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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93752 > unrolled thread

Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Martin Davies-Roundhill <enduphere.xyz@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:52 +0000
    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 07:57 -0700
      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:33 +0100
        Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:40 +0000
    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-15 17:01 +0200
    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-10-15 17:29 +0000
    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:27 +0100
      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-15 18:47 +0000
        Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:40 +0000
          Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-15 23:35 +0200
            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 01:41 +0000
              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:47 +0100
                Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:40 +0000
                  Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 23:17 +0100
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 02:53 +0000
                      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:46 +0100
            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 07:58 -0700
              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:59 +0000
              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 18:46 +0200
                Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0100
                  Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 19:41 +0200
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:26 +0000
                      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 22:40 +0200
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 23:11 +0100
                      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:06 +0000
                        Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:46 +0100
                      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 12:24 +0200
                        Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:31 +0100
              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 18:46 +0200
                Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:35 +0100
                  Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 19:43 +0200
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:34 +0000
                      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 22:47 +0200
                        Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 02:40 +0000
                          Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 12:33 +0200
                            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 12:04 +0100
                              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 13:40 +0200
                            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 11:56 +0000
                              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 13:59 +0200
                                Programming Books (was Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control?) John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 15:01 +0200
                                  Re: Programming Books (was Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 18:26 +0000
          Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:45 +0100
            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:56 +0200
              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:38 +0100
            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:19 +0000
              Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:09 +0100
                Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:21 +0000
                Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:34 +0000
                  Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-23 22:44 +0000
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-24 03:18 -0400
                      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 13:44 +0200
                        Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 13:09 +0100
                          Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 14:45 +0200
                            Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 14:02 +0100
                              [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:23 +0200
                                Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 01:16 -0400
                                  Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 11:33 +0100
                                    Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 11:08 +0000
                                      Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 13:28 +0100
                                        Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 13:07 +0000
                                        Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 09:08 -0400
                                          Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 13:59 +0000
                                            Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:28 +0100
                                              Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:39 +0000
                                                Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 23:03 +0100
                                              Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-27 00:44 -0400
                                    Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 09:05 -0400
                                      Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:47 +0100
                                        Re: [OT] Gas inspections Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-27 06:34 -0700
                                          Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-27 14:37 +0000
                                          Re: [OT] Gas inspections rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-27 18:38 +0000
                                          Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-28 13:05 +0100
                                            Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 10:07 -0400
                                              Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-28 18:06 +0100
                                                Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-28 17:57 +0000
                                                Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 22:21 -0400
                                                  Re: [OT] Gas inspections Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-29 02:51 +0000
                                                    Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:48 +0100
                                                  Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:45 +0100
                                                    Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:41 +0000
                                      Re: [OT] Gas inspections Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-27 06:19 -0700
                                        Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-27 10:11 -0400
                                          Re: [OT] Gas inspections Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-28 06:32 -0700
                                            Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 10:32 -0400
                                              Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-28 18:10 +0100
                                                Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 22:32 -0400
                                                  Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:49 +0100
                      Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-24 11:52 -0700
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 10:35 +0100
                    Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-24 11:40 -0700
                  Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 10:31 +0100

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

#94022 — Programming Books (was Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control?)

On 17/10/2026 13:59, John Bokma wrote:
> On 17/10/2026 13:56, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Le 17-10-2026, John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> a écrit :
>>> On 17/10/2026 04:40, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:47:04 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> stop! No. You can check tumblelog (see sig). It has a Perl and a 
>>>>> Python
>>>>> version and I consider them both quite readable.
>>>>
>>>> Perl can be readable. Many times it isn't.
>>>
>>> That has to do a lot with the programmer. I learned Perl with the purple
>>> O'Reilly "Programming Perl" book (and later the blue one) and the
>>> (excellent) documentation.
>>
>> What about Higher-Order Perl?
> 
> Sure, another book I can highly recommend. And the Perl Cookbook.

Another two books I can highly recommend, Python this time:

Fluent Python (2nd edition) - Luciano Ramalho
Effective Python (3rd edition) - Brett Slatkin

Both are *not* beginners books but if you already know some Python and 
want to improve your skills.

-- 
Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/
Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/

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

#94046 — Re: Programming Books (was Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control?)

