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


Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #9840 > unrolled thread

Flash

Started byWayne Chirnside <frank@fuax.com>
First post2015-10-25 22:24 +0000
Last post2015-10-28 09:26 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 61 — 26 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi


Contents

  Flash Wayne Chirnside <frank@fuax.com> - 2015-10-25 22:24 +0000
    Re: Flash Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2015-10-25 23:00 +0000
      Re: Flash Roger Bell_West <roger+csrp201510@nospam.firedrake.org> - 2015-10-25 23:04 +0000
        Re: Flash Wayne Chirnside <frank@fuax.com> - 2015-10-25 23:42 +0000
          Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 22:19 -0400
            Re: Flash Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-10-28 11:55 +0000
              Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-28 12:40 +0000
                Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 12:26 -0400
                  Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-28 22:02 +0000
                    Re: Flash Roger Bell_West <roger+csrp201510@nospam.firedrake.org> - 2015-10-29 00:43 +0000
                      Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-29 08:40 +0000
                    Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 04:57 -0400
                      Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-29 10:18 +0000
                        Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 13:01 -0400
                          Re: Flash Tony van der Hoff <tony@vanderhoff.org> - 2015-10-29 18:29 +0000
                            Re: Flash Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2015-10-30 02:58 +0000
                              Re: Flash Tony van der Hoff <tony@vanderhoff.org> - 2015-10-30 08:42 +0000
                                Re: Flash fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-10-30 09:39 +0000
                                  Re: Flash UoScAr <oscar.gooooooooooo@gooooooooogle.it> - 2015-10-30 20:00 +0800
                              Re: Flash colonel_hack@yahoo.com - 2015-10-30 09:34 -0700
              Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 12:26 -0400
              Re: Flash Mark Justice <mark@faux.com> - 2015-10-28 20:41 +0000
                Re: Flash Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-10-29 01:02 +0000
                  Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-29 08:43 +0000
                    Re: Flash Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-10-29 12:41 +0000
                      Re: Flash Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-10-29 12:45 +0000
                        Re: Flash Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-10-29 13:26 +0000
                          Re: Flash Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-29 16:12 +0000
                            Re: Flash Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-10-29 16:54 +0000
                              Re: Flash Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-29 17:01 +0000
                      Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-29 12:45 +0000
                        Re: Flash Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-10-29 13:46 +0000
                          Re: Flash fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-10-29 14:35 +0000
                        Re: Flash Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-10-29 13:47 +0000
                          Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-29 13:50 +0000
                          Re: Flash fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-10-29 14:32 +0000
                            Re: Flash - Warning. Even more off topic! Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-10-29 15:55 +0000
                              Re: Flash - Warning. Even more off topic! "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-10-31 13:08 +0000
                          Re: Flash alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-29 15:25 +0000
                            Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 13:18 -0400
                          Re: Flash Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-10-29 15:26 +0000
                          Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 13:06 -0400
                  Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 05:00 -0400
                    Re: Flash The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-29 10:21 +0000
                      Re: Flash Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 19:57 -0400
                        Re: Flash Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-10-30 07:10 +0000
                  Re: Flash Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 19:47 -0400
                    Re: Flash Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-10-30 12:13 +0000
              Re: Flash Wayne Chirnside <frank@fuax.com> - 2015-10-29 17:20 +0000
              Re: Flash Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0100
                Re: Flash druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-10-29 23:42 +0000
                  Re: Flash Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-30 10:12 +0000
                    Re: Flash Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2015-10-31 00:33 +0000
                  Re: Flash Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-10-30 22:45 +0000
    Re: Flash "M.O.B. i L." <mobil@orbin.se> - 2015-10-26 19:35 +0100
      Re: Flash Wayne Chirnside <frank@fuax.com> - 2015-10-27 23:20 +0000
        Re: Flash druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-10-28 01:56 +0000
          Re: Flash rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 22:20 -0400
          Re: Flash Chris <c@b.a> - 2015-10-28 13:52 +1100
          Re: Flash Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-28 05:01 +0000
            Re: Flash Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-10-28 09:26 +0000

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


#9868

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2015-10-28 12:26 -0400
Message-ID<n0qsr5$7ef$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#9866
On 10/28/2015 7:55 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:19:04 -0400, rickman wrote:
>
>> Last time we had a major storm around here both my ISP and my cell phone
>> provider were down for a day or so.
>>
> Out of curiosity, were landlines in your neighbourhood still working? I'd
> expect that they were down too if your local telco still puts the line up
> a pole but should have been just fine if it uses underground cabling.

