Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #683622 > unrolled thread
| Started by | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-10 12:37 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-01-16 11:35 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-10 12:37 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-10 12:43 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-10 13:59 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 09:30 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 07:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:39 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-20 20:39 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-21 06:05 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-21 08:49 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-10 20:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-10 16:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 09:31 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-11 12:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-12 23:20 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 12:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-13 22:50 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-21 22:43 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 12:54 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 09:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 04:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 07:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 07:28 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-12 09:36 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 12:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 10:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-11 20:11 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 17:28 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-12 09:55 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 12:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:39 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-12 23:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2025-01-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 16:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 17:44 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 17:54 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 18:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 18:25 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-13 17:52 -0600
Cult of Unix (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 00:30 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-14 20:05 -0600
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 03:16 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 09:02 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 11:10 -0700
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-16 05:03 +0000
Re: 🏳️🌈Cult of Unix🏳️🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2025-01-16 05:28 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-16 16:04 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-16 14:48 -0600
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 18:06 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 02:49 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-17 03:51 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-17 02:10 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:55 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-17 20:53 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:54 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:56 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-17 20:54 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:55 +0000
Re: Cult of Unix Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 20:01 -0500
Re: Cult of Unix Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 00:10 +0000
Re: 🏳️🌈Cult of Unix (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs)🏳️🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2025-01-15 05:24 +0000
Setting up old-style backup on Windows 11 (was: Re: Cult of Unix) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 08:38 +0000
Re: 🏳️🌈Setting up old-style backup on Windows 11 (was: Re: Cult of Unix)🏳️🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2025-01-15 17:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-13 21:44 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-14 03:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-15 06:56 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 02:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 00:11 +0000
Defragging (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-17 03:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 10:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-15 23:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 20:15 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-01-16 01:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 05:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 08:53 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 10:43 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 11:07 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 17:19 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 18:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-20 20:41 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 17:18 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-17 18:15 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 13:07 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-18 16:08 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 17:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-18 23:30 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 19:04 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 04:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-18 18:50 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 19:08 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-18 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-18 22:14 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 11:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 12:23 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 12:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 15:54 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 18:44 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 20:28 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-19 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 22:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 07:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 06:03 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 03:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 23:08 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-20 08:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-21 06:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 19:36 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 03:56 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-19 08:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 06:09 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-14 12:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-15 13:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 09:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-15 16:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-16 15:36 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-17 00:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 18:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-16 15:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-14 05:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-13 16:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-13 23:54 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 11:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 10:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-15 11:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-01-15 17:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-15 12:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-16 05:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 06:27 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-27 22:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 14:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-15 15:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-15 20:34 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 00:41 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 06:42 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 14:40 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 16:34 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 16:56 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 22:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 