Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #626302 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-01 16:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-13 11:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 404 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Smokers are smarter, I say. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-01 16:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 00:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-04-01 20:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 20:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 17:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 14:02 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 20:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:53 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 08:43 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-03 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 09:36 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-07 19:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2017-04-03 11:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 10:32 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-03 11:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-07 19:18 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-03 11:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 13:13 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 14:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-03 10:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-03 14:40 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 11:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-04 09:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 09:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-04 10:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 10:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-04 00:09 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-03 18:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-04 01:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-08 14:31 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 20:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 16:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 16:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 18:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:30 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 18:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 19:15 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-13 14:31 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 20:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 12:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 20:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 13:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-13 15:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 00:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 10:32 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 18:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 12:51 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 11:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-16 15:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-16 16:54 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 19:10 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 19:29 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:40 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 11:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:14 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-13 14:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 23:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-13 14:48 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:44 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:05 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-09 14:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-09 14:43 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:46 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 18:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 19:46 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 12:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-19 17:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-19 16:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 15:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 23:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 16:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 23:59 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 17:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 15:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:21 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 14:00 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 01:11 -0400
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 22:22 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 01:38 -0400
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 08:21 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 22:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:42 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 14:17 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-21 13:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-21 13:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:32 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 17:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 18:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 18:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 02:12 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 02:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 03:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 21:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 04:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 22:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 10:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 11:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 19:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 19:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 09:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 10:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 11:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 12:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 13:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 13:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:45 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 09:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 10:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:45 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:56 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 17:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 17:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 09:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 06:59 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-10 13:08 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-04-10 12:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 08:13 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 18:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:44 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 00:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 00:07 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 18:41 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 19:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:13 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 15:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:31 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:15 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:29 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:42 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 18:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 10:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 11:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 20:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:50 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 15:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 00:58 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:50 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 14:45 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 13:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:30 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-14 21:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 23:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:37 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 02:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-15 09:03 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 18:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:21 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-08 11:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 17:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-08 16:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 21:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. notX <no.email@dummy.invalid> - 2017-04-03 13:33 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 17:51 +0100
Smoker Willie Nelson turns 84 this month. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-17 17:45 -0300
Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-02 12:13 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 20:18 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2017-04-02 16:36 -0500