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 15:01:24 +0200, John Bokma wrote:

> Another two books I can highly recommend, Python this time:
> 
> Fluent Python (2nd edition) - Luciano Ramalho Effective Python (3rd
> edition) - Brett Slatkin
> 
> Both are *not* beginners books but if you already know some Python and
> want to improve your skills.

At the time Mark Lutz' books were the best Python entry. I have the first 
edition of his 'Python Pocket Reference'. It's a slim book, 75 pages. I 
saw the 5th edition on Amazon and bought it on a whim. It has 254 pages.

While it's still useful as a quick reference it only covers through 3.4. 
That leaves out features I find really useful like f strings. Now 3.15 is 
released. 

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

#93835

On 15/10/2026 20:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Actually, the question should probably not be how did we survive
> without these things, but how long we're going to survive with them.

Or worse, how long would we survive without them?

The thought of a total loss of Internet, let alone the whole power grid, 
fills me with horror.

So much depends on it. Almost everything runs on electricity these days. 
The pumps that drain the marshes for agriculture. The pumps that supply 
you with fresh drinkable water, the pumps that get the sewage to the 
treatment plants. The pumps that put fuel into your car. The pumps that 
run your refrigerator or your central heating. The computers that 
process everyday money transactions...

One of the most chilling things I read was a quote in Joseph Tainter's 
"the collapse of complex societies''

Now I wont argue te case for his theory - read it yourself and decide, 
but he cited a report from - my hazy memory thinks - was a British army 
captain who entered a town in I think Turkey, in WWI that had been 
essentially cut off for about 6 weeks.

That was all it took for law and order to completely  break down, 
disease and incipient starvation take root and most of the things that 
make civilisation work, stop working

Think Hurricane Katrina...

-- 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to 
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

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

#93854

On 2026-10-16 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 15/10/2026 20:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> Actually, the question should probably not be how did we survive
>> without these things, but how long we're going to survive with them.
> 
> Or worse, how long would we survive without them?
> 
> The thought of a total loss of Internet, let alone the whole power grid, 
> fills me with horror.

We experienced it here for several hours... For me it was fun. Not so 
for others, like being trapped inside an elevator.

Ukrainians have it worse.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#93873

On 16/10/2026 12:56, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-10-16 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/10/2026 20:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> Actually, the question should probably not be how did we survive
>>> without these things, but how long we're going to survive with them.
>>
>> Or worse, how long would we survive without them?
>>
>> The thought of a total loss of Internet, let alone the whole power 
>> grid, fills me with horror.
> 
> We experienced it here for several hours... For me it was fun. Not so 
> for others, like being trapped inside an elevator.
> 
> Ukrainians have it worse.
> 
> 
But there it still works enough. Portable generators and so on



-- 
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead 
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

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

#93879

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 15/10/2026 20:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> Actually, the question should probably not be how did we survive
>> without these things, but how long we're going to survive with them.
> 
> Or worse, how long would we survive without them?
> 
> The thought of a total loss of Internet, let alone the whole power grid, 
> fills me with horror.
> 
> So much depends on it. Almost everything runs on electricity these days. 
> The pumps that drain the marshes for agriculture. The pumps that supply 
> you with fresh drinkable water, the pumps that get the sewage to the 
> treatment plants. The pumps that put fuel into your car. The pumps that 
> run your refrigerator or your central heating. The computers that 
> process everyday money transactions...

All of those things (other than the computers that did not exist yet) 
also ran on electricity in the 70's, 60's, 50's, etc.  So while it does 
not change the worry of a power grid collapse for any length of time, 
it also also been an overhanging risk for a very long time.

> One of the most chilling things I read was a quote in Joseph Tainter's 
> "the collapse of complex societies''
> 
> Now I wont argue te case for his theory - read it yourself and decide, 
> but he cited a report from - my hazy memory thinks - was a British army 
> captain who entered a town in I think Turkey, in WWI that had been 
> essentially cut off for about 6 weeks.
> 
> That was all it took for law and order to completely  break down, 
> disease and incipient starvation take root and most of the things that 
> make civilisation work, stop working

I've read (sorry, long ago lost the 'link') that most city's are only 
about two weeks away from starvation.  As in that's the total 
"inventory" of food in the markets and whatever little distribution 
warehouses exist in the citys.  The food shops remain stocked because 
of "just in time delivery" of new stock.  Some "collapse" that 
prevents those deliveries from arriving and the shelves are empty 
quickly.