02:04 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-17 07:34 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs roger <rduffy@hotmail.com.invalid - 2025-01-17 14:01 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 17:15 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 15:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 16:50 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 21:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-16 21:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-16 18:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 15:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 15:51 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 16:11 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-01-17 13:03 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 16:00 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-17 23:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 18:10 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 18:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-30 13:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-30 17:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-02-01 00:20 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-01 06:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-01 07:18 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-01 06:31 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-01 12:39 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-02-02 16:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-02-02 15:59 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 06:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 12:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-16 12:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-17 00:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-16 23:47 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:41 -0500
Gaming Laptops (was: Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-01 12:58 +0000
Re: Gaming Laptops Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-01 19:22 -0500
Re: Gaming Laptops chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-02 08:05 -0600
Re: Gaming Laptops candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-03 20:10 +0000
Re: Gaming Laptops Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-03 19:24 -0500
Re: Gaming Laptops pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-02-04 00:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-01-16 18:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-16 16:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft to force new Outlook on Windows 10 PCs Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 11:35 -0500
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 06:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmarak$3fd0d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684120 |
On 1/16/25 1:41 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 1/15/25 7:34 PM, Paul wrote: >> The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it. >> >> https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming > > > $500 computer is a "budget" computer these days? Hehe :) Sure is. In 1981, IBM's original PC 5150 debuted at $2,880 for a 64K system with one floppy drive. In today's dollars, that would be a shade over $10K. Back in that era, PC Magazine's editor Bill Machrone quipped: "the computer you want always costs $5,000." And 1984's price buster of the TI-99/4A started at $525. What percentage of your gross monthly pay was $525 back in 1984? Don't know about you, but for me, it would've been around 33%. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 14:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmbqro$3lkem$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684123 |
On 1/16/25 5:42 AM, -hh wrote: > On 1/16/25 1:41 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 1/15/25 7:34 PM, Paul wrote: >>> The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it. >>> >>> https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming >> >> >> $500 computer is a "budget" computer these days? Hehe :) > > Sure is. > > In 1981, IBM's original PC 5150 debuted at $2,880 for a 64K system with > one floppy drive. In today's dollars, that would be a shade over $10K. > > Back in that era, PC Magazine's editor Bill Machrone quipped: > "the computer you want always costs $5,000." > > And 1984's price buster of the TI-99/4A started at $525. What > percentage of your gross monthly pay was $525 back in 1984? > Don't know about you, but for me, it would've been around 33%. > > > -hh $525 was about half of what I made in 1984. Back then I was getting $700 and something per month for TA/RA work in school. I also made money by tutoring ($75 per sitting no matter how long the sitting lasted - rarely over 4 hours). I had at least one tutoring session per week, so that was another $300 a month. So about $1000 per month, and I lived comfortably (money-wise that is - in reality I was conducting a tough as well as quite challenging life in graduate school). But you (and I so far in this post) are digressing from the point I made. I didn't pay "$525" for a computer in 1984. I had a VAX/VMX minicomputer in the physics department always available for me. And before that, when IBM sold its "$2880" computers, I had a PDP-11 in the physics department at my disposal 24 x 7. A few years later they were asking us "Who wants this PDP-11?" Student or secretary or prof didn't matter. Nobody in physics department wanted it. A prof in the chemistry dept took it to his office. So how much _did_ I pay for a computer. I pulled out three Commodore 64 computers together with their power supplies (just two) and one disk drive, all packed inside a box, from the garbage dumpster of my apt complex I believe in 1986, or was it 1985. Somebody must've moved and had a "better" computer. Two of them worked perfectly. I wrote programs on them that I'm still using today! For one, a calendar conversion program I wrote handled conversions between Iranian lunar, Iranian solar, the Gregorian and before that the Julian solar dates nicely. Maximum error just one day! And you could go back in time even to the days of Darius if you insisted, cause I also took into account the precession of the Earth's rotational axis. I know of no calendar inversion software (accessible to public) that does that. They'll get even the season wrong if you go back that far, let alone the day. I wrote it first in BASIC (SIMONS BASIC cartridge - $5), then after finding some German C compiler for Commodore in the consignment store ($10), I wrote that same calendar Program in C on the Commodore. In early 1990s I didn't have access to university computers anymore, and when I had my first XT ($30 from consignment store) I adjusted that C calendar program to Borland's C ($20 with all the 11 or so yellow-red books that accompanied the software - same consignment store). So I created an EXE file for the calendar that ran on a DOS computer, which last time just yesterday I used to convert calendars when reading a history book. It runs fine in DOSBox emulator on linux. I sometimes use other programs too, today, that I originally wrote on that same Commodore. A two and three dimensional graphing/plotting software that went through same modifications as the calendar program. And as lately as the lock down Covid months, I was converting them to C++ intending to make them fully object oriented. But my laptop (another near-salvage I don't even remember from where - I think the Chinese company I worked for were getting rid of them or something) stopped getting charged and I had to leave that project inside that laptop. On my XT, early in 1990s, I developed serious scientific programs to compute various slow changing processes throughout hundreds of thousands of years. That's how I found out Whites are Cro-magnons! How long it takes for skin to become transparent by lack of enough sunlight. That Neanderthals were transparent skinned people. How long the matriarchy period lasted. etc. Do you get the picture? I don't need a $5000 computer for any reason under the sky, not even a $500 computer. Those who need them must want to do a Jupiter flyby :) Right now I'm using a computer that I bought last week for $12 in a _thrift_store.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmbu1k$3l86v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684150 |
On 1/16/25 3:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 1/16/25 5:42 AM, -hh wrote:
>> On 1/16/25 1:41 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 1/15/25 7:34 PM, Paul wrote:
>>>> The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming
>>>
>>>
>>> $500 computer is a "budget" computer these days? Hehe :)
>>
>> Sure is.