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 23:05 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-02 18:19 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 23:32 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-02 19:09 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 00:27 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 16:35 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 01:00 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 17:02 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 01:19 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 17:34 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 22:54 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 15:17 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-05 00:08 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 19:05 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-05 09:49 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2017-04-05 23:33 -0500
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:25 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:23 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 23:08 -0500
Tardigrades (Was:Re: Old Age ...) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-03 08:24 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 23:02 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:44 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:34 +0000
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 00:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 23:51 +0800
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-04-02 14:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-04-03 12:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. erickawilliams.d@gmail.com - 2017-04-03 18:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-04-04 11:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-13 11:45 -0700
Page 16 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 21 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150420171210287749%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629028 |
In article <op.yypd42jwjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) > >> >> >> upgrade to > >> >> >> 10 for free. > >> >> > > >> >> > Legally? > >> >> > >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. > >> > > >> > that makes you a thief. > >> > > >> > what else do you steal? > >> > >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. > > > > doesn't make it legal. > > So what? what other laws do you ignore? > > one day you'll get caught. > > All billion of us? one day your number will come up. > > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. > > Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. do you murder people because you're mad at them? steal from them because you want their stuff?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yywr58z4js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629128 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:10:28 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yypd42jwjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) >> >> >> >> upgrade to >> >> >> >> 10 for free. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Legally? >> >> >> >> >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. >> >> > >> >> > that makes you a thief. >> >> > >> >> > what else do you steal? >> >> >> >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. >> > >> > doesn't make it legal. >> >> So what? > > what other laws do you ignore? I regularly break 6 laws at once when driving. >> > one day you'll get caught. >> >> All billion of us? > > one day your number will come up. And half the population of the world? Are they going to jail us all? >> > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. >> >> Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. > > do you murder people because you're mad at them? > steal from them because you want their stuff? I don't murder or steal. I make copies. -- A hammer is a device designed to break valuable objects next to the nail you are aiming at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180420171709198349%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629706 |
In article <op.yywr58z4js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. > >> > > >> > doesn't make it legal. > >> > >> So what? > > > > what other laws do you ignore? > > I regularly break 6 laws at once when driving. then you're a very unsafe driver, putting everyone at risk. one day you'll crash or get caught. maybe both. hopefully you won't injure or maim other people with your stupidity. > >> > one day you'll get caught. > >> > >> All billion of us? > > > > one day your number will come up. > > And half the population of the world? Are they going to jail us all? half the population are not criminals. > >> > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. > >> > >> Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. > > > > do you murder people because you're mad at them? > > steal from them because you want their stuff? > > I don't murder or steal. yet. everyone who steals starts small. > I make copies. not while driving, you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5167493.9F054%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629005 |
On 4/14/17, 12:29 PM, in article op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:17:13 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/14/17, 11:43 AM, in article op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but >>>>>> the >>>>>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >>>>>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >>>>>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >>>>>> learning. It is odd. >>>>> >>>>> It's because most linux users are strange. >>>> >>>> There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them >>>> (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated >>>> hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for >>>> free. >>>> Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because >>>> there are times some of the above applies). >>> >>> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) upgrade >>> to >>> 10 for free. >> >> Legally? > > Who cares about that? As long as it works. A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for free from employers). But even when not it is not something many know how to do. >> And will it run on older hardware? > > Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. Old enough and it does not run well. >> Right now, for example, I have >> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) > > I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. > The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes > instead of 2 hours. This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed though. >> and then buy new installation media (I foolishly tossed it about a month >> before the hard drive died). It is mostly used as a media station... which >> Linux does well enough - so I popped a USB Flash drive onto the back with >> Linux installed and set it up. Has been working passably well for some time >> now. Also can use it to surf the web and do some other basic work. >> >>>> But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. >>>> They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... >>>> >>>> I use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons >>>> and people should use what they like and what fits their needs and >>>> resources. You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a >>>> Linux "hater" and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I >>>> turn in bug reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of >>>> desktop Linux and that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same >>>> for software on other platforms is not relevant in their minds. >>>> >>>> Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. >>>> >>> Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top? >> >> Well, it is a UNIX and not Linux which is a UNIX-clone. Different details >> but the same idea on the back end but it has a completely different GUI and >> apps (and overall design principle for those). >> >> Both have access to the same command line, but if that is your primary use >> then Linux is cheaper, comes with more tools (though you can install them if >> you want), and is likely faster for most tasks. They also have different >> rules for their most commonly used file systems (mostly tied to how upper >> and lower case are dealt with) and some like one more than the other. Most >> tools, though, are made to not confuse humans which is what the macOS system >> is designed for as well, so they will work at least MOSTLY the same on both. > > Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a > decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems it has pros and cons. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yypcikknjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629009 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:44:03 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/14/17, 12:29 PM, in article op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:17:13 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/14/17, 11:43 AM, in article op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >>>>>>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >>>>>>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >>>>>>> learning. It is odd. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's because most linux users are strange. >>>>> >>>>> There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them >>>>> (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated >>>>> hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for >>>>> free. >>>>> Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because >>>>> there are times some of the above applies). >>>> >>>> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) upgrade >>>> to >>>> 10 for free. >>> >>> Legally? >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. > > A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for > free from employers). Most people use illegal something. Mp3s, films, marijuana, breaking speed limits, the list goes on. Play everything by the book and you'll lead a much duller simpler life. > But even when not it is not something many know how to do. Easy enough to Google or ask a friend. >>> And will it run on older hardware? >> >> Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. > > Old enough and it does not run well. Add more memory. My current machine is 3 years old and will take 4 times as much memory as required to run Windows 10 very well. >>> Right now, for example, I have >>> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >>> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) >> >> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. >> The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes >> instead of 2 hours. > > This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a > (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed > though. The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... "Where's the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?" and "Where's the hard disk activity LED?" >>> and then buy new installation media (I foolishly tossed it about a month >>> before the hard drive died). It is mostly used as a media station... which >>> Linux does well enough - so I popped a USB Flash drive onto the back with >>> Linux installed and set it up. Has been working passably well for some time >>> now. Also can use it to surf the web and do some other basic work. >>> >>>>> But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. >>>>> They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... >>>>> >>>> I use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons >>>>> and people should use what they like and what fits their needs and >>>>> resources. You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a >>>>> Linux "hater" and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I >>>>> turn in bug reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of >>>>> desktop Linux and that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same >>>>> for software on other platforms is not relevant in their minds. >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. >>>>> >>>> Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top? >>> >>> Well, it is a UNIX and not Linux which is a UNIX-clone. Different details >>> but the same idea on the back end but it has a completely different GUI and >>> apps (and overall design principle for those). >>> >>> Both have access to the same command line, but if that is your primary use >>> then Linux is cheaper, comes with more tools (though you can install them if >>> you want), and is likely faster for most tasks. They also have different >>> rules for their most commonly used file systems (mostly tied to how upper >>> and lower case are dealt with) and some like one more than the other. Most >>> tools, though, are made to not confuse humans which is what the macOS system >>> is designed for as well, so they will work at least MOSTLY the same on both. >> >> Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a >> decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. > > I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating > most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other > OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting > something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS > and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems > it has pros and cons. And I bet you still have to pay more for out of date hardware. -- Q. What's a Catholic priest and a pint of Guinness got in common? A. A black coat, white collar and you've got to watch your arse if you get a dodgy one!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D516A1D0.9F0D2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629019 |
On 4/14/17, 1:28 PM, in article op.yypcikknjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> Who cares about that? As long as it works. >> >> A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for >> free from employers). > > Most people use illegal something. Mp3s, films, marijuana, breaking speed > limits, the list goes on. Play everything by the book and you'll lead a much > duller simpler life. > >> But even when not it is not something many know how to do. > > Easy enough to Google or ask a friend. Many do not want to use an illegal OS, know how, or even realize it is an option. >>>> And will it run on older hardware? >>> >>> Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. >> >> Old enough and it does not run well. > > Add more memory. My current machine is 3 years old and will take 4 times as > much memory as required to run Windows 10 very well. Why bring up your relatively new machine? >>>> Right now, for example, I have >>>> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >>>> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) >>> >>> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. >>> The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes >>> instead of 2 hours. >> >> This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a >> (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed >> though. > > The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... "Where's > the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?" and > "Where's the hard disk activity LED?" I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the second... and not at all with the first.:) ... >>> Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a >>> decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. >> >> I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating >> most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other >> OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting >> something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS >> and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems >> it has pros and cons. > > And I bet you still have to pay more for out of date hardware. Don't know the current price comparisons, but in the past Apple has rated well FOR WHAT YOU GET. Does not mean you can get an inexpensive Mac. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 00:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yypl69nhjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629047 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:57:04 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/14/17, 1:28 PM, in article op.yypcikknjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> Who cares about that? As long as it works. >>> >>> A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for >>> free from employers). >> >> Most people use illegal something. Mp3s, films, marijuana, breaking speed >> limits, the list goes on. Play everything by the book and you'll lead a much >> duller simpler life. >> >>> But even when not it is not something many know how to do. >> >> Easy enough to Google or ask a friend. > > Many do not want to use an illegal OS, know how, or even realize it is an > option. Then they must be educated. >>>>> And will it run on older hardware? >>>> >>>> Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. >>> >>> Old enough and it does not run well. >> >> Add more memory. My current machine is 3 years old and will take 4 times as >> much memory as required to run Windows 10 very well. > > Why bring up your relatively new machine? How old will it be when four times the memory is needed for the latest windows? Anyway, a 10 year old machine is shit. Even if you can run some antiquated OS on it, it hasn't got the power to do much useful. Get a 6 year old one on freecycle. >>>>> Right now, for example, I have >>>>> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >>>>> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) >>>> >>>> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. >>>> The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes >>>> instead of 2 hours. >>> >>> This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a >>> (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed >>> though. >> >> The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... "Where's >> the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?" and >> "Where's the hard disk activity LED?" > > I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the > second... and not at all with the first.:) The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine has crashed or is busy. Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back on when you can press one button? >>>> Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a >>>> decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. >>> >>> I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating >>> most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other >>> OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting >>> something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS >>> and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems >>> it has pros and cons. >> >> And I bet you still have to pay more for out of date hardware. > > Don't know the current price comparisons, but in the past Apple has rated > well FOR WHAT YOU GET. Does not mean you can get an inexpensive Mac. Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because of Apple's over inflated prices. -- If it's zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D516B493.9F112%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629055 |
On 4/14/17, 4:58 PM, in article op.yypl69nhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
...>>>>>> And will it run on older hardware?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS.
