Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #144523 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-26 15:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2024-11-28 14:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 15:36 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-26 18:56 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 16:01 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-26 19:15 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 16:19 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-26 19:49 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 18:17 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 08:27 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 09:53 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 14:13 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 11:29 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 14:45 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:12 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:15 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:44 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:49 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 16:21 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 16:02 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 19:14 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:00 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 16:26 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 16:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 20:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 10:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-28 10:36 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 10:44 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-28 14:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 14:36 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-28 15:58 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:08 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:03 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 13:56 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:10 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 16:21 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:08 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 22:24 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:38 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 23:03 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 20:33 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 00:24 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 09:37 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 13:46 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-03 15:06 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 17:07 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-03 20:57 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 21:05 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 19:04 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 20:07 -0700
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 21:42 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 22:43 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 21:44 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-04 10:34 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-04 00:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-29 12:50 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 17:29 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 07:02 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 14:20 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 14:35 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 14:57 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 19:29 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 20:23 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 09:39 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 13:49 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-04 16:30 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 19:24 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-05 11:11 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 09:35 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 18:56 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 18:05 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 22:20 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 19:26 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 22:33 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 22:52 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 18:19 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 18:04 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-05 21:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 22:32 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 20:35 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-06 07:35 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 09:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-06 16:38 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 19:25 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 19:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 17:39 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 22:48 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-07 14:06 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 09:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 13:48 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 10:58 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:31 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 16:31 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:27 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2024-11-27 22:10 +0000
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 17:31 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2024-11-27 23:07 +0000
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 18:19 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 13:58 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:13 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 16:21 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:53 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:09 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 22:27 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:35 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-29 12:50 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 17:26 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 06:59 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2024-11-30 04:34 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-30 09:54 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 14:22 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 13:52 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2024-11-27 19:58 +1300
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 08:31 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2024-11-28 09:23 +1300
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:46 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:49 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 16:23 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 16:07 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 20:16 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 19:22 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 10:03 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:05 -0800
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-29 00:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6pjikj1icct50cjm21d175uom81957p30l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144666 |
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>> If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I >>>>>> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive. >>>>> >>>>> 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different words. >>>> >>>> It's an answer to Apple's arbitrary hand-holding of what you can do >>>> with your expensive device from them. >>> >>> I asked you why using an external drive on a computer that isn't going >>> anywhere "sucks"... >>> >>> ...and you can't come up with a single actual reason. >> >> It's just not as elite, the computer should have capacity for all the >> internal hardware you might want, Apple's only option for that is >> their starting-at-7-grand Mac Pro. > >So the best reason you can muster is a child's brag about "eliteness"? Do you want to be the "child" with the second-rate toy, or the king of the hill? >> Intel and/or M$ failed me, with regard to Win11 and the CPU video with >> the new monitor, I admit that. But the NVIDIA card largely solved >> that problem. It was the right tactic under the circumstances, a >> useful upgrade to the system, giving me more options, as well as >> support for the monitor in and of itself. >Excuses. > >Those you are expert at. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation of what happened. I couldn't anticipate the CPU video so poorly handling 4K, but when it did, I knew the solution. Big F'ing deal. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 09:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vinfkn$7c6i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144667 |
On 2024-11-28 21:24, Joel wrote: > Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I >>>>>>> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different words. >>>>> >>>>> It's an answer to Apple's arbitrary hand-holding of what you can do >>>>> with your expensive device from them. >>>> >>>> I asked you why using an external drive on a computer that isn't going >>>> anywhere "sucks"... >>>> >>>> ...and you can't come up with a single actual reason. >>> >>> It's just not as elite, the computer should have capacity for all the >>> internal hardware you might want, Apple's only option for that is >>> their starting-at-7-grand Mac Pro. >> >> So the best reason you can muster is a child's brag about "eliteness"? > > > Do you want to be the "child" with the second-rate toy, or the king of > the hill? I've honestly never wasted a moment of thought on the childish need to be "king of the hill"... ...about a tool. > > >>> Intel and/or M$ failed me, with regard to Win11 and the CPU video with >>> the new monitor, I admit that. But the NVIDIA card largely solved >>> that problem. It was the right tactic under the circumstances, a >>> useful upgrade to the system, giving me more options, as well as >>> support for the monitor in and of itself. >> Excuses. >> >> Those you are expert at. > > > It's not an excuse, it's an explanation of what happened. I couldn't > anticipate the CPU video so poorly handling 4K, but when it did, I > knew the solution. Big F'ing deal. You could have researched it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 13:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3ckukj91bq9p0eosv3h7grn1g83ii8jvmk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144825 |
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >> I couldn't >> anticipate the CPU video so poorly handling 4K, but when it did, I >> knew the solution. Big F'ing deal. > >You could have researched it. I wouldn't have anticipated using 4K when I got the main parts. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vinobq$ao8u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144832 |
On 12/3/24 1:46 PM, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> I couldn't
>>> anticipate the CPU video so poorly handling 4K, but when it did, I
>>> knew the solution. Big F'ing deal.