>>
>> In 1981, IBM's original PC 5150 debuted at $2,880 for a 64K system
>> with one floppy drive. In today's dollars, that would be a shade over
>> $10K.
>>
>> Back in that era, PC Magazine's editor Bill Machrone quipped:
>> "the computer you want always costs $5,000."
>>
>> And 1984's price buster of the TI-99/4A started at $525. What
>> percentage of your gross monthly pay was $525 back in 1984?
>> Don't know about you, but for me, it would've been around 33%.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
>
> $525 was about half of what I made in 1984. Back then I was getting $700
> and something per month for TA/RA work in school. I also made money by
> tutoring ($75 per sitting no matter how long the sitting lasted - rarely
> over 4 hours). I had at least one tutoring session per week, so that was
> another $300 a month. So about $1000 per month, and I lived comfortably
> (money-wise that is - in reality I was conducting a tough as well as
> quite challenging life in graduate school).
>
> But you (and I so far in this post) are digressing from the point I made.
We're hitting different (but related) points. My point is that PCs used
to be a lot more expensive than this $500 price point for a new PC
today, which is why its pretty fair to call it "budget".
We could do the same with automobiles: 40 years ago, a new Porsche 911
cost $25K ... but $25K today buys a new Civic or another "budget" car.
> I didn't pay "$525" for a computer in 1984. {stores of salvage}
>
> Do you get the picture?
Sure: you've not bought new, but used salvage/used gear. And that used
gear is cheaper than buying new isn't a particularly surprising fact.
> I don't need a $5000 computer for any reason under the sky, not even a
> $500 computer. Those who need them must want to do a Jupiter flyby :)
>
> Right now I'm using a computer that I bought last week for $12 in a
> _thrift_store.
Good for you. For my own workflow/use cases, I have a pretty hefty
dataset for which a high latency interferes and is hindering, so I'm
willing to pay for the hardware which provides a much lower latency: a
decade ago, the solution was RAID0 hard drives .. today, its SSD.
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 16:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmc2rf$3mmhi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684156 |
On 1/16/25 3:34 PM, -hh wrote: > but $25K today buys a new Civic or another "budget" car. $25K car is a "budget" car these days? Hehe :-) The last car I bought is a Toyota Echo 2002, in 2017, for $1600. That's one thousand dollars, plus another 600 dollars! The damn thing is indestructible. I have not spent one penny on any repairs on it for the past 8 years. I don't consider changing a tire or two, or oil and filter change or insurance and registration and inspection costs as "repair" of course, cause those stuff are routine, not a failure on the car's part. It runs great. With one gallon of fuel it travels between 35 to 40 miles. I drive the diameter of this humongous Dallas metroplex with it and the fuel gauge needle hardly even feels it. Paying $25K for a car is what keeps many true Americans from emigrating to Russia. As long as they're charging you 1562% more than you need to pay, believe me you'll keep them here!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 22:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmcjff$3mpfr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684166 |
On 1/16/25 5:56 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 1/16/25 3:34 PM, -hh wrote: >> but $25K today buys a new Civic or another "budget" car. > > > > $25K car is a "budget" car these days? Hehe :-) New car, just like how the conversation was originally about new PCs. And yes, 'budget' in the context of new car prices, since Edmunds' 3Q24 report found that the average new car in the USA cost $47,542. And FYI, average used car price was $27,177. > The last car I bought is a Toyota Echo 2002, in 2017, for $1600. Bully for you. Did it include a radio? My first car didn't. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 02:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmd2ug$3v4of$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684184 |