>>>>
>>>> Old enough and it does not run well.
>>>
>>> Add more memory. My current machine is 3 years old and will take 4 times as
>>> much memory as required to run Windows 10 very well.
>>
>> Why bring up your relatively new machine?
>
> How old will it be when four times the memory is needed for the latest
> windows?
>
> Anyway, a 10 year old machine is shit. Even if you can run some antiquated OS
> on it, it hasn't got the power to do much useful. Get a 6 year old one on
> freecycle.
I am talking ones which are 10 years old (or so) and older. My wife's which
is running Linux is that old... and it works fine for our needs.
>>>>>> Right now, for example, I have 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard
>>>>>> drive. Could get a new hard drive, fight to put it in (Apple does not
>>>>>> make it easy)
>>>>>>
>>>>> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory
>>>>> upgrade. The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2
>>>>> minutes instead of 2 hours.
>>>>>
>>>> This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a
>>>> (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>> The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is....
>>> "Where's the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?"
>>> and "Where's the hard disk activity LED?"
>>
>> I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the
>> second... and not at all with the first.:)
>
> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even
> mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine has
> crashed or is busy.
Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with hard
drives) but they crash only very rarely. But, sure, I have played with disk
light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used it
in years.
> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very stuck
> and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back on when
> you can press one button?
Most people would never think to ask for one and there is rarely if ever a
need for it. How often does your computer not respond? And even the fan in
my room has the press-and-hold to reset option. Not really surprising to
most.
>>>>> Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at
>>>>> a
>>>>> decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating
>>>> most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other
>>>> OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting
>>>> something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS
>>>> and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems
>>>> it has pros and cons.
>>>
>>> And I bet you still have to pay more for out of date hardware.
>>
>> Don't know the current price comparisons, but in the past Apple has rated
>> well FOR WHAT YOU GET. Does not mean you can get an inexpensive Mac.
>
> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs have been about
> double the price.
Here are the OLD comparisons I have logged... and I included every single
one people pointed me to (have the requirements on the very ugly page):
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices>
Stopped tracking it after that as formally, but still keep a eye out for
such articles. The trend seems about the same.
> I even know someone who loved macs and hated windows, but
> converted to windows solely because of Apple's over inflated prices.
You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved to
windows for the same reason.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150420171210307864%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629058 |
In article <D516B493.9F112%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even > > mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine has > > crashed or is busy. > > Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with hard > drives) no they don't. > but they crash only very rarely. true. > But, sure, I have played with disk > light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used it > in years. no need for that at all. > > You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved to > windows for the same reason. you can, but its specs are much lower. for similar specs, macs are competitively priced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D517A457.9F248%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629130 |
On 4/15/17, 9:10 AM, in article 150420171210307864%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <D516B493.9F112%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even >>> mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine has >>> crashed or is busy. >> >> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with hard >> drives) > > no they don't. They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, FINALLY) running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm). >> but they crash only very rarely. > > true. > >> But, sure, I have played with disk >> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used it >> in years. > > no need for that at all. Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few. >> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved to >> windows for the same reason. > > you can, but its specs are much lower. > > for similar specs, macs are competitively priced. Agreed (though recent comparisons might show Apple behind... they have not updated their desktop Macs in too long). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150420171350418541%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629133 |