Don't know.  I haven't had a land line here for a decade or more.  The 
storm didn't take down the local power lines.  But we loose electric 
service a lot in bad weather.  The only time I recall things being very 
bad was a storm (remnant of a hurricane) that did take down the local 
power lines.  This happened everywhere of course so it was a week or so 
before power was restored and I'm sure land lines too.

-- 

Rick

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


#9870

FromMark Justice <mark@faux.com>
Date2015-10-28 20:41 +0000
Message-ID<qqaYx.19464$si3.5705@fx06.iad>
In reply to#9866
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:55:28 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:19:04 -0400, rickman wrote:
> 
>> Last time we had a major storm around here both my ISP and my cell
>> phone provider were down for a day or so.
>>
> Out of curiosity, were landlines in your neighbourhood still working?
> I'd expect that they were down too if your local telco still puts the
> line up a pole but should have 
been just fine if it uses underground
> cabling.

Speaking for myself when I had a land line I never lost that even the 
year we had four hurricanes back to back.

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


#9873

FromMartin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid>
Date2015-10-29 01:02 +0000
Message-ID<n0rr7l$njq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#9870
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:41:58 +0000, Mark Justice wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:55:28 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:19:04 -0400, rickman wrote:
>> 
>>> Last time we had a major storm around here both my ISP and my cell
>>> phone provider were down for a day or so.
>>>
>> Out of curiosity, were landlines in your neighbourhood still working?
>> I'd expect that they were down too if your local telco still puts the
>> line up a pole but should have
> been just fine if it uses underground
>> cabling.
> 
> Speaking for myself when I had a land line I never lost that even the
> year we had four hurricanes back to back.
>
It figures when you think about it: small diameter telephone wires that 
can be strung rather tighter between the poles than power lines. That 
means the wire won't thrash around so much in the wind. Being smaller 
diameter the drag, and the resulting wind load on the wires will be less. 
But the wires are still relatively thick compared with insulated copper, 
so power will most likely still get to subscriber kit even if the wires 
get damaged but not actually broken. Last but not least, even if poles 
move so the wires get slack enough to touch and give momentary shorts, 
the voltage is low enough that this won't break the wires.
    

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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


#9875

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2015-10-29 08:43 +0000
Message-ID<n0sm7k$34t$2@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#9873
On 29/10/15 01:02, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:41:58 +0000, Mark Justice wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:55:28 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:19:04 -0400, rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last time we had a major storm around here both my ISP and my cell
>>>> phone provider were down for a day or so.
>>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, were landlines in your neighbourhood still working?
>>> I'd expect that they were down too if your local telco still puts the
>>> line up a pole but should have
>> been just fine if it uses underground
>>> cabling.
>>
>> Speaking for myself when I had a land line I never lost that even the
>> year we had four hurricanes back to back.
>>
> It figures when you think about it: small diameter telephone wires that
> can be strung rather tighter between the poles than power lines. That
> means the wire won't thrash around so much in the wind. Being smaller
> diameter the drag, and the resulting wind load on the wires will be less.
> But the wires are still relatively thick compared with insulated copper,
> so power will most likely still get to subscriber kit even if the wires
> get damaged but not actually broken. Last but not least, even if poles
> move so the wires get slack enough to touch and give momentary shorts,
> the voltage is low enough that this won't break the wires.
>
>
Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated 
multi-stranded twisted pairs.

Even the ones up poles.

In fact a storm brought down a pole locally, and it stayed down with the 
wires still attached for several weeks. The phones carried on working...




-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

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


#9883

FromDom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date2015-10-29 12:41 +0000
Message-ID<xtoYx.313466$tY5.307146@fx36.am4>
In reply to#9875
On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>
> Even the ones up poles.
Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've 
been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two 
uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.

