>> Ah yes, but under Windoze all programs insist on being installed on C: 
>> ;-)
> 
> ... if you let them, yes :-P

Now, the *properly designed* products allow you to select some other 
destination with no ill effects. But all those other programs? Some of 
them won't let you choose at all. Others will let you choose, but never 
the less fail if you choose somewhere different. (WTF?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> I occasionally hear a fighter jet come overhead and then hear my garage 
> door opening.

Wait - your garage door can open by itself?

Man, if we want to open ours, we have to use *muscle power*. ;-)

Top Gun, indeed.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> It's generally cheaper in the US at least to buy online.

If you go to a shop, they have to pay for spotty teenagers to loaf 
around all day pretending to serve customers. People to sweep the 
floors. Rent on the building. Electricity rates. And so on.

If you run an Internet shop, you just put a server onto the Internet and 
wait for your bank balance to start increasing. Sure, you gotta pay for 
electricity and Internet bandwidth. I'm guessing even at £25,000/year, 
Internet bandwidth is a lot cheaper than having 25 staff standing around...

...yeah, shopping online tends to be cheaper. Quality is another matter, 
of course.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Is this somehow different there (wherever it might be)? Is it that there
> aren't any computer hardware stores nearby and you have to buy them
> remotely and get them by mail or something? Or is it that stores don't
> have hardware in stock, they just order them on demand?

Hermit.  Rarely go outside.  Have no car, and no tech stores in 
(convenient) walking distance.

Also retail stores cost more for the same item in general, plus can shop 
around easily online and quickly compare prices and get the cheapest one 
of a particular product.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Ah yes, but under Windoze all programs insist on being installed on C: ;-)

Everything I have installed in programs or windows fits in 40G. And that 
includes bunches of .NET, office, photo programs, etc etc etc.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 11/09/09 10:55, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> guess there isn't a convenient modality for backing up 500GB of data?
>>>> There is - but not for sane prices, no.
>>> A 1.5 GB SATA Seagate Barracuda drive costs a mere $95 from newegg.
>>>
>>> I guess that arguably is an insane price - insanely cheap.
>> 	Sounds insanely expensive to me. Even for a USB flash drive...
>
> Yeah, now if I had written TB instead of GB (which is what I meant to
> write), that changes the dynamic a little bit. ;-)

	$95 to get tuberculosis from a fish? I still say it's expensive.

-- 
Engineers: often wrong, seldom in doubt.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/09/09 13:33, Warp wrote:
>    Is this somehow different there (wherever it might be)? Is it that there
> aren't any computer hardware stores nearby and you have to buy them
> remotely and get them by mail or something? Or is it that stores don't
> have hardware in stock, they just order them on demand?

	Don't know how the dynamics work out in Europe, with there being 
different countries, etc.

	Over here, stores can't compete with online retailers when it comes to 
prices. And as has been mentioned, if the online retailer isn't 
physically in your state, you don't pay sales tax.

	A physical store can only serve the people in your area. An online 
store serves the whole country. When n gets large, it's easier to 
predict and manage the volume. A physical store may simply not stock up 
on items rarely sold, whereas an Internet store (particularly a well 
known one) is guaranteed that same item will be sold often (because the 
whole country is now the market).

	Despite all this, most people I know will buy electronics locally. 
Geeks are particular, and want to save money, and think it's geeky to 
optimize for money. So they're more likely to buy online. Since you 
mostly interact with geeks from other countries, you're suffering from 
observation bias.

-- 
Engineers: often wrong, seldom in doubt.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:28:36 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/09/09 10:55, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> guess there isn't a convenient modality for backing up 500GB of
>>>>>> data?
>>>>> There is - but not for sane prices, no.
>>>> A 1.5 GB SATA Seagate Barracuda drive costs a mere $95 from newegg.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that arguably is an insane price - insanely cheap.
>>> 	Sounds insanely expensive to me. Even for a USB flash drive...
>>
>> Yeah, now if I had written TB instead of GB (which is what I meant to
>> write), that changes the dynamic a little bit. ;-)
> 
> 	$95 to get tuberculosis from a fish? I still say it's expensive.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:33:21 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> ...yeah, shopping online tends to be cheaper. Quality is another matter,
> of course.