In article <D517A457.9F248%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody > >>> even mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine > >>> has crashed or is busy. > >> > >> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with > >> hard drives) > > > > no they don't. > > They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, hfs+ is not in any way slow. benchmarks are consistent with the maximum data rate of the interface. > FINALLY) > running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm). those are also not slow, and can easily be replaced if desired. that's not a limitation of the mac. > >> But, sure, I have played with disk > >> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used > >> it in years. > > > > no need for that at all. > > Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few. as in none. > >> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved > >> to windows for the same reason. > > > > you can, but its specs are much lower. > > > > for similar specs, macs are competitively priced. > > Agreed (though recent comparisons might show Apple behind... they have not > updated their desktop Macs in too long). that's about to change. meanwhile, the macbook pros are well ahead of most of what's out there. what other laptop has *four* 40 gigabit ports, one of the fastest ssds on any computer, a dci-p3 wide gamut display and touchid? none. that's what.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D517AFC7.9F260%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629136 |
On 4/15/17, 10:50 AM, in article 150420171350418541%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <D517A457.9F248%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody >>>>> even mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine >>>>> has crashed or is busy. >>>> >>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with >>>> hard drives) >>> >>> no they don't. >> >> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, > > hfs+ is not in any way slow. benchmarks are consistent with the maximum > data rate of the interface. Would like to see those. From what I understood it hit bottlenecks if you had multiple processes / threads all working to read / write. >> FINALLY) >> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm). > > those are also not slow, and can easily be replaced if desired. That is very slow. Who else sells machines with drives that slow. Try a Mac with a hard drive vs. one with a Flash drive. The speed difference is pretty amazing. > that's not a limitation of the mac. You can buy a higher end one with a faster drive or a Fusion drive or do it after-market, but, yes, it is a weakness of the iMac line. >>>> But, sure, I have played with disk >>>> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used >>>> it in years. >>> >>> no need for that at all. >> >> Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few. > > as in none. There is certainly a market for those who want it. And their are Apple supplied tools to show it (even Activity Monitor). >>>> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved >>>> to windows for the same reason. >>> >>> you can, but its specs are much lower. >>> >>> for similar specs, macs are competitively priced. >> >> Agreed (though recent comparisons might show Apple behind... they have not >> updated their desktop Macs in too long). > > that's about to change. I think Apple has been waiting for APFS to be ready for macOS... and now we know there is even more to it with the Pro Macs. > meanwhile, the macbook pros are well ahead of most of what's out there. > > what other laptop has *four* 40 gigabit ports, one of the fastest ssds > on any computer, a dci-p3 wide gamut display and touchid? none. that's > what. Could be. I am more focused on the iMac line (which I know is a small part of the Mac line overall). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 14:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150420171445154999%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629138 |
In article <D517AFC7.9F260%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with > >>>> hard drives) > >>> > >>> no they don't. > >> > >> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, > > > > hfs+ is not in any way slow. benchmarks are consistent with the maximum > > data rate of the interface. > > Would like to see those. easily done with any disk benchmarking utility > From what I understood it hit bottlenecks if you > had multiple processes / threads all working to read / write. that is a separate issue. > >> FINALLY) > >> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm). > > > > those are also not slow, and can easily be replaced if desired. > > That is very slow. Who else sells machines with drives that slow. microsoft surface studio ships with a 5400 rpm drive. plenty of other systems do. > Try a Mac > with a hard drive vs. one with a Flash drive. The speed difference is pretty > amazing. that's not exclusive to macs. ssd is faster no matter what the platform (unless a hard drive can saturate the interface). > > that's not a limitation of the mac. > > You can buy a higher end one with a faster drive or a Fusion drive or do it > after-market, but, yes, it is a weakness of the iMac line. it's not a weakness at all. > >>>> But, sure, I have played with disk > >>>> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used > >>>> it in years. > >>> > >>> no need for that at all. > >> > >> Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few. > > > > as in none. > > There is certainly a market for those who want it. And their are Apple > supplied tools to show it (even Activity Monitor). there is *constant* disk activity, for all sorts of reasons. it's meaningless. it offers no useful information. > >>>> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved > >>>> to windows for the same reason. > >>> > >>> you can, but its specs are much lower. > >>> > >>> for similar specs, macs