Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89055 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-26 01:09 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-07-27 20:04 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 157 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 01:09 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-26 07:22 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 20:37 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 01:16 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-07-26 20:00 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-26 22:40 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:10 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-26 21:24 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 01:02 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 02:59 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 23:18 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Epherma <epherma@remort.app.invalid> - 2026-07-26 20:31 -0700
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 04:35 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 06:37 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:45 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 19:52 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 15:17 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 16:22 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-27 11:51 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 16:22 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-29 08:25 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 08:04 -0700
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 16:09 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:33 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 23:35 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:08 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 10:32 -0700
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:10 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:46 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 12:32 -0700
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:47 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-29 23:41 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-29 22:54 +0200
Re: Not Much Linux Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-29 23:30 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:42 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-29 23:38 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 04:04 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-30 12:33 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 19:03 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Stanislav N. aka pztrn" <no@email.please> - 2026-07-31 01:54 +0500
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-30 21:13 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-07-30 23:47 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-07-30 23:30 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-30 12:34 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 19:11 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 21:11 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-30 14:05 -0300
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-30 14:51 -0700
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 16:07 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-27 04:42 +0000
Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread (was: Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 08:48 +0100
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 17:19 +0100
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 16:40 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 21:22 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 14:44 -0700
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 23:37 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 21:47 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 00:24 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 04:23 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 23:46 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:07 +0100
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-29 01:50 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 07:58 -0700
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 18:11 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:16 +0100
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 19:21 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 21:54 +0200
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 23:43 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 21:36 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 02:32 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-27 17:57 -0400
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 00:03 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:11 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:38 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 18:19 +0000
Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-29 08:19 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 16:11 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 18:27 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 04:46 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 15:47 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:45 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 18:03 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 06:35 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-27 16:12 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 21:07 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:19 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 03:08 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 23:19 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 03:30 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 15:07 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 15:48 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 18:27 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 01:02 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:10 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 00:01 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:19 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:37 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:43 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-27 16:22 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-27 23:07 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 00:10 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:20 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:40 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 23:00 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 09:37 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 18:24 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-28 10:48 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-28 22:29 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 23:02 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-29 08:36 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 22:57 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-28 10:24 +0200
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:24 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:22 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:16 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-26 22:51 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-26 23:27 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:23 -0400
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 04:42 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:43 -0400
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:57 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:06 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-28 15:22 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:13 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:07 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:15 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:18 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:59 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 21:59 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:15 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:20 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:51 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 09:00 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:47 -0400
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:18 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:11 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:23 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:52 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 01:10 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-07-27 15:45 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-27 16:16 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 18:24 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 19:55 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 09:59 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:59 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:25 +0100
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:07 +0000
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 22:48 +0200
Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:00 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 00:59 +0000
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 08:54 +0100
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:08 -0400
Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 20:04 +0200
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 04:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <nco5u4FovvdU24@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89081 |
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote: > They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid. > Wonder what happened ? Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never happened. I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 23:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ViSdnXD3lb4XuPX3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #89091 |
On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid. >> Wonder what happened ? > > Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on > small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never > happened. > > I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were > working prototypes but that didn't prove out either. Turbines aren't great for automobiles. We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel efficient and take too long to wind up and down. So, no "Batmobiles". "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge generator ... those can be very efficient. 40s/50s, some of the 60s ... "atomic" everything was the big promise. Radiation ? No, no - "sunshine units" ! :-) Everything from yer wristwatch to yer flying car, PLUTONIUM POWERED !!! They'll pay YOU for using the excess power !!! Of course it was all just cover for the excessive atmospheric bomb-testing in the southwest. Ain't the Marlboro's that killed the cowboys, it was the FALLOUT. Found a map once - NOT a good picture. I'm old enough to have seen those old news and docu-series TV shows. Fuzzy TV with static. My fave was "Union Carbide's - The 21st Century - with Walter Cronkite". Walter really was a tech enthusiast. You were promised 'atomic' everything - including the flying cars - and you MIGHT be able to have a COMPUTER that'll just squeeze in yer hall closet with enough power to calc yer tax bill and remember some meat-loaf recipes !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-28 11:57 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncrcoaF9t46U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89126 |
On 2026-07-28 05:43, c186282 wrote:
> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid.
>>> Wonder what happened ?
>>
>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on
>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>> happened.
>>
>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There
>> were
>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
>
> Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
>
> We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are
> not very fuel efficient and take too long to
> wind up and down.
>
> So, no "Batmobiles".
>
> "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel
> as the recharge generator ... those can be
> very efficient.
There was an hybrid with a turbine and a generator. Volvo? They made
about a dozen of them, then disappeared, no talk about them.