Buy from reputable dealers, and quality isn't an issue.  I've bought PCs 
and components from local shops who then wouldn't stand behind their 
products (a power supply that was defective literally burned the 
insulation off the wires and the retailer wouldn't make it right), and 
I've had online shops that replaced products that weren't up to spec (had 
a cable company that replaced a defective *and* incorrectly shipped 
svideo cable to me - and they didn't bother having me send the wrong 
cable back to them).

I've never had bad luck buying from someone like Newegg, buy.com, or 
Costco online.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:

> Now, the *properly designed* products allow you to select some other 
> destination with no ill effects. But all those other programs? Some of 
> them won't let you choose at all. Others will let you choose, but never 
> the less fail if you choose somewhere different. (WTF?)

Not seen many such ailments any time recently.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
>> I occasionally hear a fighter jet come overhead and then hear my 
>> garage door opening.
> 
> Wait - your garage door can open by itself?
> 
> Man, if we want to open ours, we have to use *muscle power*. ;-)

Hey, that's the U.S. of A. - they don't use muscle power for /anything/, 
unless they happen to be football pros...

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 
>> Read a while ago that the RAF had to pay compensation to almost a hundred
>> car owners - one of their air-defense "steerable-array" radars went
>> haywire and scanned over a road - they burned out almost every vehicle's
>> ignition and fuel injection microprocessors with the radar beam!
> 
> Ouch!
> 
> That reminds me of the tale told by an old acquaintance of mine, who had
> served on some air-defense radar installation, of how they'd keep an
> older fellow soldier at bay when he got all enraged and charging for the
> hilltop bunker they were sitting in.
> 
> You know, the old guy had a pacemaker... so pace he did make when he saw
> those radar antennae slowly closing in on his direction...

Hahahaha! This is the best one I've heard in a long time. :)

Don't come near us, or we'll zap you! :0
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 
>> I've seen this phenomenon on older drives. Had a HDD in a system here
>> that was left on for years, probably been turned off 20 or 30 times in
>> its useful life. The fortieth or forty-fifth time the server was turned
>> off, the HDD died - after running reliably (while not being turned off,
>> ever) for 5 or 6 years. Ok, old hardware and an old drive, but just goes
>> to show. Keep 'em spinning is better than spin-up / spin-down on a daily
>> basis.
> 
> To me that rather makes a case that running a HDD 24-7 nonstop (probably
> at high workload) may instead just increase the risk of
> death-by-power-cycle.
> 
> Otherwise you'd wonder how office computers, being powered on and off 5
> or 6 days per week, could possibly last even two months. Yet they're
> usually good for about 5 to 10 years (though they'll be long outdated by
> then).

Hmm, yes, but I've often wondered if there -really- is a difference between 
"desktop hardware" and "server hardware" - and that maybe they are designed
for different MTBF? I. e. a "server grade" HDD will last longer if not
regularly turned on and off, while a "desktop grade" HDD will die quicker
if never turned off?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 
>> *brrr* - I shiver at the thought of a mobile HDD as a backup device...
>> 
>> How do you feel about the statement that the fact that if a drive is
>> mobile, inherently it will never last as long as a "traditional"
>> statically mounted drive that just sites in a cradle internally in a
>> climate controlled server rack / box?
> 
> Sure, a server rack in a proper server room is probably the safest place
> for a HDD to live in.
> 
> But I don't think a good external case is any more dangerous to HDD
> health than your average office ATX tower, that gets its thermal shocks
> day by day when switched on, and some accidental (or sometimes
> deliberate) kicks by its user now and then.

I mentioned this because a fellow company we once did business with lost a
year's worth of designs and stuff when the MD (!) dropped their external
HDD accidentally onto a concrete floor... and then the primary HDD the data
had been on quit on the same day.