The "toilet paper" empty shelves about 1 week after the start of the 
Wuhan virus "lockdown" in 2020 in the US shows that fact.  The 
inventory on the shelves disappeared seemingly overnight and it was 
weeks before the supply chains were able to adjust and replacement stock 
to begin appearing on the shelves.

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

#93886

On 16/10/2026 16:19, Rich wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 15/10/2026 20:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> Actually, the question should probably not be how did we survive
>>> without these things, but how long we're going to survive with them.
>>
>> Or worse, how long would we survive without them?
>>
>> The thought of a total loss of Internet, let alone the whole power grid,
>> fills me with horror.
>>
>> So much depends on it. Almost everything runs on electricity these days.
>> The pumps that drain the marshes for agriculture. The pumps that supply
>> you with fresh drinkable water, the pumps that get the sewage to the
>> treatment plants. The pumps that put fuel into your car. The pumps that
>> run your refrigerator or your central heating. The computers that
>> process everyday money transactions...
> 
> All of those things (other than the computers that did not exist yet)
> also ran on electricity in the 70's, 60's, 50's, etc.  So while it does
> not change the worry of a power grid collapse for any length of time,
> it also also been an overhanging risk for a very long time.
> 
That is not true

Much ran on localised power sources from windmills, to steam end diesel 
engines right up to the 90s

Gas refrigerators are still being made

Petrol (gasoline) used to be pumped by hand

cash existed as the dominant means of payment

People had candles paraffin lamps and solid fuel or wood fires.

In short when things went sideways there was older technology to fall 
back on

Who today carries  a paper map and a compass?

The problem is that today apart from survivalists no one has the kit or 
even knows how to use it

That is what scares me.


>> One of the most chilling things I read was a quote in Joseph Tainter's
>> "the collapse of complex societies''
>>
>> Now I wont argue te case for his theory - read it yourself and decide,
>> but he cited a report from - my hazy memory thinks - was a British army
>> captain who entered a town in I think Turkey, in WWI that had been
>> essentially cut off for about 6 weeks.
>>
>> That was all it took for law and order to completely  break down,
>> disease and incipient starvation take root and most of the things that
>> make civilisation work, stop working
> 
> I've read (sorry, long ago lost the 'link') that most city's are only
> about two weeks away from starvation.  As in that's the total
> "inventory" of food in the markets and whatever little distribution
> warehouses exist in the citys.  The food shops remain stocked because
> of "just in time delivery" of new stock.  Some "collapse" that
> prevents those deliveries from arriving and the shelves are empty
> quickly.
> 
Yes. That is an aspect of it. Also the utter dependency of the city to a 
rural hinterland to supply the fresh food and water, the fundamental 
energy, and have somewhere to dump the trash and the sewage. A rural 
hinterland that the urban dweller does not understand and despises. Yet 
whose impact is taken entirely for granted.

"We don't need farms! We have supermarkets!"

> The "toilet paper" empty shelves about 1 week after the start of the
> Wuhan virus "lockdown" in 2020 in the US shows that fact.  The
> inventory on the shelves disappeared seemingly overnight and it was
> weeks before the supply chains were able to adjust and replacement stock
> to begin appearing on the shelves.
> 

AI is just another thing we may well come to rely on. Which is fine as 
long as we wont subsequently have to do without.

Tainter maintained that what contributed to the downfall of the Roman 
Empire was the sheer inability to feed an expanding Rome given the 
limits of transportation of the wheat from the far flung parts of the Empire

Anyone who does a systems analysis of modern post industrial 
civilisation is horrified at the multiple single points of failure and 
key infrastructures. Ukraine and Russia are currently engaged in doing 
just that, the one to  destroy a civilisation that wont submit, and the 
other to destroy the war machine being used to try.


-- 
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

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

#93902

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:09:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Who today carries  a paper map and a compass?