ChatGPT just explained to me what happened. Basically small turbines,
even at constant speed for a generator, are trouble.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-28 11:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <1149uu8$3tkg5$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89151 |
On 28/07/2026 10:57, Carlos E. R. wrote: > There was an hybrid with a turbine and a generator. Volvo? They made > about a dozen of them, then disappeared, no talk about them. > > ChatGPT just explained to me what happened. Basically small turbines, > even at constant speed for a generator, are trouble. Yes. An open cycle gas turbine is only about 37% efficient and that relies on running at a constant temperature and speed and having excellent tolerances between fan blades and housings. Percentage wise those tolerances cannot be maintained at smaller diameters. And spool up times are measured in tens of seconds. Not fractions of seconds Road use - especially urban use - suits electric cars perfectly if only we had the sort of batteries you find in Marvel comics. But not real life. All these things have been tried, and discarded simply because they were not as good as what we had already. We, as a society, are paying a high price for EVs. -- “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” – H. L. Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-28 15:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <114ahfb$5fav$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89126 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid. >>> Wonder what happened ? >> >> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on >> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never >> happened. >> >> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were >> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either. > > Turbines aren't great for automobiles. > > We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel > efficient and take too long to wind up and down. > > So, no "Batmobiles". > > "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge > generator ... those can be very efficient. Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity for battery recharge. But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 19:13 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncuqmbFos63U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89156 |
On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid.
>>>> Wonder what happened ?
>>>
>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on
>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were
>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
>>
>> Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
>>
>> We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel
>> efficient and take too long to wind up and down.
>>
>> So, no "Batmobiles".
>>
>> "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge
>> generator ... those can be very efficient.
>
> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at
> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity
> for battery recharge.
>
> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for
> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion
> process.
>
In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the exhaust.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 18:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <114dcj4$11l04$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89188 |
On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little >>>>> kid. >>>>> Wonder what happened ? >>>> >>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept >>>> based on >>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never >>>> happened. >>>> >>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. >>>> There were >>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either. >>> >>> Turbines aren't great for automobiles. >>> >>> We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel >>> efficient and take too long to wind up and down. >>> >>> So, no "Batmobiles". >>> >>> "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge >>> generator ... those can be very efficient. >> >> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at >> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity >> for battery recharge. >> >> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for >> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion >> process. >> > > In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the > exhaust. > Its called a turbocharger. -- “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” – H. L. Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 20:07 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncutqlFos63U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89190 |
On 2026-07-29 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little
>>>>>> kid.
>>>>>> Wonder what happened ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept
>>>>> based on
>>>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>>>>> happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair.
>>>>> There were
>>>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
>>>>
>>>> Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
>>>>
>>>> We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel
>>>> efficient and take too long to wind up and down.
>>>>
>>>> So, no "Batmobiles".
>>>>
>>>> "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge
>>>> generator ... those can be very efficient.
>>>
>>> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at
>>> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity
>>> for battery recharge.
>>>
>>> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for
>>> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion
>>> process.
>>>
>>
>> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the
>> exhaust.
>>
> Its called a turbocharger.
>
On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I
don't know what they actually do.
I understand a turbocharger generates compressed clean air to feed the
motor intake; this is not needed for a turbine car plant.