"Backup" = "two or more physically separate places, preferably on a
different type of media entirely" :)
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
>> 
>> In the olden days on the Apple ][ with CP/M I had three - the
>> grandfather, father and son (and holy ghost! :) - I still remember the
>> stomach churning dread of those horribly loud floppy drives grinding and
>> grinding and then "BDOS ERROR" on the monochrome green-screen... Those
>> were the days!
> 
> That reminds me of those Iomega "jaz" drives that were all the rage 10
> years ago. We had two or three "pools" (12 computers each) equipped with
> those where I was studying back then, which were intended for the
> Multimedia students to store their many hundreds of Megs on.
> 
> They seemed pretty fancy stuff - until it turned out that they could
> contract a contagious disease, some hardware defect that would cause
> them to screw up the storage media in just the right way to ruin the
> next drive they'd be put into in just the same way...

Sounds a LOT like the "son of Jaz" QIC-like tape drive I once had. I think
it was called an Iomega Ditto Dash or something. Great storage per tape...
IF it worked. I think I wrote five tapes successfully with that before it
quit. Was the greatest waste of money on technology I ever had the
misfortune to spend.

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> Read a while ago that the RAF had to pay compensation to almost a hundred
>> car owners - one of their air-defense "steerable-array" radars went
>> haywire and scanned over a road - they burned out almost every vehicle's
>> ignition and fuel injection microprocessors with the radar beam!
> 
> I occasionally hear a fighter jet come overhead and then hear my garage
> door
> opening. Happens about five times a year.  I live near Mirimar (aka "Top
> Gun"), so we get fighter jets overhead pretty regularly.  Many times a day
> where I was working across the road.
 
Makes sense. As far as I know the US military is one of THE most prolific
users of the EM spectrum in the world. He's probably got his radar on or in
a specific mode - I've read that the "ground tracking" mode on the Hughes /
Westinghouse (?) "APG" sets US Navy F-18s (among others) use tend to do
this. Apparently the F-22 (or is it the F-35?) have a "burn 'em down" mode
on their radars - they are powerful enough to fry the electronics in an
enemy plane with a single sweep, instead of shooting it down with a
missile.

I remember when Victor Belenko defected with his MiG in the 80's, USAF
engineers were amazed to find that it used valves for its radar and
electronics (valveotronics), instead of transistors. After they had
finished beating themselves on the chest with their pride in American
advancement and technology, some wise soul pointed out that the MiG would
keep flying after being through the EMP of a nuclear explosion, AND its
radar would be working - while USAF F-16s and F-15s would be falling like
leaves because their digital flight controls would be melted, and their
radars would be dead.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>> I occasionally hear a fighter jet come overhead and then hear my garage
>> door opening.
> 
> Wait - your garage door can open by itself?
> 
> Man, if we want to open ours, we have to use *muscle power*. ;-)
> 
> Top Gun, indeed.

Haha jet-operated garage doors. 


-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> *brrr* - I shiver at the thought of a mobile HDD as a backup device...
> 
> Why? If you have two copies, then crashing one doesn't affect the other.

If you use a single one? Then again, single IS NOT a backup...!
 
>> How do you feel about the statement that the fact that if a drive is
>> mobile, inherently it will never last as long as a "traditional"
>> statically mounted drive that just sites in a cradle internally in a
>> climate controlled server rack / box?
> 
> Depends. Does the building with the servers in it burn down?

I meant more in the sense that you might drop a portable drive. Sure, they
are supposed to be designed specifically to survive that, but still. The
incident I'm thinking about I referred to in my other post, a simple fumble
and the portable drive lands on a concrete floor...
 
> How long do you need it to last?

Tee hee! I'm a typical user - it must last forever and never, ever crash,
and it must cost nothing. No heck, I want the company who made it to pay me
to use it...! 