>>
>> You could have researched it.
>
> I wouldn't have anticipated using 4K when I got the main parts.
Especially when one is harping about 'future proofing', why wouldn't one
be so unprepared in 2021 for supporting 4K monitors?
Because 4K wasn't a new standard: it first came out 2001, and was in the
consumer market by 2013. So by 2021, 4K displays were pretty
commonplace (even Apple had had them in iMacs for 7 years) and 'gamer'
ones had already dropped to just $500 ('regular' ones were even less):
<https://www.cgmagonline.com/review/hardware/asus-rog-strix-xg27aq-monitor-review/>
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 17:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r30vkj10ri197b01fc946vrd8tmkvnpho7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144842 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't have anticipated using 4K when I got the main parts.
>
>Especially when one is harping about 'future proofing', why wouldn't one
>be so unprepared in 2021 for supporting 4K monitors?
>
>Because 4K wasn't a new standard: it first came out 2001, and was in the
>consumer market by 2013. So by 2021, 4K displays were pretty
>commonplace (even Apple had had them in iMacs for 7 years) and 'gamer'
>ones had already dropped to just $500 ('regular' ones were even less):
I paid $200 for mine. It's two years old. It was an impulse buy when
my old monitor was dying.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 20:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vioctr$f5hq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144846 |
On 12/3/24 5:07 PM, Joel wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't have anticipated using 4K when I got the main parts.
>>
>> Especially when one is harping about 'future proofing', why wouldn't one
>> be so unprepared in 2021 for supporting 4K monitors?
>>
>> Because 4K wasn't a new standard: it first came out 2001, and was in the
>> consumer market by 2013. So by 2021, 4K displays were pretty
>> commonplace (even Apple had had them in iMacs for 7 years) and 'gamer'
>> ones had already dropped to just $500 ('regular' ones were even less):
>
>
> I paid $200 for mine. It's two years old. It was an impulse buy when
> my old monitor was dying.
The cheaper it was, the less justification there was to have not
anticipated and planned for it to be a candidate replacement within the
expected lifespan of the PC.
For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed
complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box.
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 21:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n2evkj9941p3rn7abfikivfiekv0fibub8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144848 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed >complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box. They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard feature it's a fairly nice one. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 19:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <viogru$kd7v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144849 |
On 2024-12-03 18:05, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed >> complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box. > > > They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard > feature it's a fairly nice one. > The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box. 'M4 Simultaneously supports up to three displays: Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI' <https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/> Kind of blows your "elite" system away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <pursent100@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 20:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5oicnTD3pbcSWtL6nZ2dnZfqnPEAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #144854 |
Alan wrote: > On 2024-12-03 18:05, Joel wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> >>> For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed >>> complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box. >> >> >> They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard >> feature it's a fairly nice one. >> > > The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box. > > 'M4 > Simultaneously supports up to three displays: > Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over > Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over > Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI > Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over > Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K > resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI' > > <https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/> > > Kind of blows your "elite" system away. it would if it did what you say , but it don't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 21:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vioq53$mb8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144855 |
On 2024-12-03 19:07, % wrote: > Alan wrote: >> On 2024-12-03 18:05, Joel wrote: >>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> >>>> For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed >>>> complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box. >>> >>> >>> They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard >>> feature it's a fairly nice one. >>> >> >> The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box. >> >> 'M4 >> Simultaneously supports up to three displays: >> Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz >> over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >> Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI >> Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >> Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K >> resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI' >> >> <https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/> >> >> Kind of blows your "elite" system away. > > it would if it did what you say , but it don't In what way?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 22:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5ujvkj9dbpua2c4rtdsgib263csmols5gk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144854 |