On 1/16/25 9:40 PM, -hh wrote: > On 1/16/25 5:56 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 1/16/25 3:34 PM, -hh wrote: >>> but $25K today buys a new Civic or another "budget" car. >> >> >> >> $25K car is a "budget" car these days? Hehe :-) > > New car, just like how the conversation was originally about new PCs. > > > And yes, 'budget' in the context of new car prices, since Edmunds' 3Q24 > report found that the average new car in the USA cost $47,542. > > And FYI, average used car price was $27,177. > > >> The last car I bought is a Toyota Echo 2002, in 2017, for $1600. > > Bully for you. Did it include a radio? My first car didn't. > > > -hh From today's craigslist: https://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/d/lewisville-2009-toyota-yaris-hatchback/7815953954.html 2009 Toyota Yaris. A nice used car for just $1500. Right there about 20 minutes drive from me to go get it. If I had any serious problem with my Echo 2002, I would jump on this one. A used car is worth, and priced, between $1500 to $2000. Anything above that is a rip off. A computer is worth between $70 and $80. And at the bottom of it, ANY car above $2000 and ANY computer above $80 is a rip off. New or used. That's my main point. You guys have bad habits. You're like those psycho Shoe freaks. Or those who lose their savings buying stocks that aren't worth what they're paying for. You don't know what you're doing, and others smarter than you, or rather are simply healthy in mind, are taking advantage of that. In how many different ways have I pointed to this fact? Blows my mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 07:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dumkojhjmopm18mduhjj4inunpbafb1jqf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684199 |
Physfitfreak wrote: > From today's craigslist: > >https://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/d/lewisville-2009-toyota-yaris-hatchback/7815953954.html > >2009 Toyota Yaris. A nice used car for just $1500. Right there about 20 >minutes drive from me to go get it. If I had any serious problem with my >Echo 2002, I would jump on this one. That's Chris A's old car, so it's probably never exceded the speed limit. -- "I said that distro watch or similar should not catalog anything unless it has been through an OSS approval committee to *HELP* ensure that the market isn't flooded with half arsed distros made by nut jobs trying to get their names in lights" - "OSS Approval Committee" chairman "Hadron" Quack
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | roger <rduffy@hotmail.com.invalid |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 14:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vkdloj5fs0tg5fn5vpj2bshqr12b5gikr6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #684208 |
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:34:06 -0600, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Physfitfreak wrote: > >> From today's craigslist: >> >>https://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/d/lewisville-2009-toyota-yaris-hatchback/7815953954.html >> >>2009 Toyota Yaris. A nice used car for just $1500. Right there about 20 >>minutes drive from me to go get it. If I had any serious problem with my >>Echo 2002, I would jump on this one. > >That's Chris A's old car, so it's probably never exceded the speed >limit. There's a mostly empty Cheetos bag under the driver's seat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 17:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmekqi$8i60$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684208 |
On 1/17/2025 8:34 AM, shitv wrote: > Physfitfreak wrote: > >> From today's craigslist: >> >> https://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/d/lewisville-2009-toyota-yaris-hatchback/7815953954.html >> >> 2009 Toyota Yaris. A nice used car for just $1500. Right there about 20 >> minutes drive from me to go get it. If I had any serious problem with my >> Echo 2002, I would jump on this one. > > That's Chris A's old car, so it's probably never exceded the speed > limit. All the steering wheel wear is at 10 and 2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmeg75$68pk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684199 |
On 1/17/25 3:04 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 1/16/25 9:40 PM, -hh wrote: >> On 1/16/25 5:56 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 1/16/25 3:34 PM, -hh wrote: >>>> but $25K today buys a new Civic or another "budget" car. >>> >>> >>> >>> $25K car is a "budget" car these days? Hehe :-) >> >> New car, just like how the conversation was originally about new PCs. >> >> >> And yes, 'budget' in the context of new car prices, since Edmunds' >> 3Q24 report found that the average new car in the USA cost $47,542. >> >> And FYI, average used car price was $27,177. >> >> >>> The last car I bought is a Toyota Echo 2002, in 2017, for $1600. >> >> Bully for you. Did it include a radio? My first car didn't. > > From today's craigslist: > > https://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/d/lewisville-2009-toyota-yaris- > hatchback/7815953954.html > > 2009 Toyota Yaris. A nice used car for just $1500. Right there about 20 > minutes drive from me to go get it. If I had any serious problem with my > Echo 2002, I would jump on this one. > > A used car is worth, and priced, between $1500 to $2000. Anything above > that is a rip off. A computer is worth between $70 and $80. > > And at the bottom of it, ANY car above $2000 and ANY computer above $80 > is a rip off. New or used. That's my main point. You guys have bad > habits. If something