0000
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:35 +0000
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 12:05 -0700
                                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 12:22 -0700
                                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:15 +0000
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-30 17:31 -0400
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-30 17:44 -0400
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-30 23:38 -0400
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:08 -0500
                                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
                                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-11-03 16:44 +0000
                                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-11-05 15:28 -0600
                                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-05 17:05 -0500
            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-26 22:12 +0100
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-16 18:48 -0800
      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2015-11-25 16:00 +0000
        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-30 09:43 -0800
          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2015-11-30 10:42 -0900

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#153683

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:


>>> my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a
>>> good penc.
>>
>> A what?
>
> Those darn spell checkers introduce so much undecipherable noise.  My
> guess is pee.

Well that's a relief.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153686

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:04:29 +0000
David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> 
> 
> > my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a good
> > penc.
> 
> A what?

	Apply ROT13.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153736

On 31/10/2015 10:20, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 03:57:25 -0600
> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>
>>> My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound.  The
>>> accuracy on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound.
>>
>> I lost 8.96 grams per day in October!
>
> 	So a bit over half a pound in total.
>
> 	I don't really understand how anyone weighs themselves to that kind
> of precision, the weight shown on my scales varies depending on where I put
> my feet by more than that, and I can lose half a pound by having a good
> penc.
>
My WW ones seem pretty consitant provided I have then on solid floor. so 
long as my feet are on the plate they seem consitant to +/- one reading.

My old ones I had before werre the same salter spring ones the Nurse 
uses and they could be several pounds different depending on how you 
stood on the floor.

She was also did not beleive me when I told her I would be heaver this 
week because we were weighing in the basement....

Dave
G4UGM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153740

"David Wade" wrote:

> She was also did not beleive me when I told her I would be heaver this 
> week because we were weighing in the basement....

This lack of basic scientific education in a health care professional is 
terrible.

I'll bet she couldn't even tell you how a tree could weigh so much just 
being nourished by air and water.  After all, if you took all the water out, 
the remains would still weigh a lot. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153689

In article <d9jhk6Fj34sU1@mid.individual.net>,
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>
>> My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound.  The accuracy
>> on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound.
>
>I lost 8.96 grams per day in October! 
 
277 grams (which I get for the whole month) is well within the daily
weight fluctuations for a normal adult. These can be as much as 2 kgs,
depending on food/liquid intake and excretion, salt/water retention,
exercise etc.

I usually weigh nearly a kg less just after my morning toilet break
than what I do in the evening. This is mainly hydration differences.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153691

"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:scvegc-8i4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>
> 277 grams (which I get for the whole month) is well within the daily
> weight fluctuations for a normal adult. These can be as much as 2 kgs,
> depending on food/liquid intake and excretion, salt/water retention,
> exercise etc.
> I usually weigh nearly a kg less just after my morning toilet break
> than what I do in the evening. This is mainly hydration differences.

+1

If dieting, weigh yourself only on the first of any calendar month, lest you 
get depressed by
normal diurnal variation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153698

On 10/31/2015 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:scvegc-8i4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>
>> 277 grams (which I get for the whole month) is well within the daily
>> weight fluctuations for a normal adult. These can be as much as 2 kgs,
>> depending on food/liquid intake and excretion, salt/water retention,
>> exercise etc.
>> I usually weigh nearly a kg less just after my morning toilet break
>> than what I do in the evening. This is mainly hydration differences.
> 
> +1
> 
> If dieting, weigh yourself only on the first of any calendar month, lest you 
> get depressed by
> normal diurnal variation.
> 
> 
Or, if you want greater involvement, enter it into a spreadsheet and
graph the results. With trend lines. The noise is easy to see, but
you've still got daily involvement ("today was high, got to eat less
this afternoon!")

If I don't turn that stuff into a game, pretty soon I'm not paying
attention at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153704

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:d9jhk6Fj34sU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>
>> My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound.  The 
>> accuracy
>> on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound.
>
> I lost 8.96 grams per day in October!

Don't worry, Osmium.  You'll find it again!!!

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153727

On 2015-10-31, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:d9jhk6Fj34sU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>
>>> My WW scale has a display precision of one tenth of a pound.  The 
>>> accuracy
>>> on the other hand, is likely closer to a full pound.
>>
>> I lost 8.96 grams per day in October!
>
> Don't worry, Osmium.  You'll find it again!!!
>


An Irish amateur boxer was interviewed on radio recently, he said his biggest
problem was doing without water until weighin time, then `re-hydrating' safely
before a fight.

-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153729

"Greymaus" wrote:

> An Irish amateur boxer was interviewed on radio recently, he said his 
> biggest
> problem was doing without water until weighin time, then `re-hydrating' 
> safely
> before a fight.