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


#9884

FromRob <nomail@example.com>
Date2015-10-29 12:45 +0000
Message-ID<slrnn3456i.kh6.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>
In reply to#9883
Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>>
>> Even the ones up poles.
> Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've 
> been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two 
> uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.

Over here in NL we have no poles at all, at least not the kind
that holds power or phone cables for local distribution.

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


#9886

FromTim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk>
Date2015-10-29 13:26 +0000
Message-ID<551a2d4e38tim@invalid.org.uk>
In reply to#9884
In article <slrnn3456i.kh6.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:
> Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
> >> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
> >>
> >> Even the ones up poles.
> > Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
> > been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
> > uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.

Not even sure the London Underground still uses such a primitive system.

> Over here in NL we have no poles at all, at least not the kind that
> holds power or phone cables for local distribution.

Nope. None in this UK street either: everything is underground.  I know
that my phone lines are underground all the five minute walk away to the
exchange apart from the street cabinet in between.

P.S. What does this thread have to do with Flash on the Pi? I didn't see
it start but guess it has drifted somewhat.

-- 
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

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


#9896

FromRob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
Date2015-10-29 16:12 +0000
Message-ID<20151029161249.4d37d2f2@ntlworld.com>
In reply to#9886
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:26:09 +0000 (GMT)
Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> P.S. What does this thread have to do with Flash on the Pi? I didn't
> see it start but guess it has drifted somewhat.
> 
Power loss can corrupt flash irretrievably.
Use a UPS to prevent sudden power loss.
Put everything on UPS so you can surf in a power outage.
Won't the ISP be down if the power is down?
A hurricane will take out the cables anyway.
etc.

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


#9899

FromRob <nomail@example.com>
Date2015-10-29 16:54 +0000
Message-ID<slrnn34jq6.p19.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>
In reply to#9896
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:26:09 +0000 (GMT)
> Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> P.S. What does this thread have to do with Flash on the Pi? I didn't
>> see it start but guess it has drifted somewhat.
>> 
> Power loss can corrupt flash irretrievably.

This thread was about Adobe Flash.
You know, the product that (like other Adobe products) needs constant
updating to solve vulnerabilities.  In insecurity it is only surpassed
by Java.

What does it have to do with power loss?

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


#9900

FromRob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
Date2015-10-29 17:01 +0000
Message-ID<20151029170125.1432736a@ntlworld.com>
In reply to#9899
On 29 Oct 2015 16:54:30 GMT
Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:26:09 +0000 (GMT)
> > Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> P.S. What does this thread have to do with Flash on the Pi? I
> >> didn't see it start but guess it has drifted somewhat.
> >> 
> > Power loss can corrupt flash irretrievably.
> 
> This thread was about Adobe Flash.
> You know, the product that (like other Adobe products) needs constant
> updating to solve vulnerabilities.  In insecurity it is only surpassed
> by Java.
> 
> What does it have to do with power loss?

Ask "Wayne Chirnside" - he posted it.

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


#9885

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2015-10-29 12:45 +0000
Message-ID<n0t4dv$tq4$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#9883
On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
> On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>>
>> Even the ones up poles.
> Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
> been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
> uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>
absolutely not ever round her.

generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.

You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?

-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

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


#9887

FromDom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date2015-10-29 13:46 +0000
Message-ID<KqpYx.197582$J93.87188@fx38.am4>
In reply to#9885
On 29/10/15 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
>> On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>>> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>>>
>>> Even the ones up poles.
>> Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
>> been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
>> uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>>
> absolutely not ever round her.
>
> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
>
> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?

Certainly not. The power cables are all underground in this area. 
Actually my phone line is underground, but I'm in the newer part built 
in the 1980s. The houses built in the 1950s still have wires from poles. 
I used to live in one and I got a ladder and had a look at the phone 
cables one day.