really is a "ripoff" depends on many more factors than merely if it minimally meets your personal transportation needs. For example, when someone isn't personally handy with doing DIY roadside repairs, how does that change selection criteria? Ditto for other factors, such as to reliably arriving at work on time. Or driving through remote regions without being stranded, or even just though unsafe urban neighborhoods. Plus seating for how many passengers? Need heat? Snow tires? Or summer A/C? Handicapped? There's a wide variety of what constitutes "good enough" transportation across a population. And sure, one can keep a car running forever with enough maintenance, but that's not free, nor constant per mile: as costs change and accumulate, there's a cost-benefit trade-off decision for where vehicular replacement can become the more fiscally prudent choice than the sum of various maintenance costs (including time spent) to keep the old Yaris on the road vs junking it and getting another one. Likewise, you can also choose to go buy another used vehicle with its unknown history/reliability and spend whatever time & money again to make it sufficiently reliable/etc ... but it again comes back to the question of if that's how you want to spend your time vs pursuit of other endeavors/interests. > You guys have bad > habits. You're like those psycho Shoe freaks. Or those who lose their > savings buying stocks that aren't worth what they're paying for. You > don't know what you're doing, and others smarter than you, or rather are > simply healthy in mind, are taking advantage of that. Not at all, for much of the point here is that everything can be simplified down to a "Make, or Buy" kind of decision point: want to keep on making your DIY repairs on PCs & cars? No one is stopping you. But trying to call everyone else a fool because they've not made the same choices you have is what's inappropriate. Particularly for anyone who's ever paid someone to prepare a meal instead of making it themselves. > In how many different ways have I pointed to this fact? Blows my mind. As many as you think you'll have to, in order to keep deflecting from the original "new vs new" cost comparison, and how PCs costs have come way down in price ... because this also includes the used ones which have also become cheaper over the years too. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 16:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmemsa$8r34$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684222 |
On 1/17/25 2:57 PM, -hh wrote: > On 1/17/25 3:04 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 1/16/25 9:40 PM, -hh wrote: >>> On 1/16/25 5:56 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>> On 1/16/25 3:34 PM, -hh wrote: >>>>> but $25K today buys a new Civic or another "budget" car. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> $25K car is a "budget" car these days? Hehe :-) >>> >>> New car, just like how the conversation was originally about new PCs. >>> >>> >>> And yes, 'budget' in the context of new car prices, since Edmunds' >>> 3Q24 report found that the average new car in the USA cost $47,542. >>> >>> And FYI, average used car price was $27,177. >>> >>> >>>> The last car I bought is a Toyota Echo 2002, in 2017, for $1600. >>> >>> Bully for you. Did it include a radio? My first car didn't. >> >> From today's craigslist: >> >> https://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/d/lewisville-2009-toyota-yaris- >> hatchback/7815953954.html >> >> 2009 Toyota Yaris. A nice used car for just $1500. Right there about >> 20 minutes drive from me to go get it. If I had any serious problem >> with my Echo 2002, I would jump on this one. >> >> A used car is worth, and priced, between $1500 to $2000. Anything >> above that is a rip off. A computer is worth between $70 and $80. >> >> And at the bottom of it, ANY car above $2000 and ANY computer above >> $80 is a rip off. New or used. That's my main point. You guys have >> bad habits. > > If something really is a "ripoff" depends on many more factors than > merely if it minimally meets your personal transportation needs. > > For example, when someone isn't personally handy with doing DIY roadside > repairs, how does that change selection criteria? Ditto for other > factors, such as to reliably arriving at work on time. Or driving > through remote regions without being stranded, or even just though > unsafe urban neighborhoods. Plus seating for how many passengers? Need > heat? Snow tires? Or summer A/C? Handicapped? There's a wide variety > of what constitutes "good enough" transportation across a population. > > And sure, one can keep a car running forever with enough maintenance, > but that's not free, nor constant per mile: as costs change and > accumulate, there's a cost-benefit trade-off decision for where > vehicular replacement can become the more fiscally prudent choice than > the sum of various