I do. I also carry an ax, e-tool, battle dressings, QuikClot, tent, 
sleeping bag, food, both alcohol and hexamine stoves, several flashlights, 
a few knives, a DC air pump, a DC inverter, wrenches, and a some other 
stuff. Amazing what you can get into a subcompact car.

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

#94627

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/10/2026 16:19, Rich wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 15/10/2026 20:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> Actually, the question should probably not be how did we survive
>>>> without these things, but how long we're going to survive with them.
>>>
>>> Or worse, how long would we survive without them?
>>>
>>> The thought of a total loss of Internet, let alone the whole power grid,
>>> fills me with horror.
>>>
>>> So much depends on it. Almost everything runs on electricity these days.
>>> The pumps that drain the marshes for agriculture. The pumps that supply
>>> you with fresh drinkable water, the pumps that get the sewage to the
>>> treatment plants. The pumps that put fuel into your car. The pumps that
>>> run your refrigerator or your central heating. The computers that
>>> process everyday money transactions...
>> 
>> All of those things (other than the computers that did not exist yet)
>> also ran on electricity in the 70's, 60's, 50's, etc.  So while it does
>> not change the worry of a power grid collapse for any length of time,
>> it also also been an overhanging risk for a very long time.
>> 
> That is not true

But it is.

> Much ran on localised power sources from windmills, to steam end diesel 
> engines right up to the 90s

Yes, but "much" =/= "all".  The difference would have been "less 
reliance on a single power source".  But if your local source for 
whatever ran on electric motors, you were at the mercy of the grid 
being powered for whatever that "source" provided you.

> Gas refrigerators are still being made

Yes, but also does not change the fact that electric powered 
refrigerators have been around since at least sometime 40's to 50's 
timeframe.  And if you had an electric powered refrigerator in your 
home or business, you were reliant upon the power grid supplying it 
power to keep the contents cold.

> Petrol (gasoline) used to be pumped by hand

Yes, but at least in the US the last actual use of a hand pumped 
gasoline pump went the way of the dodo by the 50's.  Once all the 
stations around you electrified, pumping the fuel out of the tanks in 
the ground again needed electricity.

> cash existed as the dominant means of payment

Yeah, this one you get a point for, as "electronic payment" as the sole 
means of commerce is a relatively new thing (but it somewhat depended 
upon "computers" becoming ingrained in commerce as well...).

> People had candles paraffin lamps and solid fuel or wood fires.

They also had oil or natural gas (methane/propane) furnaces for hot 
water/air with electric water pumps or electric air blowers.  No 
electricity, no way to move the heat from the furnace to the rest of 
the living space.

The one item left that isn't yet dependent upon electric supply is gas 
(methane/propane) tank hot water heaters.  Those still seem to be built 
as a mechanical thermostat driving a mechanical fuel valve to turn the 
burner on and off.  Of course, to make hot water they do need a fuel 
supply, and if that fuel is piped in from a distribution system instead 
of a tank, there's a dependency on the distribution system working.

> In short when things went sideways there was older technology to fall 
> back on

Yes.  Things have shifted in some ways for the worse, in that the old 
fallbacks are either simply gone or nearly so, making a failure of the 
"one and only power supply" by far more dangerous of an issue.  But it 
is an aspect of degrees, there was still a dependence even in the days 
before everything was "computerized" or "powered by electricity".

> Who today carries  a paper map and a compass?

Few, other than maybe hikers who've learned their lesson that there is 
usually little opportunity to recharge their batteries when deep in the 
back country.

> The problem is that today apart from survivalists no one has the kit or 
> even knows how to use it

Yes, that has made the outcome of a grid collapse way worse than it 
was during years gone past.  We are balancing on an ever narrower edge, 
and without a clear path to a way to keep our balance on that edge.

> Yes. That is an aspect of it. Also the utter dependency of the city to a 
> rural hinterland to supply the fresh food and water, the fundamental 
> energy, and have somewhere to dump the trash and the sewage. A rural 
> hinterland that the urban dweller does not understand and despises. Yet 
> whose impact is taken entirely for granted.
> 
> "We don't need farms! We have supermarkets!"