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


#9891

Fromfruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk>
Date2015-10-29 14:35 +0000
Message-ID<fen9gc-i25.ln1@cubie.ply.me.uk>
In reply to#9887
Dom wrote:

> On 29/10/15 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
>>> On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>>>> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>>>>
>>>> Even the ones up poles.
>>> Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
>>> been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
>>> uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>>>
>> absolutely not ever round her.
>>
>> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
>>
>> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
> 
> Certainly not. The power cables are all underground in this area.
> Actually my phone line is underground, but I'm in the newer part built
> in the 1980s. The houses built in the 1950s still have wires from poles.
> I used to live in one and I got a ladder and had a look at the phone
> cables one day.

I suspect it relates to whether that section has been replaced since the 
introduction of sheathed pairs

fruit

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


#9888

FromFolderol <general@musically.me.uk>
Date2015-10-29 13:47 +0000
Message-ID<20151029134716.36d80663@debian>
In reply to#9885
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:45:51 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
> > On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
> >> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
> >>
> >> Even the ones up poles.
> > Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
> > been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
> > uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
> >
> absolutely not ever round her.
> 
> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
> 
> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
> 
When I was a wee small lad you used to see this a lot. Miles and miles of
poles along the roadside with dozens of uninsulated pairs, but I can't remember
the last time I saw them.
Yes, I *am* that old :)

-- 
W J G

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


#9889

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2015-10-29 13:50 +0000
Message-ID<n0t876$5ep$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#9888
On 29/10/15 13:47, Folderol wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:45:51 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
>>> On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>>>> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>>>>
>>>> Even the ones up poles.
>>> Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
>>> been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
>>> uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>>>
>> absolutely not ever round her.
>>
>> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
>>
>> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
>>
> When I was a wee small lad you used to see this a lot. Miles and miles of
> poles along the roadside with dozens of uninsulated pairs, but I can't remember
> the last time I saw them.
> Yes, I *am* that old :)
>
well yes, back in the 50s but every cable since abouut 1960 has bee 
twisted pair strengthened and usually multipair,

I think I last saw a porcelain insulated phone line sometime back in the 
70s in Wales.



-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

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


#9890

Fromfruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk>
Date2015-10-29 14:32 +0000
Message-ID<l9n9gc-i25.ln1@cubie.ply.me.uk>
In reply to#9888
Folderol wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:45:51 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
>> > On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>> >> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>> >>
>> >> Even the ones up poles.
>> > Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
>> > been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
>> > uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>> >
>> absolutely not ever round her.
>> 
>> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
>> 
>> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
>> 
> When I was a wee small lad you used to see this a lot. Miles and miles of
> poles along the roadside with dozens of uninsulated pairs, but I can't
> remember the last time I saw them.

and they used to hum too!

> Yes, I *am* that old :)

Me too :(

fruit

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


#9894 — Re: Flash - Warning. Even more off topic!

FromFolderol <general@musically.me.uk>
Date2015-10-29 15:55 +0000
SubjectRe: Flash - Warning. Even more off topic!
Message-ID<20151029155504.68d040d5@debian>
In reply to#9890
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:32:52 +0000
fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> Folderol wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:45:51 +0000
> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
> >> > On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> >> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
> >> >> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even the ones up poles.
> >> > Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
> >> > been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
> >> > uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
> >> >
> >> absolutely not ever round her.
> >> 
> >> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
> >> 
> >> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
> >> 
> > When I was a wee small lad you used to see this a lot. Miles and miles of
> > poles along the roadside with dozens of uninsulated pairs, but I can't
> > remember the last time I saw them.
> 
> and they used to hum too!

Ahh! Memories of standing with an ear pressed against the pole listening to
the wires 'music'. Memories of which inspired me to compose this:

http://www.musically.me.uk/music/Wires.ogg

> 
> > Yes, I *am* that old :)
> 
> Me too :(
> 
> fruit


-- 
W J G

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


#9931 — Re: Flash - Warning. Even more off topic!