A friend of mine was a marathon runner.  He said one of his biggest problems 
was getting his bowel movements in synch with the upcoming race. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153730

On 2015-11-01, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Greymaus" wrote:
>
>> An Irish amateur boxer was interviewed on radio recently, he said his 
>> biggest
>> problem was doing without water until weighin time, then `re-hydrating' 
>> safely
>> before a fight.
>
> A friend of mine was a marathon runner.  He said one of his biggest problems 
> was getting his bowel movements in synch with the upcoming race. 
>

http://takeitinyourstride.co.uk/did-paula-radcliffe-poo-or-wee/

-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 13th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153744

On 2015-11-01, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Greymaus" wrote:
>
>> An Irish amateur boxer was interviewed on radio recently, he said his 
>> biggest
>> problem was doing without water until weighin time, then `re-hydrating' 
>> safely
>> before a fight.
>
> A friend of mine was a marathon runner.  He said one of his biggest problems 
> was getting his bowel movements in synch with the upcoming race. 
>

The mind boggles.


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153798

On 2015-11-01, Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:

> On 2015-11-01, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Greymaus" wrote:
>>
>>> An Irish amateur boxer was interviewed on radio recently, he said
>>> his biggest problem was doing without water until weighin time,
>>> then `re-hydrating' safely before a fight.
>>
>> A friend of mine was a marathon runner.  He said one of his biggest
>> problems was getting his bowel movements in synch with the upcoming race. 
>
> The mind boggles.

Serious runners are, uh, different.

Come to think of it, so am I.  But not _that_ way.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153678

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:59:43 +0000, David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 28/10/2015 22:11, Ibmekon wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2015 21:34:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <aside>
>>
>>> I've noticed that more and more, the problem with technology is not so much
>>> getting something to do what you want, as keeping the damned gadget from
>>> doing what you don't want.
>>
>> My current unfavourite is my bathroom/bedroom scales.
>>
>> It seems not want to bother me with small changes in my weight of less
>> than a pound.
>> In this case it measures correctly, checks against the last value, and
>> lies to me.
>>
>>
>> Carl Goldsworthy
>> --
>> I intend to live forever.
>> So far, so good.
>>
>I have Weight Watchers scales. Expensive but show changes of 1/4 of a 
>pound...

To fix the scales I pick up a heavy object and weigh myself - to 1/4
lb.
Then weigh my self normally.

Next day I weigh myself - watching the display I see the correct
weight flicker - say 1/4 lb different to the previous day - then be
replaced by yesterdays weight.

If I refix the scales - I get the correct weight.

Basically the software refuses to report a change less than 1 lb.
So you can be lulled into a false sense of security - until a change
of 1 lb or more  surprises you.

Just checked Amazon - they have scales that auto remember and show the
previous weghing of 8 people - presumably for the very old, suffering
with alzheimers. 
So I suppose the idiots are learning.


Carl Goldsworthy
--
I intend to live forever.
So far, so good.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153500

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 5:35:32 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> OK, here's a more practical example.  I used to do underwater photography
> with a trusty old Nikonos V, and got results good enough to be published.
> Yes, film has its drawbacks - you can't change a roll underwater, for instance.
> So just before we went on a dive trip to Mexico I bought a housed point & shoot
> camera.  It was no fun at all.  I had no TTL, I couldn't turn off the damned
> auto-focus, and I wound up with a dreadful bunch of fuzzy, badly exposed
> snapshots.  It was so frustrating trying to make the camera do what I
> wanted that I retired from underwater photography.  I wasn't willing to
> lay out big bucks for a new camera that might be able to do what I wanted.
> Nor was I willing to climb that learning curve all over again.
> It wasn't worth doing anymore.

I respectfully must disagree, having been in the same situation with a camera.  I was happy with my SLR, shooting with film, but then Kodak cut back on decent processing and also film was harder to find.  So I had to bite the bullet and get an expensive digital camera that did what my old camera could do.  After getting used to the new camera, I soon learned it was generally better than my old film SLR in taking picures.  I really liked having easy controllable white balance, eliminating the need for an 80A or FLD filter.  I also found I could easily edit digital pictures.  Lastly, I am saving a bit of money since I don't buy film or processing anymore.  The learning curve for my level wasn't hard.

Some Kodak film is still manufactured, so you can continue to use your old camera if you want to.  Granted, buying the film and getting it processed will be inconvenient, but not insurmountable.  (My local drugstore still sells Kodacolor 400, FWIW).



> I've noticed that more and more, the problem with technology is not so much
> getting something to do what you want, as keeping the damned gadget from
> doing what you don't want.