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box. > >'M4 >Simultaneously supports up to three displays: >Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over >Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI >Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K >resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI' > ><https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/> > >Kind of blows your "elite" system away. Don't need big video by today's standards, so my card seems "elite". -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 21:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vioq7s$mb8i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144856 |
On 2024-12-03 19:43, Joel wrote: > Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: > >> The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box. >> >> 'M4 >> Simultaneously supports up to three displays: >> Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over >> Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >> Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI >> Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >> Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K >> resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI' >> >> <https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/> >> >> Kind of blows your "elite" system away. > > > Don't need big video by today's standards, so my card seems "elite". > So it was "a fairly nice [feature] to have support for four 4K monitors, but too expensive... ...and now suddenly your card is "elite" for being able to do one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 10:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vipsq5$uue6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144865 |
On 12/4/24 12:44 AM, Alan wrote: > On 2024-12-03 19:43, Joel wrote: >> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >> >>> The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box. >>> >>> 'M4 >>> Simultaneously supports up to three displays: >>> Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over >>> Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >>> Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI >>> Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over >>> Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K >>> resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI' >>> >>> <https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/> >>> >>> Kind of blows your "elite" system away. >> >> Don't need big video by today's standards, so my card seems "elite". > > So it was "a fairly nice [feature] to have support for four 4K monitors, > but too expensive... > > ...and now suddenly your card is "elite" for being able to do one? Seems that Joel's 'high end/elite' scale is a sliding one which myopically only considers his personal situation, not the state of the PC Industry. And even prior to 4K, dual display support has been quite common for years: I had it on my 'daily driver' work setup since ~2010. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 00:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <viono0$f5hq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144849 |
On 12/3/24 9:05 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed >> complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box. > > > They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard > feature it's a fairly nice one. If it actually costs more depends on the unit cost and the trade-off of having a single configuration rather than the logistical overhead of multiple production variations and the supply chain costs of stocking N+1 variants. TL;DR: ask Toyota why its cheaper for them to have a high level of Standard equipment on their cars. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-29 12:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vicute$12qd5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144659 |
On 11/28/24 10:08 PM, Alan wrote: > On 2024-11-28 16:52, Joel wrote: >> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>... >>>>>> I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups. >>>>>> It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and >>>>>> use its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS >>>>>> reinstall. >>>>>> Boom. >>>>> >>>>> So you have no actual backup solution at all beyond, "I'll copy the >>>>> files over manually"? >>>> >>>> Is there supposed to be a more straightforward way? >>> >>> Yes. Use proper backup software that keeps track of everything that >>> needs to be backed up, and does so on an automated schedule. >>> >>> Kind of like Time Machine does on a Mac. >>> I meant, EXACTLY like Time Machine does on a Mac. >>> :-) >> >> >> I would wager I could install something equivalent under Linux, but >> it's not a vital need. > > It IS a vital need to anyone who is serious about his or her data. What it really comes down to is that a PC is a productivity device which operates through task automation. From this perspective, why *wouldn't* one want to automate the task of data protection & integrity? >>>>>> I'm not using any SATA device, not even a DVD drive. >>>>> >>>>> Because it's against your religion, or... ...what? >>>> >>>> Well, optical drives are basically unneeded, and SATA storage drives >>>> are outdated. The NVMe is the only internal media, I install Win/Lin >>>> from USB media, and my external hard drive is for backups. >>> >>> That doesn't make SATA devices worse. >> >> >> NVMe is state-of-the-art. > > Still not an answer. He's also wrong, for NVMe's are "State of the SHELF", as they're a decade old, which is why their retail prices have dropped: my first NVMe based SSD back in 2012 cost me around $600 for 256GB. >> Using SATA when NVMe is an option isn't elite enough, right. > > It's seems you're looking for "bragging rights", not utility. Indeed: Joel is 'faster = better' until it comes to even faster systems than what he owns ... at which point he flips his story to "overpriced". -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-29 17:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j0gkkj1r7k5eqimh79o7vcc7sc4abro18j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144671 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >Joel is 'faster = better' until it comes to even faster systems >than what he owns ... at which point he flips his story to "overpriced". If you compare Apple hardware from the same time I bought my parts, it'd be about the same speeds. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 07:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vieut7$1msjk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144675 |