From"Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
Date2015-10-31 13:08 +0000
SubjectRe: Flash - Warning. Even more off topic!
Message-ID<op.x7df4ikemsr2db@dell3100.dlink.com>
In reply to#9894
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:55:04 -0000, Folderol <general@musically.me.uk>  
wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:32:52 +0000
> fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Folderol wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:45:51 +0000
>> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
>> >> > On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >> >> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>> >> >> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Even the ones up poles.
>> >> > Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
>> >> > been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
>> >> > uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>> >> >
>> >> absolutely not ever round her.
>> >>
>> >> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
>> >>
>> >> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
>> >>
>> > When I was a wee small lad you used to see this a lot. Miles and  
>> miles of
>> > poles along the roadside with dozens of uninsulated pairs, but I can't
>> > remember the last time I saw them.
>>
>> and they used to hum too!
>
> Ahh! Memories of standing with an ear pressed against the pole listening  
> to
> the wires 'music'. Memories of which inspired me to compose this:
>
> http://www.musically.me.uk/music/Wires.ogg
>
>>
Lovely!

>> > Yes, I *am* that old :)
>>
>> Me too :(
>>
>> fruit
>
>


-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

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


#9892

Fromalister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com>
Date2015-10-29 15:25 +0000
Message-ID<n0tdpd$7rf$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#9888
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:47:16 +0000, Folderol wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:45:51 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
>> > On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>> >> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>> >>
>> >> Even the ones up poles.
>> > Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
>> > been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
>> > uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>> >
>> absolutely not ever round her.
>> 
>> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
>> 
>> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
>> 
> When I was a wee small lad you used to see this a lot. Miles and miles
> of poles along the roadside with dozens of uninsulated pairs, but I
> can't remember the last time I saw them.
> Yes, I *am* that old :)

this is why the UK emergency number is 999
if a pair of wires temporarily touches it can be seen as a pulse 
dialling. attempt. the chances of wind causing a correct pulse sequence 
for 999 is extremely unlikely. (I assume the US use 911 so that the 2nd & 
3rd digits can be dialled faster)



-- 
 ____________________________________
/ To have died once is enough.       \
|                                    |
\ -- Publius Vergilius Maro (Virgil) /
 ------------------------------------
   \
    \
        .--.
       |o_o |
       |:_/ |
      //   \ \
     (|     | )
    /'\_   _/`\
    \___)=(___/

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


#9903

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2015-10-29 13:18 -0400
Message-ID<n0tk9s$kkl$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#9892
On 10/29/2015 11:25 AM, alister wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:47:16 +0000, Folderol wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:45:51 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/10/15 12:41, Dom wrote:
>>>> On 29/10/15 08:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> Dunno about the US but all phone lines in the UK are insulated
>>>>> multi-stranded twisted pairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the ones up poles.
>>>> Dunno about your part of the UK, but here (and everywhere else I've
>>>> been) the cables between the poles and the house tend to be two
>>>> uninsulated cables, a few inches apart.
>>>>
>>> absolutely not ever round her.
>>>
>>> generally two or 4 pair in a sheath with a steel inner.
>>>
>>> You aren't confusing them with POWER cables carrying 240V are you?
>>>
>> When I was a wee small lad you used to see this a lot. Miles and miles
>> of poles along the roadside with dozens of uninsulated pairs, but I
>> can't remember the last time I saw them.
>> Yes, I *am* that old :)
>
> this is why the UK emergency number is 999
> if a pair of wires temporarily touches it can be seen as a pulse
> dialling. attempt. the chances of wind causing a correct pulse sequence
> for 999 is extremely unlikely. (I assume the US use 911 so that the 2nd &
> 3rd digits can be dialled faster)

When I heard of 999 in the UK, I wondered about our 911.  I didn't think 
pulse dialing was still widely used by the time 911 came in, but looking 
it up I see this was the late 60's and pulse dialing was still in 
widespread use.  I know that three digit numbers with a 0 or 1 in the 
middle were used as area codes and all equipment recognized them as 
special.  AT&T was already using 411 and 611 for information and 
support, so I guess 911 seemed the easiest to implement and least likely 
to cause problems with mis-dials...  except they didn't factor in the 
use of 9 to get an outside line through a PBX and the use of 1 to obtain 
long distance.  We had a fax machine that somehow would dial up the 
emergency center from time to time by mistake.  It got the wrong kind of 
attention and was disconnected.

-- 

Rick

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


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

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi


csiph-web