The city dweller learns quickly when something chokes up just how long 
the supplies at the local supermarket actual lasts.  It's not that 
long.  It only appears to always be stocked because it is constantly being 
restocked.  But let something (could even be a weather event) interfear 
with the shippments that support that constant restocking, and the 
shelves quickly become bare.

> Anyone who does a systems analysis of modern post industrial 
> civilisation is horrified at the multiple single points of failure 
> and key infrastructures.  Ukraine and Russia are currently engaged in 
> doing just that, the one to destroy a civilisation that wont submit, 
> and the other to destroy the war machine being used to try.

On that I won't disagree, we have over time moved from a more 
distributed system reliant on multiple other systems such that one 
needed multiple independent disconnected systems to fail simultaneously 
for a major issue to appear to one where a single point of failure 
takes *everything* down with it at once.

That is not a /reliable/ systems design.

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

#94629

On 2026-10-23, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> The one item left that isn't yet dependent upon electric supply is gas 
> (methane/propane) tank hot water heaters.  Those still seem to be built 
> as a mechanical thermostat driving a mechanical fuel valve to turn the 
> burner on and off.  Of course, to make hot water they do need a fuel 
> supply, and if that fuel is piped in from a distribution system instead 
> of a tank, there's a dependency on the distribution system working.

True - but in my experience electrical failures happen far more
frequently than gas failures.

BTW gas stoves (at least basic cooktops) also run without electricity
(although you might have to dig up some matches if you depend on a
mains-driven spark to light it).  This is quite handy during power
failures, since it means you can still heat something to eat - and
even get a bit of room heating on cold days.

Too bad the Powers that Be are trying to eliminate gas appliances.
I guess we need to save all that gas for LNG sales overseas.

-- 
/~\  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]

#94631

On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:28:08 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> BTW gas stoves (at least basic cooktops) also run without electricity
> (although you might have to dig up some matches if you depend on a
> mains-driven spark to light it).  This is quite handy during power
> failures, since it means you can still heat something to eat - and even
> get a bit of room heating on cold days.

After a derecho a couple of years ago the power was out for 6 days in my 
area. The gas stove, hand grinder, and AeroPress kept me in coffee. I did 
have to use bottled water since the well pump is electric. The irrigation 
ditch wasn't an option since the root balls of blown over pine had damaged 
it and the head gate was closed.

It was summer so heat wasn't a problem although I do use the stove for 
heat sometimes in the winter. The stove top burners have a gas pilot light 
although the over needs a match. Old tech is good.

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

#94637

On 10/23/26 16:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-10-23, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> The one item left that isn't yet dependent upon electric supply is gas
>> (methane/propane) tank hot water heaters.  Those still seem to be built
>> as a mechanical thermostat driving a mechanical fuel valve to turn the
>> burner on and off.  Of course, to make hot water they do need a fuel
>> supply, and if that fuel is piped in from a distribution system instead
>> of a tank, there's a dependency on the distribution system working.
> 
> True - but in my experience electrical failures happen far more
> frequently than gas failures.


   I have exactly the opposite experience.

   ELECTRIC is VERY reliable (USA) - gas shit,
   well, weekly news about huge explosions or
   fires.


> BTW gas stoves (at least basic cooktops) also run without electricity
> (although you might have to dig up some matches if you depend on a
> mains-driven spark to light it).  This is quite handy during power
> failures, since it means you can still heat something to eat - and
> even get a bit of room heating on cold days.
> 
> Too bad the Powers that Be are trying to eliminate gas appliances.
> I guess we need to save all that gas for LNG sales overseas.

   Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
   purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
   entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
   from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !

   During a major storm, was listening to my police
   radio. There was a report of a major fire on a
   road I knew, almost across from the fire station.
   They mentioned a large gas tank behind the house ...
   then I *knew*. It was my dead uncle's - old Family -
   Homestead - property.

   Went there a day or two later - ALL burnt down. The
   storm sparked the power lines, which sparked a fire,
   which got to the gas tank. Fortunately nobody was
   living there at the time, but it WAS the Old Family
   Homestead. DO have a little sliver of wood from it
   that I carved off when Uncle died. "Continuity".