are competitively priced. > >> > >> Agreed (though recent comparisons might show Apple behind... they have not > >> updated their desktop Macs in too long). > > > > that's about to change. > > I think Apple has been waiting for APFS to be ready for macOS... and now we > know there is even more to it with the Pro Macs. a major part of the delay is due to intel's continued chip delays. apfs could be another part and there may be other reasons. > > meanwhile, the macbook pros are well ahead of most of what's out there. > > > > what other laptop has *four* 40 gigabit ports, one of the fastest ssds > > on any computer, a dci-p3 wide gamut display and touchid? none. that's > > what. > > Could be. I am more focused on the iMac line (which I know is a small part > of the Mac line overall). not could be. it *is*. the new macbook pros are *very* good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D517EAD6.9F310%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629157 |
On 4/15/17, 11:45 AM, in article 150420171445154999%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <D517AFC7.9F260%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with >>>>>> hard drives) >>>>> >>>>> no they don't. >>>> >>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, >>> >>> hfs+ is not in any way slow. benchmarks are consistent with the maximum >>> data rate of the interface. >> >> Would like to see those. > > easily done with any disk benchmarking utility I look forward to it! When you have them please share. >> From what I understood it hit bottlenecks if you >> had multiple processes / threads all working to read / write. > > that is a separate issue. The fact the file system handles this poorly is very much tied to the file system. :) >>>> FINALLY) >>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm). >>> >>> those are also not slow, and can easily be replaced if desired. >> >> That is very slow. Who else sells machines with drives that slow. > > microsoft surface studio ships with a 5400 rpm drive. Looking it up seems they do -- but tied to a SSD, similar to the Fusion drives Apple uses (though not the same). > plenty of other systems do. Amy desktops? >> Try a Mac >> with a hard drive vs. one with a Flash drive. The speed difference is pretty >> amazing. > > that's not exclusive to macs. Of course not. But what other system comes with a 5400 rpm drive (alone). > ssd is faster no matter what the platform > (unless a hard drive can saturate the interface). > >>> that's not a limitation of the mac. >> >> You can buy a higher end one with a faster drive or a Fusion drive or do it >> after-market, but, yes, it is a weakness of the iMac line. > > it's not a weakness at all. The fact you can replace it does not make it not a weakness. Heck, the fact you suggested such a fix demonstrates you know it IS a weakness. >>>>>> But, sure, I have played with disk >>>>>> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used >>>>>> it in years. >>>>> >>>>> no need for that at all. >>>> >>>> Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few. >>> >>> as in none. >> >> There is certainly a market for those who want it. And their are Apple >> supplied tools to show it (even Activity Monitor). > > there is *constant* disk activity, for all sorts of reasons. it's > meaningless. it offers no useful information. So Apple added it to Activity Monitor for no reason? Of course not. And it does show amount read / write per second. Really comes down to YOU find no use of value in it. I am OK with that. >>>>>> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved >>>>>> to windows for the same reason. >>>>> >>>>> you can, but its specs are much lower. >>>>> >>>>> for similar specs, macs are competitively priced. >>>> >>>> Agreed (though recent comparisons might show Apple behind... they have not >>>> updated their desktop Macs in too long). >>> >>> that's about to change. >> >> I think Apple has been waiting for APFS to be ready for macOS... and now we >> know there is even more to it with the Pro Macs. > > a major part of the delay is due to intel's continued chip delays. > > apfs could be another part and there may be other reasons. Agreed. >>> meanwhile, the macbook pros are well ahead of most of what's out there. >>> >>> what other laptop has *four* 40 gigabit ports, one of the fastest ssds >>> on any computer, a dci-p3 wide gamut display and touchid? none. that's >>> what. >> >> Could be. I am more focused on the iMac line (which I know is a small part >> of the Mac line overall). > > not could be. > > it *is*. the new macbook pros are *very* good. Would love to see some comparisons from tech magazines and the like. Have not kept up on those for years. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180420171709208387%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629194 |
In article <D517EAD6.9F310%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, > >>> > >>> hfs+ is not in any way slow. benchmarks are consistent with the maximum > >>> data rate of the interface. > >> > >> Would like to see those. > > > > easily done with any disk benchmarking utility > > I look forward to it! When you have them please share. i use blackmagic. there are others. > >> From what I understood it hit bottlenecks if you > >> had multiple processes / threads all working to read / write. > > > > that is a separate issue. > > The fact the file system handles this poorly is very much tied to the file > system. :) it's not normally an issue. there are always edge cases, even with apfs, zfs or whatever file system you want to use. > >>>> FINALLY) > >>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm). > >>> > >>> those are also not slow, and can easily be replaced if desired. > >> > >> That is very slow. Who else sells machines with drives that slow. > > > > microsoft surface studio ships with a 5400 rpm drive. > > Looking it up seems they do -- but tied to a SSD, similar to the Fusion > drives Apple uses (though not the same). > > > plenty of other systems do. > > Amy desktops? lots of them drive makers are making mostly 5400 rpm drives for cost and ssds for speed. 