maintenance costs (including time spent) to keep the > old Yaris on the road vs junking it and getting another one. > > Likewise, you can also choose to go buy another used vehicle with its > unknown history/reliability and spend whatever time & money again to > make it sufficiently reliable/etc ... but it again comes back to the > question of if that's how you want to spend your time vs pursuit of > other endeavors/interests. > > >> You guys have bad habits. You're like those psycho Shoe freaks. Or >> those who lose their savings buying stocks that aren't worth what >> they're paying for. You don't know what you're doing, and others >> smarter than you, or rather are simply healthy in mind, are taking >> advantage of that. > > Not at all, for much of the point here is that everything can be > simplified down to a "Make, or Buy" kind of decision point: want to > keep on making your DIY repairs on PCs & cars? No one is stopping you. > But trying to call everyone else a fool because they've not made the > same choices you have is what's inappropriate. Particularly for anyone > who's ever paid someone to prepare a meal instead of making it themselves. > > >> In how many different ways have I pointed to this fact? Blows my mind. > > As many as you think you'll have to, in order to keep deflecting from > the original "new vs new" cost comparison, and how PCs costs have come > way down in price ... because this also includes the used ones which > have also become cheaper over the years too. > > > -hh With some people I have to exaggerate to show my point. Movies do that too, by the way. The movie "American Psycho" tried to depict the same type of people that I said have bad habits. I remember one scene where a guy killed someone with an axe cause the latter's business card looked better than his. Some of you kill others to solve it. Some pay $80k for an automobile! I know what drives you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmf50q$d902$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684234 |
On 1/17/25 5:50 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 1/17/25 2:57 PM, -hh wrote: >> On 1/17/25 3:04 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 1/16/25 9:40 PM, -hh wrote: >>>> On 1/16/25 5:56 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>>>> On 1/16/25 3:34 PM, -hh wrote: >>>>>> but $25K today buys a new Civic or another "budget" car. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> $25K car is a "budget" car these days? Hehe :-) >>>> >>>> New car, just like how the conversation was originally about new PCs. >>>> >>>> >>>> And yes, 'budget' in the context of new car prices, since Edmunds' >>>> 3Q24 report found that the average new car in the USA cost $47,542. >>>> >>>> And FYI, average used car price was $27,177. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The last car I bought is a Toyota Echo 2002, in 2017, for $1600. >>>> >>>> Bully for you. Did it include a radio? My first car didn't. >>> >>> From today's craigslist: >>> >>> https://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/d/lewisville-2009-toyota-yaris- >>> hatchback/7815953954.html >>> >>> 2009 Toyota Yaris. A nice used car for just $1500. Right there about >>> 20 minutes drive from me to go get it. If I had any serious problem >>> with my Echo 2002, I would jump on this one. >>> >>> A used car is worth, and priced, between $1500 to $2000. Anything >>> above that is a rip off. A computer is worth between $70 and $80. >>> >>> And at the bottom of it, ANY car above $2000 and ANY computer above >>> $80 is a rip off. New or used. That's my main point. You guys have >>> bad habits. >> >> If something really is a "ripoff" depends on many more factors than >> merely if it minimally meets your personal transportation needs. >> >> For example, when someone isn't personally handy with doing DIY >> roadside repairs, how does that change selection criteria? Ditto for >> other factors, such as to reliably arriving at work on time. Or >> driving through remote regions without being stranded, or even just >> though unsafe urban neighborhoods. Plus seating for how many >> passengers? Need heat? Snow tires? Or summer A/C? Handicapped? >> There's a wide variety of what constitutes "good enough" >> transportation across a population. >> >> And sure, one can keep a car running forever with enough maintenance, >> but that's not free, nor constant per mile: as costs change and >> accumulate, there's a cost-benefit trade-off decision for where >> vehicular replacement can become the more fiscally prudent choice than >> the sum of various maintenance costs (including time spent) to keep >> the old Yaris on the road vs junking it and getting another one. >> >> Likewise, you can also choose to go buy another used vehicle with its >> unknown history/reliability and spend whatever time & money again to >> make it sufficiently reliable/etc ... but it again comes back to the >> question of if that's how you want to spend your time vs pursuit of >> other endeavors/interests. >> >> >>> You guys have bad habits. You're like those psycho Shoe freaks. Or >>> those who lose their savings buying stocks that aren't worth what >>> they're paying for. You don't know what you're doing, and others >>> smarter than you, or rather are simply healthy in mind, are taking >>> advantage of that. >> >> Not at all, for much of the point here is that everything can be >> simplified down to a "Make, or Buy" kind of decision point: want to >> keep on making your DIY repairs on PCs & cars? No one is stopping >> you. But trying to call everyone else a fool because they've not made >> the same choices you have is what's inappropriate. Particularly for >> anyone who's ever paid someone to prepare a meal instead of making it >> themselves. >> >> >>> In how many different ways have I pointed to this fact? Blows my mind. >> >> As many as you think you'll have to, in order to keep deflecting from >> the original "new vs new" cost comparison, and how PCs costs have come >> way down in price ... because this also includes the used ones which >> have also become cheaper over the years too. >> >> >> -hh > > > With some people I have to exaggerate to show my point. Keep trying, for someday you just might be successful. > ... Some pay $80k for an automobile! I know what drives you. Depends on the use case, and its alternatives. For example, what's the lifecycle difference of $80K for a ten year ride with no maintenance or repair costs versus buying a used beater for $2K annually which then requires putting in $6K/year worth of maintenance/repairs throughout? -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$f0cef$795e2360$3a66054f$f76ea672@linux.rocks> |
| In reply to | #684150 |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 14:40:22 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote: > in reality I was conducting a tough as well as > quite challenging life in graduate school). > Bravo. These fucking COLA losers could never hope to imagine what rigorous graduate school, especially in STEM, is like. They are all pampered academic losers. -- Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 18:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vmc4vn$3n7k5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684158 |
On 1/16/2025 4:38 PM, Low Code Larry wrote: > These fucking COLA losers could never hope to imagine what > rigorous graduate school, especially in STEM, is like. You must've gotten Ds in your programming courses, if you took any at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 15:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmbuk8$2796$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #684150 |
On 1/16/25 2:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > I don't need a $5000 computer for any reason under the sky, not even a > $500 computer. Those who need them must want to do a Jupiter flyby :) Here, this will help you do a Jupiter flyby. Go to the site and click on play button. https://thiazitch.bandcamp.com/track/-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 15:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmbv0i$2796$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #684160 |
On 1/16/25 3:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 1/16/25 2:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> I don't need a $5000 computer for any reason under the sky, not even a >> $500 computer. Those who need them must want to do a Jupiter flyby :) > > > Here, this will help you do a Jupiter flyby. > > Go to the site and click on play button. > > https://thiazitch.bandcamp.com/track/- This one is what Relf and his super special computer is riding on right now. Join him. It will go past the edge of the Solar system. https://thiazitch.bandcamp.com/track/--5
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-16 16:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmc06h$2796$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #684160 |
On 1/16/25 3:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 1/16/25 2:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> I don't need a $5000 computer for any reason under the sky, not even a >> $500 computer. Those who need them must want to do a Jupiter flyby :) > > > Here, this will help you do a Jupiter flyby. > > Go to the site and click on play button. > > https://thiazitch.bandcamp.com/track/- Don't forget to place that "/-" at the end of your link cause the link I provided omits the dash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 13:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <181b7c8448ff869b$112086$292657$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #684150 |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 14:40:22 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote: > I wrote programs on them that I'm still