   GREAT old house, HEAVY lumber FROM the property,
   early 1900s, super-heavily soaked in creosote oil.
   No termite could stomach that ! Mom said it only
   smelled for ten or fifteen years. SHE, the youngest,
   got the first electric light installed. Other uncle
   installed the electric. Also hand-built a radio -
   even the speaker - for the fam. TAR-PAPER for the
   speaker cone, some salvaged magnet, HAND-wound voice
   coil. It was hard to sync with said uncle, but he
   WAS the "most like me" in many respects, kinda
   'polymath'. UGLY cuss though :-)

   Mom heard FDR's "Infamy" speech over that radio.
   Then became a "coast-watcher". There WERE German
   subs operating in the area. Attacks, saboteurs.
   Everyone forgets that The War WAS "over here" too.

   Hmmm ... no kids but adopted one. Found old photos,
   the adopted kid was like a clone of one of the
   other uncles ... now I know the score ! The kid,
   90+ now ... still plays the sugar daddy for much
   younger gals. Good for him !  :-)

   Oh well, 'depth', if you look for it.

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

#94652

On 2026-10-24 09:18, c186282 wrote:
> On 10/23/26 16:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-10-23, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The one item left that isn't yet dependent upon electric supply is gas
>>> (methane/propane) tank hot water heaters.  Those still seem to be built
>>> as a mechanical thermostat driving a mechanical fuel valve to turn the
>>> burner on and off.  Of course, to make hot water they do need a fuel
>>> supply, and if that fuel is piped in from a distribution system instead
>>> of a tank, there's a dependency on the distribution system working.
>>
>> True - but in my experience electrical failures happen far more
>> frequently than gas failures.
> 
> 
>    I have exactly the opposite experience.
> 
>    ELECTRIC is VERY reliable (USA) - gas shit,
>    well, weekly news about huge explosions or
>    fires.
> 
> 
>> BTW gas stoves (at least basic cooktops) also run without electricity
>> (although you might have to dig up some matches if you depend on a
>> mains-driven spark to light it).  This is quite handy during power
>> failures, since it means you can still heat something to eat - and
>> even get a bit of room heating on cold days.
>>
>> Too bad the Powers that Be are trying to eliminate gas appliances.
>> I guess we need to save all that gas for LNG sales overseas.
> 
>    Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
>    purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
>    entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
>    from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !

I guess that your mandatory periodical gas inspection services are not 
up to par.  >:-)

...
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#94653

On 24/10/2026 12:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
>>    purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
>>    entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
>>    from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !
> 
> I guess that your mandatory periodical gas inspection services are not 
> up to par.  >:-)

Let alone his smoke alarms or CO detectors...

-- 
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

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

#94655

On 2026-10-24 14:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2026 12:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
>>>    purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
>>>    entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
>>>    from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !
>>
>> I guess that your mandatory periodical gas inspection services are not 
>> up to par.  >:-)
> 
> Let alone his smoke alarms or CO detectors...
> 

Well, those are not mandatory in Spain, not even recommended.


I do remember cases of CO poisoning, but it was in a second residence, 
so perhaps not inspected because there was nobody there.

More common are those poisoned in houses that were using the traditional 
wood coal stoves (usually placed under a table). No inspection in those, 
obviously.

Gas explosions do happen, but not "many".

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#94656

On 24/10/2026 13:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-10-24 14:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 24/10/2026 12:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
>>>>    purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
>>>>    entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
>>>>    from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !
>>>
>>> I guess that your mandatory periodical gas inspection services are 
>>> not up to par.  >:-)
>>
>> Let alone his smoke alarms or CO detectors...
>>
> 
> Well, those are not mandatory in Spain, not even recommended.
> 
Sloppy EU standards again. Sigh.
Couldn't build or insure my house without smoke alarms.

Fire prevention gave me a CO alarm

> 
> I do remember cases of CO poisoning, but it was in a second residence, 
> so perhaps not inspected because there was nobody there.
> 
> More common are those poisoned in houses that were using the traditional 
> wood coal stoves (usually placed under a table). No inspection in those, 
> obviously.
> 
Why not?

> Gas explosions do happen, but not "many".
> 

-- 
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone 
gets full Marx.