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> It always amuses me how film writers seem to think that turning an
> electronic device off makes it immune to an EMP... I thought the idea
> was that an EMP will physically fry the thing like a microwave oven
> fries CDs. :-P

I've got it that way too. No matter if you turn it off, the level of
magnetic pulse coming in from say, a megaton nuclear blast will anyway
induce such a level of current in almost any conductor in range that it
will start carrying hundreds, if not thousands of volts?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> Read a while ago that the RAF had to pay compensation to almost a hundred
>> car owners - one of their air-defense "steerable-array" radars went
>> haywire
>> and scanned over a road - they burned out almost every vehicle's ignition
>> and fuel injection microprocessors with the radar beam!
> 
> Haha LOL, although not so LOL if it was your car.

I agree! I'd cry my eyes out if my baby had her brains burned out when I was
just innocently driving past a radar station.
 
>> The point being an old, mechanical vehicle ignition system (carburettors,
>> a
>> rotor and points) would have just driven on with no problems.
> 
> I think that's quite a specialised failure mechanism :-)  I suspect the
> point with the ignition system is that for the same amount of money you
> can make a much more reliable electrical one than purely mechanical, given
> how a car will typically be used (ie not driving in front of an uber
> powerful radar).

Yeah, I agree. I'm amazed at the fuel consumption levels a modern
computer-controlled ignition system and fuel injection system can deliver.
I vividly remember vacations as a child, when we went down to the coast and
my dad had to manually adjust timing on the old Ford we had once we were at
sea level to prevent "pinging" when accelerating. And the joys of Saturday
afternoon carburettor cleaning, blowing out a jet (NEVER use a wire to
clean a jet!) etc. etc.

> BTW, I wonder if the police could have a portable version of such a radar,
> which they could use to stop cars...

I wonder... I'm guessing that the RAF radar was a bit more powerful than
you'd get a hand-held "speedcam" like unit to be.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> 
>> Now, the *properly designed* products allow you to select some other 
>> destination with no ill effects. But all those other programs? Some of 
>> them won't let you choose at all. Others will let you choose, but 
>> never the less fail if you choose somewhere different. (WTF?)
> 
> Not seen many such ailments any time recently.

I've seen quite a few programs (mostly stuff ported from Unix, oddly 
enough) which don't like spaces in pathnames.

Wanna take a guess what the customary place to install programs is? 
Yeah, it's C:\Program Files.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Ah yes, but under Windoze all programs insist on being installed on C: 
>> ;-)
> 
> Everything I have installed in programs or windows fits in 40G. And that 
> includes bunches of .NET, office, photo programs, etc etc etc.

Does that include Team Fortress 2, HalfLife 2, Counter-Strike: Source, 
Portal, Crysis, Crysis: Warhead, and Mass Effect?

Each individual game typically eats about 4GB or so...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> It always amuses me how film writers seem to think that turning an
>> electronic device off makes it immune to an EMP... I thought the idea
>> was that an EMP will physically fry the thing like a microwave oven
>> fries CDs. :-P
> 
> I've got it that way too. No matter if you turn it off, the level of
> magnetic pulse coming in from say, a megaton nuclear blast will anyway
> induce such a level of current in almost any conductor in range that it
> will start carrying hundreds, if not thousands of volts?

Interesting thing: According to Wikipedia [which is never wrong], a 
nuclear explosion only generates an EMP because of the Earth's magnetic 
field. Like, if it was in space, it wouldn't do that...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> Hmm, yes, but I've often wondered if there -really- is a difference between 
> "desktop hardware" and "server hardware" - and that maybe they are designed
> for different MTBF? I. e. a "server grade" HDD will last longer if not
> regularly turned on and off, while a "desktop grade" HDD will die quicker
> if never turned off?

 From what I've seen, server-grade HDs tend to spin faster, have bigger 
caches, and have drastically lower storage capacity. (Like, they still 
sell 36GB drives. For hundreds of pounds each.) Presumably such a drive 
is a well-tested previous generation drive with the internal storage 
redundancy cranked way, way up...

Post a reply to this message

>> This is not the same as a backup.
>>
>> RAID will protect you from physical failure of a single drive. It will
>> not protect you if you accidentally delete a file, or if some virus
>> infects your PC and deletes your stuff, or if the filesystem becomes
>> corrupted somehow, or...
> 
> It depends a lot on what you're trying to protect yourself from.