On 11/29/24 5:29 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> Joel is 'faster = better' until it comes to even faster systems >> than what he owns ... at which point he flips his story to "overpriced". > > > If you compare Apple hardware from the same time I bought my parts, > it'd be about the same speeds. I already have. Sorry, but they're not. I've already posted that your CPU is slower. Ditto your SSD too. RAM hasn't been fully checked out, but architecturally its not on-chip and out on a bus, so its invariably slower too. For the first one, your motherboard allows one generation of CPU upgrade (from Gen 10 to 11); I'd figure that a Rocket Lake i7 such as the 11700 would probably provide parity; looks like $218 at Amazon. For the second one, this is why I noted about RAID0'ing your boot drive, as that's what it requires pre-PCI 5. For you, it needs a second NVMe module; +$100. But since your motherboard's open NVMe slot's PCI 3, not PCI 4, this strategy still won't provide adequate gain for parity vs the Studio. But it would be roughly on par to the old 2020 Mini, so I'd give this one to you if you stop trying to compare to the Studio. For the third one, you'd have to replace the motherboard for a faster RAM bus architecture, so no luck for you there for anything cheap. TL;DR: your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert' chose for you. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 14:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m7pmkj93qgktgha1a2ci6u4rhvvs6r2qk6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144694 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> Joel is 'faster = better' until it comes to even faster systems >>> than what he owns ... at which point he flips his story to "overpriced". >> >> If you compare Apple hardware from the same time I bought my parts, >> it'd be about the same speeds. > >I already have. Sorry, but they're not. > >I've already posted that your CPU is slower. Ditto your SSD too. RAM >hasn't been fully checked out, but architecturally its not on-chip and >out on a bus, so its invariably slower too. > >For the first one, your motherboard allows one generation of CPU upgrade >(from Gen 10 to 11); I'd figure that a Rocket Lake i7 such as the 11700 >would probably provide parity; looks like $218 at Amazon. > >For the second one, this is why I noted about RAID0'ing your boot drive, >as that's what it requires pre-PCI 5. For you, it needs a second NVMe >module; +$100. But since your motherboard's open NVMe slot's PCI 3, not >PCI 4, this strategy still won't provide adequate gain for parity vs the >Studio. But it would be roughly on par to the old 2020 Mini, so I'd >give this one to you if you stop trying to compare to the Studio. > >For the third one, you'd have to replace the motherboard for a faster >RAM bus architecture, so no luck for you there for anything cheap. > >TL;DR: your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time >means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put >your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like >it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about >as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert' >chose for you. In other words, the Mac would be half a second faster on a typical operation, at most, who the hell cares, my computer also didn't cost as much as you are adding up, it's a little under $1000. The Winblows license is not really part of it, I'm not even using it anymore. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 14:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vifpde$1tf8h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144707 |
On 11/30/24 2:20 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> ... >> TL;DR: your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time >> means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put >> your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like >> it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about >> as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert' >> chose for you. > > > In other words, the Mac would be half a second faster on a typical > operation, at most, who the hell cares, ... If you really didn't care about responsiveness, then you'd still be using your 2010 PC. Strike one. You'd also not have bragged about how Linux was faster than Windows on your 2021 PC. Strike two. Nor have claimed its a "high end" system, trying (but failing) to claim performance parity with the 'overpriced' Mac Studio. Strike three. > ... my computer also didn't cost > as much as you are adding up, it's a little under $1000. The Winblows > license is not really part of it, I'm not even using it anymore. No, the $1150 value stands because it doesn't matter what you bought and later discarded, for you still bought it with the intent to use. Ditto for your error with your video controllers too. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 14:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nermkj52tvp85j0gupdim58b315od66fd1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144709 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> TL;DR: your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time >>> means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put >>> your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like >>> it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about >>> as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert' >>> chose for you. >> >> In other words, the Mac would be half a second faster on a typical >> operation, at most, who the hell cares, ... > >If you really didn't care about responsiveness, then you'd still be >using your 2010 PC. Strike one. > >You'd also not have bragged about how Linux was faster than Windows on >your 2021 PC. Strike two. > >Nor have claimed its a "high end" system, trying (but failing) to claim >performance parity with the 'overpriced' Mac Studio. Strike three. Strike three on you for three lies. >> ... my computer also didn't cost >> as much as you are adding up, it's a little under $1000. The Winblows >> license is not really part of it, I'm not even using it anymore. > >No, the $1150 value stands because it doesn't matter what you bought and >later discarded, for you still bought it with the intent to use. Ditto >for your error with your video controllers too. Bullshit, but what else is new with you. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web