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

#94661 — [OT] Gas inspections

On 2026-10-24 15:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2026 13:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-10-24 14:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2026 12:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
>>>>>    purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
>>>>>    entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
>>>>>    from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !
>>>>
>>>> I guess that your mandatory periodical gas inspection services are 
>>>> not up to par.  >:-)
>>>
>>> Let alone his smoke alarms or CO detectors...
>>>
>>
>> Well, those are not mandatory in Spain, not even recommended.
>>
> Sloppy EU standards again. Sigh.
> Couldn't build or insure my house without smoke alarms.
> 
> Fire prevention gave me a CO alarm

Insurance here don't ask for any of those.


If you buy a state of the art butane space heater (they work with 
bottles of butane) they don't have any CO sensor. Just a CO2 sensor. 
They don't generate CO. And they don't get inspected, either.


> 
>>
>> I do remember cases of CO poisoning, but it was in a second residence, 
>> so perhaps not inspected because there was nobody there.
>>
>> More common are those poisoned in houses that were using the 
>> traditional wood coal stoves (usually placed under a table). No 
>> inspection in those, obviously.
>>
> Why not?

Because it is  not gas :-D

It is just a metal container, like a big bowl, in which you pour a bunch 
of coals and set them on fire. There is no exhaust. Tradition!


> 
>> Gas explosions do happen, but not "many".
>>
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#94688 — Re: [OT] Gas inspections

On 10/24/26 15:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-10-24 15:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 24/10/2026 13:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-24 14:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 24/10/2026 12:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
>>>>>>    purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
>>>>>>    entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
>>>>>>    from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess that your mandatory periodical gas inspection services are 
>>>>> not up to par.  >:-)
>>>>
>>>> Let alone his smoke alarms or CO detectors...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, those are not mandatory in Spain, not even recommended.
>>>
>> Sloppy EU standards again. Sigh.
>> Couldn't build or insure my house without smoke alarms.
>>
>> Fire prevention gave me a CO alarm
> 
> Insurance here don't ask for any of those.


   But, if you use gas, DO at least install a CO detector !

   A gas LEAK detector is also a VERY good idea. No BOOMS.

   Every few weeks, USA news, videos of entire houses
   EXPLODING due to gas leaks. Look like a Russian drone
   hit. USA infrastructure is generally newer than UK/EU
   infrastructure - so BEWARE.

   "Pilot lights" in stoves and such ... CAN be a problem.

   Gas cooking/heating/etc DOES have its good place, but
   DO keep the hazards in mind !

   Some areas ... no WAY to change from gas to electric
   with any sanity because too much of the electric grid
   would have to be seriously upgraded. The UK had this
   nutty plan to electrify, then somebody actually did
   the numbers - unaffordable by a wide margin.

   Somewhere I have a little electric thing intended
   to produce a little spark to keep pilot lights lit.
   However MOST stoves/heaters ... it'd have to be a
   major retrofit. Not sure ANY corps would do it now
   for insurance/liability reasons.


> If you buy a state of the art butane space heater (they work with 
> bottles of butane) they don't have any CO sensor. Just a CO2 sensor. 
> They don't generate CO. And they don't get inspected, either.

   They CAN produce a lot of CO ... so buy a detector !!!

   Butane is a little less flammable than methane or propane
   but you STILL need leak detectors.

>>> I do remember cases of CO poisoning, but it was in a second 
>>> residence, so perhaps not inspected because there was nobody there.
>>>
>>> More common are those poisoned in houses that were using the 
>>> traditional wood coal stoves (usually placed under a table). No 
>>> inspection in those, obviously.
>>>
>> Why not?
> 
> Because it is  not gas :-D
> 
> It is just a metal container, like a big bowl, in which you pour a bunch 
> of coals and set them on fire. There is no exhaust. Tradition!
> 
> 
>>
>>> Gas explosions do happen, but not "many".

   Umm ... every few weeks ... USA news shows
   yet another entire house EXPLODING due to
   a gas leak.

   I think that adds-up to "many".

   'Gas' CAN be perfectly good - but it's a tech
   that HAS to be carefully monitored.

   Electric can overheat/burn too ... not a panacea
   but LESS hazardous IF you can get enough electric
   service into an area. Worst case might BURN your
   home, but not DETONATE your home.