Yes, yes it does.

For the average home user, if your house burns down, you're not going to 
give a **** about the holiday photos and the copy of Nero you just lost 
- YOU HAVE NOWHERE TO LIVE!! But for a business user, losing the 
building is nothing; you can *buy* another one. But losing data = you 
will be liquidated.

> There's 
> nothing, though, that says you can't create a mirrored set, let the 
> drives mirror, and then "break the mirror" and take one drive offline.  
> I've known people who have done that and used that for disaster recovery 
> when upgrading systems.

This is a very, very dumb way to do backup. A file-level copy will be 
drastically faster. (It doesn't involve mirroring all the useless empty 
sectors.) IME, mirroring a disk typically takes something like 10 hours, 
regardless of capacity. (Lower-capacity drives are usually 
correspondingly slower too.)

Also, if you do a file-level copy, you have options such as compressing 
the data and putting multiple backups on a single backup harddisk, doing 
differential or otherwise partial backups, and so forth.

>> An often-encountered backup strategy is to copy everything onto an
>> external USB HD and then put that somewhere. I'm not sure that all this
>> turning the drive on and off won't just wear it out faster.
> 
> See my anecdotal evidence in reply to Stefan.  Two identical units, one 
> powered on and off regularly, one that was left on 24x7.  Guess which one 
> failed?  Not the one that has been turned on and off regularly for 5 
> years now.  The one that was plugged in and running for 3 years solid.

In theory, until the disks are spinning at full speed, you don't get 
that "cushion of air" for the heads to "fly" on, which should result in 
wear. Of course, no doubt manufacturers know all about this and have 
come up with ways to at least reduce the problem...

Post a reply to this message

>> Wait - your garage door can open by itself?
>>
>> Man, if we want to open ours, we have to use *muscle power*. ;-)
> 
> Hey, that's the U.S. of A. - they don't use muscle power for /anything/, 
> unless they happen to be football pros...

I thought baseball was the national game of America?

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Tim Cook schrieb:
> 
>> Like I maybe mentioned, it's an eSATA, so has a totally different 
>> connection and can't test it in desktop of housemate.
> 
> Nobody in reach with eSATA on their machine? Neighbors? Friends? Work 
> colleagues?

No chance of buying an adaptor?

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't know, man... Backing up spinning disk to... spinning disk? Is 
>> that such a sensible idea?
> 
> Why not? It's a backup. It's not like you can read a tape without 
> spinning it. What are you going to back it up to, FLASH RAM?

Tape operates at much lower speeds. And since the only people who use 
tape are people who want seriously reliable backup storage, it tends to 
be very well engineered. (And stupidly expensive...)

>> (Then again, I don't have any hard data on the reliability of HD 
>> verses tape verses CD. I've heard that spinning HD up and down wears 
>> it out faster than keeping it spinning, but I don't know if that's 
>> true...)
> 
> And by the time you actually have to worry about that, those drives will 
> be your temp drives and you'll be buying 15TB SSDs for the next computer.

Heh. Dream on. ;-)

Harddrives do die occasionally. It's quite rare, but it does happen from 
time to time. Either you accept the resulting data loss, or you take a 
backup copy.

Myself, I don't have any backup copies because I can't think of anything 
nearly big enough to backup to...

Post a reply to this message

>> Well said - guess there isn't a convenient modality for backing up 
>> 500GB of
>> data?
> 
> Yes, there is.  Buy two.  :-)  I don't know about elsewhere in the 
> world, but 2 1-TB drives would run you <$400 here.

Let me go check the exchange rate...

...yep, that's about £240, *way* more money than I can afford to spend.

(Then again, I don't have anywhere approaching 1TB of data to store.)

Post a reply to this message

>> ...yeah, shopping online tends to be cheaper. Quality is another matter,
>> of course.
> 
> Buy from reputable dealers, and quality isn't an issue.