If it were up to me, I'd be using DOS 5.0.  But, in practical real terms, I have to use what the mass marketplace provides.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153502

On 2015-10-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 5:35:32 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> OK, here's a more practical example.  I used to do underwater photography
>> with a trusty old Nikonos V, and got results good enough to be published.
>> Yes, film has its drawbacks - you can't change a roll underwater, for
>> instance.  So just before we went on a dive trip to Mexico I bought a
>> housed point & shoot camera.  It was no fun at all.  I had no TTL, I
>> couldn't turn off the damned auto-focus, and I wound up with a dreadful
>> bunch of fuzzy, badly exposed snapshots.  It was so frustrating trying to
>> make the camera do what I wanted that I retired from underwater photography.
>> I wasn't willing to lay out big bucks for a new camera that might be able
>> to do what I wanted.  Nor was I willing to climb that learning curve all
>> over again.
>>
>> It wasn't worth doing anymore.
>
> I respectfully must disagree, having been in the same situation with a camera.
> I was happy with my SLR, shooting with film, but then Kodak cut back on decent
> processing and also film was harder to find.  So I had to bite the bullet and
> get an expensive digital camera that did what my old camera could do.  After
> getting used to the new camera, I soon learned it was generally better than
> my old film SLR in taking picures.  I really liked having easy controllable
> white balance, eliminating the need for an 80A or FLD filter.  I also found
> I could easily edit digital pictures.  Lastly, I am saving a bit of money
> since I don't buy film or processing anymore.  The learning curve for my level
> wasn't hard.

If I were really serious about it, I suppose I could get through that part.
Maybe it's just that I had done what I wanted to do and it was time to move
on to other things.  Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)

> Some Kodak film is still manufactured, so you can continue to use your
> old camera if you want to.  Granted, buying the film and getting it
> processed will be inconvenient, but not insurmountable.  (My local
> drugstore still sells Kodacolor 400, FWIW).

Nah, I think I'll pass.

>> I've noticed that more and more, the problem with technology is not so much
>> getting something to do what you want, as keeping the damned gadget from
>> doing what you don't want.
>
> If it were up to me, I'd be using DOS 5.0.

I did go all the way to 6.2.  It was pretty solid.  However, I'll give up
XP (running under VirtualBox) when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

> But, in practical real terms, I have to use what the mass marketplace
> provides.

Sometimes you have to make compromises.  The rest of the time I either
find an alternate solution that interoprates and which I can tolerate,
or go off and find some other way to entertain myself.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153520

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:56:25 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> If I were really serious about it, I suppose I could get through that part.
> Maybe it's just that I had done what I wanted to do and it was time to move
> on to other things.  Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)

So, it uses a Z-80?  Maybe a 4004?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153533

On 2015-10-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:56:25 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> If I were really serious about it, I suppose I could get through that part.
>> Maybe it's just that I had done what I wanted to do and it was time to move
>> on to other things.  Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
>> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)
>
> So, it uses a Z-80?  Maybe a 4004?

Well, a lot of us do have those newfangled fine tuners...

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153536

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2015-10-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:56:25 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> If I were really serious about it, I suppose I could get through that part.
>>> Maybe it's just that I had done what I wanted to do and it was time to move
>>> on to other things.  Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
>>> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)
>>
>> So, it uses a Z-80?  Maybe a 4004?
>
> Well, a lot of us do have those newfangled fine tuners...

When I was a pup, we had a neighbor who was a piano tuner.

He had a stroboscopic tuner - There were 12 'tracks' around the disk,
one for each half-step, and a knob that adjusted the octave.  It had a
mircophone that he'd hang between the sound board and the frame.

I always assumed that the motor was crystal controlled, and that the
microphone drove the little neon bulb through an amplifier, but I now
realize it would have worked just as well the other way, with the motor
being phase-locked to the incoming audio stream, and the neon being
controlled by a fixed octave oscillator.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153555

On 2015-10-29, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2015-10-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:56:25 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I were really serious about it, I suppose I could get through that part.
>>>> Maybe it's just that I had done what I wanted to do and it was time to move
>>>> on to other things.  Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
>>>> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)
>>>
>>> So, it uses a Z-80?  Maybe a 4004?
>>
>> Well, a lot of us do have those newfangled fine tuners...
>
> When I was a pup, we had a neighbor who was a piano tuner.
>
> He had a stroboscopic tuner - There were 12 'tracks' around the disk,
> one for each half-step, and a knob that adjusted the octave.  It had a
> mircophone that he'd hang between the sound board and the frame.

Our school had one of them too.

> I always assumed that the motor was crystal controlled, and that the
> microphone drove the little neon bulb through an amplifier, but I now
> realize it would have worked just as well the other way, with the motor
> being phase-locked to the incoming audio stream, and the neon being
> controlled by a fixed octave oscillator.

It'd probably be much easier to drive the neon from the amplifier;
then you don't have to worry about the inertia of the disc, which
would make it take a long time to lock onto the incoming signal.

I've seen new electronic tuners which simulate the display on those
old stroboscopic tuners.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web