7200 rpm drives don't represent a good deal anymore. > >> Try a Mac > >> with a hard drive vs. one with a Flash drive. The speed difference is > >> pretty amazing. > > > > that's not exclusive to macs. > > Of course not. But what other system comes with a 5400 rpm drive (alone). many. > > ssd is faster no matter what the platform > > (unless a hard drive can saturate the interface). > > > >>> that's not a limitation of the mac. > >> > >> You can buy a higher end one with a faster drive or a Fusion drive or do it > >> after-market, but, yes, it is a weakness of the iMac line. > > > > it's not a weakness at all. > > The fact you can replace it does not make it not a weakness. Heck, the fact > you suggested such a fix demonstrates you know it IS a weakness. it's not a weakness. it's a design choice. everything has tradeoffs. > >>>>>> But, sure, I have played with disk > >>>>>> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not > >>>>>> used it in years. > >>>>> > >>>>> no need for that at all. > >>>> > >>>> Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few. > >>> > >>> as in none. > >> > >> There is certainly a market for those who want it. And their are Apple > >> supplied tools to show it (even Activity Monitor). > > > > there is *constant* disk activity, for all sorts of reasons. it's > > meaningless. it offers no useful information. > > So Apple added it to Activity Monitor for no reason? Of course not. And it > does show amount read / write per second. activity monitor is for diagnostics, not normal routine use. > Really comes down to YOU find no use of value in it. I am OK with that. 99.9% of the world finds no use for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D51BCF90.A030F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629714 |
On 4/18/17, 2:09 PM, in article 180420171709208387%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <D517EAD6.9F310%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, >>>>> >>>>> hfs+ is not in any way slow. benchmarks are consistent with the maximum >>>>> data rate of the interface. >>>> >>>> Would like to see those. >>> >>> easily done with any disk benchmarking utility >> >> I look forward to it! When you have them please share. > > i use blackmagic. there are others. Cool. Look forward to you showing it. >>>> From what I understood it hit bottlenecks if you >>>> had multiple processes / threads all working to read / write. >>> >>> that is a separate issue. >> >> The fact the file system handles this poorly is very much tied to the file >> system. :) > > it's not normally an issue. Which implies you see it can sometimes be one. OK. > there are always edge cases, even with apfs, zfs or whatever file > system you want to use. The idea that HFS+ is outdated is pretty clear... and it is good Apple is moving to APFS. But how much of the slowness is caused by the file system is not clear. >>>>>> FINALLY) >>>>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm). >>>>> >>>>> those are also not slow, and can easily be replaced if desired. >>>> >>>> That is very slow. Who else sells machines with drives that slow. >>> >>> microsoft surface studio ships with a 5400 rpm drive. >> >> Looking it up seems they do -- but tied to a SSD, similar to the Fusion >> drives Apple uses (though not the same). >> >>> plenty of other systems do. >> >> Amy desktops? > > lots of them Look forward to the examples. I could be wrong on this... > drive makers are making mostly 5400 rpm drives for cost and ssds for > speed. 7200 rpm drives don't represent a good deal anymore. > >>>> Try a Mac >>>> with a hard drive vs. one with a Flash drive. The speed difference is >>>> pretty amazing. >>> >>> that's not exclusive to macs. >> >> Of course not. But what other system comes with a 5400 rpm drive (alone). > > many. But none you can show? >>> ssd is faster no matter what the platform >>> (unless a hard drive can saturate the interface). >>> >>>>> that's not a limitation of the mac. >>>> >>>> You can buy a higher end one with a faster drive or a Fusion drive or do it >>>> after-market, but, yes, it is a weakness of the iMac line. >>> >>> it's not a weakness at all. >> >> The fact you can replace it does not make it not a weakness. Heck, the fact >> you suggested such a fix demonstrates you know it IS a weakness. > > it's not a weakness. it's a design choice. everything has tradeoffs. Ah, it is not a weakness but you suggest a fix for it anyway. What? >>>>>>>> But, sure, I have played with disk >>>>>>>> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not >>>>>>>> used it in years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no need for that at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few. >>>>> >>>>> as in none. >>>> >>>> There is certainly a market for those who want it. And their are Apple >>>> supplied tools to show it (even Activity Monitor). >>> >>> there is *constant* disk activity, for all sorts of reasons. it's >>> meaningless. it offers no useful information. >> >> So Apple added it to Activity Monitor for no reason? Of course not. And it >> does show amount read / write per second. > > activity monitor is for diagnostics, not normal routine use. It is during diagnostics when you would likely find such information useful. Sure. >> Really comes down to YOU find no use of value in it. I am OK with that. > > 99.9% of the world finds no use for it. Well, most users find little use for most of the diagnostic tools on their computer (though I think your percentage is high, whatever). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150420171210307895%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629055 |