What a car would do is use the exhaust hot gases to generate more
electricity instead.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 19:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <114dfvb$12son$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89193 |
On 29/07/2026 19:07, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On 2026-07-29 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>> On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote: >>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a >>>>>>> little kid. >>>>>>> Wonder what happened ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept >>>>>> based on >>>>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never >>>>>> happened. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. >>>>>> There were >>>>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either. >>>>> >>>>> Turbines aren't great for automobiles. >>>>> >>>>> We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel >>>>> efficient and take too long to wind up and down. >>>>> >>>>> So, no "Batmobiles". >>>>> >>>>> "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge >>>>> generator ... those can be very efficient. >>>> >>>> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at >>>> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity >>>> for battery recharge. >>>> >>>> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for >>>> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion >>>> process. >>>> >>> >>> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the >>> exhaust. >>> >> Its called a turbocharger. >> > > On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I > don't know what they actually do. > A gas turbine *is* a turbocharger feeding a combustion chamber. And that is it Shaft horswpeower is taken off the turbocharger spindle > I understand a turbocharger generates compressed clean air to feed the > motor intake; this is not needed for a turbine car plant. > LOL! It is precisely what a turbine engine runs on! A turbocharger delivers compressed clean air to feed the combustion chamber, and the exhaust gases spin that compressor > What a car would do is use the exhaust hot gases to generate more > electricity instead. > Well in CCGT power stations they strap a steam turbine on the back Its a but clumsy for a car tho. -- "What do you think about Gay Marriage?" "I don't." "Don't what?" "Think about Gay Marriage."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 18:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncuugeFoulgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89193 |
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 20:07:17 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I > don't know what they actually do. I have seen a turbine powered car -- but that was 1964. Chrysler built a few for real world testing but dropped the project. iirc firing up a turbine was as complicated as getting a Stanley Steamer underway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 18:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <44saS.4454$UDa8.2825@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #89193 |
On 2026-07-29, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-07-29 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>> >>> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the >>> exhaust. >> >> Its called a turbocharger. > > On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I > don't know what they actually do. Look and sound sexy. > I understand a turbocharger generates compressed clean air to feed the > motor intake; this is not needed for a turbine car plant. Yes it is; you still have to compress the fuel-air mixture before you burn it. The compressor is an integral part of a turbine engine. > What a car would do is use the exhaust hot gases to generate more > electricity instead. That's a possibility. However, it might be easier to just drive a generator off the main turbine, like aircraft engines do. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 21:59 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncv4chFos63U10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89209 |
On 2026-07-29 20:59, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-07-29, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2026-07-29 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the
>>>> exhaust.
>>>
>>> Its called a turbocharger.
>>
>> On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I
>> don't know what they actually do.
>
> Look and sound sexy.
>
>> I understand a turbocharger generates compressed clean air to feed the
>> motor intake; this is not needed for a turbine car plant.
>
> Yes it is; you still have to compress the fuel-air mixture before you
> burn it. The compressor is an integral part of a turbine engine.
Sure; but you do not need an extra external compressor doing it.
Instead, you put another wheel on the turbine. Turbines can have wheel
sets spinning at different speeds.
>
>> What a car would do is use the exhaust hot gases to generate more
>> electricity instead.
>
> That's a possibility. However, it might be easier to just drive
> a generator off the main turbine, like aircraft engines do.
Sure, that is the goal of the most modern tries of turbine powered cars.
The turbine powers a generator that charges a battery that powers
electric motors that spin the wheels. What is called a series hybrid.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 18:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncuua1FoulgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89188 |
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 19:13:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little >>>>> kid. >>>>> Wonder what happened ? >>>> >>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept >>>> based on small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the >>>> future. Never happened. >>>> >>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There >>>> were working prototypes but that didn't prove out either. >>> >>> Turbines aren't great for automobiles. >>> >>> We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel >>> efficient and take too long to wind up and down. >>> >>> So, no "Batmobiles". >>> >>> "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge >>> generator ... those can be very efficient. >> >> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at >> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity >> for battery recharge. >> >> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for >> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion >> process. >> >> > In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the > exhaust. Did you just reinvent the turbocharger? I haven't driven anything with a turbo in a long time but I understand at least some designs have improved the lag.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 19:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <114dgaa$12son$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89197 |
On 29/07/2026 19:15, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 19:13:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: > >> On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little >>>>>> kid. >>>>>> Wonder what happened ? >>>>> >>>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept >>>>> based on small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the >>>>> future. Never happened. >>>>> >>>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There >>>>> were working prototypes but that didn't prove out either. >>>> >>>> Turbines aren't great for automobiles. >>>> >>>> We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel >>>> efficient and take too long to wind up and down. >>>> >>>> So, no "Batmobiles". >>>> >>>> "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge >>>> generator ... those can be very efficient. >>> >>> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at >>> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity >>> for battery recharge. >>> >>> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for >>> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion >>> process. >>> >>> >> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the >> exhaust. > > Did you just reinvent the turbocharger? I haven't driven anything with a > turbo in a long time but I understand at least some designs have improved > the lag. Not really. best was the F1 hybrid design where the turbo charged the battery along with battery braking, and in low throttle situations that battery spun up the turbo! -- The higher up the mountainside The greener grows the grass. The higher up the monkey climbs The more he shows his arse. Traditional
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 20:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncv0coFos63U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89197 |
On 2026-07-29 20:15, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 19:13:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines". Run them at
>>> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity
>>> for battery recharge.
>>>
>>> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for
>>> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion
>>> process.
>>>
>>>
>> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the
>> exhaust.
>
> Did you just reinvent the turbocharger? I haven't driven anything with a
> turbo in a long time but I understand at least some designs have improved
> the lag.