using today! > For one, a calendar conversion program I wrote handled conversions > between Iranian lunar, Iranian solar, the Gregorian and before that the > Julian solar dates nicely. Maximum error just one day! And you could go > back in time even to the days of Darius if you insisted, cause I also > took into account the precession of the Earth's rotational axis. I know > of no calendar inversion software (accessible to public) that does that. > They'll get even the season wrong if you go back that far, let alone the > day. > I believe that Julian Dates (JD) are used for this purpose. The JD is a count of the number of days since January 1, 4713 BCE. The next step would be to convert the JD to a particular solar or lunar calendar. GNU/Linux has complete JD facilities. I am not sure how the GNU/Linux "cal" command would handle historic dates before the Julian calendar, which was introduced in 45 BCE. But I am investigating this issue now because it is, to me, a very interesting one. I do know that cal can handle accurately dates during that bizarre period of Julian-to-Gregorian transition. -- Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 16:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmejuo$3thv$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #684207 |
On 1/17/25 7:03 AM, Farley Flud wrote: > I believe that Julian Dates (JD) are used for this purpose. The JD > is a count of the number of days since January 1, 4713 BCE. Even if you accurately count the number of days past since, say, the day with date 1/17/1700, it won't mean you have all the information about that day's correct location in that year; because, Earth's tilted axis of rotation is not along a fixed direction. The axis wobbles, or "precesses" all the time. So a historian who wrote down the date as 1/17/1700 on that day, will slightly be in a different time of the year compared to the present day's 1/17/2025. As long as the difference falls below one day, this is not that important. But if you go back farther in time to Darius's era, this difference places you in a different season of the year. A historian who according to your calculations would've written down the date 1/17/-1500 in his notes, was not on the January 17th of that year! He was in another season of that year. Therefore your calculated result of 1/17/-1500 is meaningless. This may look a rather simple astronomy problem, but when you want to program it, it gets tough sometimes. And there are options to take to correct the discrepancies. I took the option of modifying the length of a day just enough to take care of precession of the axis of rotation of Earth, as well as of course its orbiting around the sun (which by itself introduces one day of discrepancy per year.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-17 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$30e4b$699288c$d0c4f050$a425aa71@linux.rocks> |
| In reply to | #684225 |
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:00:55 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote: > > Even if you accurately count the number of days past since, say, the day > with date 1/17/1700, it won't mean you have all the information about > that day's correct location in that year; because, Earth's tilted axis > of rotation is not along a fixed direction. The axis wobbles, or > "precesses" all the time. So a historian who wrote down the date as > 1/17/1700 on that day, will slightly be in a different time of the year > compared to the present day's 1/17/2025. > > As long as the difference falls below one day, this is not that > important. But if you go back farther in time to Darius's era, this > difference places you in a different season of the year. A historian who > according to your calculations would've written down the date 1/17/-1500 > in his notes, was not on the January 17th of that year! He was in > another season of that year. Therefore your calculated result of > 1/17/-1500 is meaningless. > > This may look a rather simple astronomy problem, but when you want to > program it, it gets tough sometimes. And there are options to take to > correct the discrepancies. I took the option of modifying the length of > a day just enough to take care of precession of the axis of rotation of > Earth, as well as of course its orbiting around the sun (which by itself > introduces one day of discrepancy per year.) > I understand what you are saying, but, unfortunately, I am not well versed in astronomical calculations and thus I cannot competently respond to your comments. However, I do suspect that the problem of accurately rectifying Julian dates to various solar/lunar calendars has been solved long ago. We need input from the GNU/Linux "experts" on this NG but I believe that the "experts" are only a bunch of fat-chewing ignoramuses that cannot distinguish their asses from a hole in the ground. -- Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web