In article <op.yypl69nhjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> > >> The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... > >> "Where's > >> the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?" and > >> "Where's the hard disk activity LED?" > > > > I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the > > second... and not at all with the first.:) > > The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even > mildly technical wanted it. no they didn't. > It's the only way to tell if the machine has > crashed or is busy. definitely not. > Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very > stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back > on when you can press one button? that rarely happens, but if it does, it's trivial to reset it without turning it off/on. > > Don't know the current price comparisons, but in the past Apple has rated > > well FOR WHAT YOU GET. Does not mean you can get an inexpensive Mac. > > Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs > have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved > macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because > of Apple's over inflated prices. apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar products. for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display* alone, which still needs a computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629131 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:10:30 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yypl69nhjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... >> >> "Where's >> >> the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?" and >> >> "Where's the hard disk activity LED?" >> > >> > I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the >> > second... and not at all with the first.:) >> >> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even >> mildly technical wanted it. > > no they didn't. They did where I worked. Those that were stupid enough to stick with macs. During my 6 years there I converted 90% of them. >> It's the only way to tell if the machine has >> crashed or is busy. > > definitely not. Yes it is. If you believe otherwise, then provide some details. >> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very >> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back >> on when you can press one button? > > that rarely happens, but if it does, it's trivial to reset it without > turning it off/on. Without a reset button? How? By magic? >> > Don't know the current price comparisons, but in the past Apple has rated >> > well FOR WHAT YOU GET. Does not mean you can get an inexpensive Mac. >> >> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs >> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved >> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because >> of Apple's over inflated prices. > > apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar > products. > > for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display* > alone, which still needs a computer. Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC. -- There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and the stupid idiot's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D51BCC2A.A02DE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629707 |
On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs
>>> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved
>>> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because
>>> of Apple's over inflated prices.
>>
>> apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar
>> products.
>>
>> for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display*
>> alone, which still needs a computer.
>
> Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC.
I do not have recent comparisons, but older ones do not support your
position. I included EVERY comparison shown to me that met the criteria
listed:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices>
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180420171709198318%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629707 |
In article <op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> It's the only way to tell if the machine has > >> crashed or is busy. > > > > definitely not. > > Yes it is. If you believe otherwise, then provide some details. no need. anyone who has used a mac knows everything you've said to be false. > >> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very > >> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back > >> on when you can press one button? > > > > that rarely happens, but if it does, it's trivial to reset it without > > turning it off/on. > > Without a reset button? How? By magic? no need for a reset button. you really haven't a clue. > >> > Don't know the current price comparisons, but in the past Apple has rated > >> > well FOR WHAT YOU GET. Does not mean you can get an inexpensive Mac. > >> > >> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs > >> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved > >> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because > >> of Apple's over inflated prices. > > > > apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar > > products. > > > > for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display* > > alone, which still needs a computer. > > Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC. nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web