I had an Opel Corsa diesel with a turbo. No lag. Better response than my
current gasoline Corsa.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 09:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <1147365$30n9l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89072 |
On 2026-07-27, Robert Heller wrote: > At Sun, 26 Jul 2026 22:51:39 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence DÿOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:00:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: >> >> > For example, users want a browser that blocks ads, no java script, >> > no AI, fast and lite on memory and can read any site without dealing >> > with cloudflare. >> >> âÂÂno java scriptâ on the one hand, yet >> âÂÂcan read any siteâ on the other. >> >> Why not wish for a car that you can drive for infinite miles without >> refuelling? You might actually be more likely to get that. > > Sure, an EV with a trolly pole or pantagraph. :-) Why reinvent the wheel? Just go with a train! -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 23:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <W4udnf0JyezQu_X3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #89097 |
On 7/27/26 04:00, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-07-27, Robert Heller wrote: > >> At Sun, 26 Jul 2026 22:51:39 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence DÿOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:00:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: >>> >>>> For example, users want a browser that blocks ads, no java script, >>>> no AI, fast and lite on memory and can read any site without dealing >>>> with cloudflare. >>> >>> âÂÂno java scriptâ on the one hand, yet >>> âÂÂcan read any siteâ on the other. >>> >>> Why not wish for a car that you can drive for infinite miles without >>> refuelling? You might actually be more likely to get that. >> >> Sure, an EV with a trolly pole or pantagraph. :-) > > Why reinvent the wheel? Just go with a train! Won't stop at yer favorite doughnut shop alas ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-28 10:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <1149s54$3tkg5$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89125 |
On 28/07/2026 04:47, c186282 wrote: >> >> Why reinvent the wheel? Just go with a train! > > Won't stop at yer favorite doughnut shop alas ... Seriously,an integrated nuclear ship/rail/EV network could solve 90% of the movement of goods. At least In Europe and Asia. And passengers, at a pinch... Using all nuclear power 'Look Mom! No CO2!' A physical packet-switched network... -- You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. Al Capone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-28 17:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncs66jFovvdU43@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89125 |
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 23:47:15 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 7/27/26 04:00, Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2026-07-27, Robert Heller wrote: >> >>> At Sun, 26 Jul 2026 22:51:39 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence DÿOliveiro >>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:00:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: >>>> >>>>> For example, users want a browser that blocks ads, no java script, >>>>> no AI, fast and lite on memory and can read any site without dealing >>>>> with cloudflare. >>>> >>>> âÂÂno java scriptâ on the one hand, yet âÂÂcan read any >>>> siteâ on the other. >>>> >>>> Why not wish for a car that you can drive for infinite miles without >>>> refuelling? You might actually be more likely to get that. >>> >>> Sure, an EV with a trolly pole or pantagraph. :-) >> >> Why reinvent the wheel? Just go with a train! > > Won't stop at yer favorite doughnut shop alas ... I lived in a small New Hampshire town when the sidewalks rolled up at 9 PM except for a Stop'n'Rob and Dunkin Donuts. There was also a switch yard in the middle of town and one of the tracks was next to Dunkin's. It wasn't uncommon to find a train parked in the crossing at 3AM while the crew had their coffee and donuts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 19:18 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again |
| Message-ID | <ncuqvrFos63U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89160 |
On 2026-07-28 19:11, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 23:47:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/26 04:00, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-27, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>
>>>> At Sun, 26 Jul 2026 22:51:39 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence DÿOliveiro
>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:00:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, users want a browser that blocks ads, no java script,
>>>>>> no AI, fast and lite on memory and can read any site without dealing
>>>>>> with cloudflare.
>>>>>
>>>>> âÂÂno java scriptâ on the one hand, yet âÂÂcan read
> any
>>>>> siteâ on the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not wish for a car that you can drive for infinite miles without
>>>>> refuelling? You might actually be more likely to get that.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, an EV with a trolly pole or pantagraph. :-)
>>>
>>> Why reinvent the wheel? Just go with a train!
>>
>> Won't stop at yer favorite doughnut shop alas ...
>
> I lived in a small New Hampshire town when the sidewalks rolled up at 9 PM
> except for a Stop'n'Rob and Dunkin Donuts. There was also a switch yard in
> the middle of town and one of the tracks was next to Dunkin's. It wasn't
> uncommon to find a train parked in the crossing at 3AM while the crew had
> their coffee and donuts.
In the eighties, the night train from Madrid to Cartagena (480km) stoped
in Murcia (50 Km from the end) for 20 minutes, and passengers would
disembark to buy a coffee.
And my father told me about this, so it happened much earlier.
The reverse train to Madrid did not do an equivalent stop.
Now there is no night train.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web