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

#94694 — Re: [OT] Gas inspections

On 2026-10-26 06:16, c186282 wrote:
> On 10/24/26 15:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-10-24 15:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2026 13:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-24 14:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/2026 12:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>> Gas cooking ... WILL admit it's "superior" for the
>>>>>>>    purpose. However that's hardly relevant when your
>>>>>>>    entire house explodes suddenly or everyone dies
>>>>>>>    from suffocation or monoxide. WON'T have gas !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess that your mandatory periodical gas inspection services are 
>>>>>> not up to par.  >:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Let alone his smoke alarms or CO detectors...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, those are not mandatory in Spain, not even recommended.
>>>>
>>> Sloppy EU standards again. Sigh.
>>> Couldn't build or insure my house without smoke alarms.
>>>
>>> Fire prevention gave me a CO alarm
>>
>> Insurance here don't ask for any of those.
> 
> 
>    But, if you use gas, DO at least install a CO detector !

It is not even recommended here.

>    A gas LEAK detector is also a VERY good idea. No BOOMS.

We live in flats. Doesn't help me much if I put one, and my neighbour 
doesn't, and HE has a leak.

> 
>    Every few weeks, USA news, videos of entire houses
>    EXPLODING due to gas leaks. Look like a Russian drone
>    hit. USA infrastructure is generally newer than UK/EU
>    infrastructure - so BEWARE.

Here, it happens rarely.

> 
>    "Pilot lights" in stoves and such ... CAN be a problem.
> 
>    Gas cooking/heating/etc DOES have its good place, but
>    DO keep the hazards in mind !
> 
>    Some areas ... no WAY to change from gas to electric
>    with any sanity because too much of the electric grid
>    would have to be seriously upgraded. The UK had this
>    nutty plan to electrify, then somebody actually did
>    the numbers - unaffordable by a wide margin.
> 
>    Somewhere I have a little electric thing intended
>    to produce a little spark to keep pilot lights lit.
>    However MOST stoves/heaters ... it'd have to be a
>    major retrofit. Not sure ANY corps would do it now
>    for insurance/liability reasons.

In this house, I have a butane flash water heater. It has two D size 1.5 
volt batteries, and with those it lights up the gas when I open a tap.

The inspector came this year, tested the tubings, inserted some kind of 
probe into the exhaust to measure the type of gases, and pronounced my 
system safe for another 4 years.

> 
> 
>> If you buy a state of the art butane space heater (they work with 
>> bottles of butane) they don't have any CO sensor. Just a CO2 sensor. 
>> They don't generate CO. And they don't get inspected, either.
> 
>    They CAN produce a lot of CO ... so buy a detector !!!

No, they can't. Certified.

> 
>    Butane is a little less flammable than methane or propane
>    but you STILL need leak detectors.
> 
>>>> I do remember cases of CO poisoning, but it was in a second 
>>>> residence, so perhaps not inspected because there was nobody there.
>>>>
>>>> More common are those poisoned in houses that were using the 
>>>> traditional wood coal stoves (usually placed under a table). No 
>>>> inspection in those, obviously.
>>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Because it is  not gas :-D
>>
>> It is just a metal container, like a big bowl, in which you pour a 
>> bunch of coals and set them on fire. There is no exhaust. Tradition!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Gas explosions do happen, but not "many".
> 
>    Umm ... every few weeks ... USA news shows
>    yet another entire house EXPLODING due to
>    a gas leak.
> 
>    I think that adds-up to "many".
> 
>    'Gas' CAN be perfectly good - but it's a tech
>    that HAS to be carefully monitored.
> 

I think it happened this summer once or twice.

>    Electric can overheat/burn too ... not a panacea
>    but LESS hazardous IF you can get enough electric
>    service into an area. Worst case might BURN your
>    home, but not DETONATE your home.

Absolutely.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#94695 — Re: [OT] Gas inspections

On 26/10/2026 10:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>   They CAN produce a lot of CO ... so buy a detector !!!
> 
> No, they can't. Certified.

The absolute faith in a piece of paper is...deeply touching.


-- 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to 
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

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

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

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web