I don't mean to imply that quality is *necessarily* an issue, just that 
it *can* be more of an issue. As you say, it depends who you buy from.

I often buy from Maplin because 1) I don't have to wait for it to be 
delivered, 2) their staff actually have a frickin clue, and 3) they 
don't argue about returns.

Then again, ebuyer.com are usually very good, so...

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah, I agree. I'm amazed at the fuel consumption levels a modern
> computer-controlled ignition system and fuel injection system can deliver.

Me too - my car has 180 BHP, yet when I drive carefully my record is 960 km 
on a single 50 litre tank!  To me that is just amazing, a car I had that was 
20 years older had only 60 BHP and could do only 400 km on a tank (probably 
a bit smaller tank as well though).

> I vividly remember vacations as a child, when we went down to the coast 
> and
> my dad had to manually adjust timing on the old Ford we had once we were 
> at
> sea level to prevent "pinging" when accelerating. And the joys of Saturday
> afternoon carburettor cleaning, blowing out a jet (NEVER use a wire to
> clean a jet!) etc. etc.

I think the biggest improvement is that today, even if you haven't used your 
car for 2 weeks and it's -15 degrees outside, you can turn the key and the 
engine will fire up perfectly within a second and then idle smoothly.  My 
dad had a car (actually he still has it) that has no choke at all, not even 
a manual one, starting that is a PITA unless you are very good friends with 
the accelerator pedal - and it won't idle at all until warmed up fully, so 
you need some tricks with your feet when in traffic to stop it stalling!

> I wonder... I'm guessing that the RAF radar was a bit more powerful than
> you'd get a hand-held "speedcam" like unit to be.

I wonder how long the "pulse" of radar would need to be - the engine could 
charge up a big capacitor to discharge in a roof mounted dish - hmm maybe 
not that sounds a bit too much James Bond :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, I agree. I'm amazed at the fuel consumption levels a modern
>> computer-controlled ignition system and fuel injection system can 
>> deliver.
> 
> Me too - my car has 180 BHP, yet when I drive carefully my record is 960 
> km on a single 50 litre tank!  To me that is just amazing, a car I had 
> that was 20 years older had only 60 BHP and could do only 400 km on a 
> tank (probably a bit smaller tank as well though).

Heh. I remember when it used to cost £30 to fill up my car, and I could 
then drive it for 400 miles before needing to fill up again.

Now it's more like £60 per tank. (But still 400 miles...)

> I think the biggest improvement is that today, even if you haven't used 
> your car for 2 weeks and it's -15 degrees outside, you can turn the key 
> and the engine will fire up perfectly within a second and then idle 
> smoothly.

My dad has had more old bangers than I've had hot dinners, but I've 
never seen problems starting the car because of the weather. (Except 
when it's actually snowing.)

Then again, in the UK the temperature never, ever, for any reason, 
approaches -15°C.

Post a reply to this message

> My dad has had more old bangers than I've had hot dinners, but I've never 
> seen problems starting the car because of the weather.

I can't believe anyone who has lots of old bangers has never needed to get 
out the WD-40 in wet conditions to start the engine.  In cold conditions the 
oil just gets thicker, if the engine is a bit "temperamental" then a very 
cold morning can make it difficult to start.

Post a reply to this message

>> My dad has had more old bangers than I've had hot dinners, but I've 
>> never seen problems starting the car because of the weather.
> 
> I can't believe anyone who has lots of old bangers has never needed to 
> get out the WD-40 in wet conditions to start the engine.  In cold 
> conditions the oil just gets thicker, if the engine is a bit 
> "temperamental" then a very cold morning can make it difficult to start.

Oh, he's had plenty of cars that *never* start properly. But I guess in 
the UK it just never gets cold enough to significantly effect things one 
way or the other...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> It always amuses me how film writers seem to think that turning an
>>> electronic device off makes it immune to an EMP... I thought the idea
>>> was that an EMP will physically fry the thing like a microwave oven
>>> fries CDs. :-P
>> 
>> I've got it that way too. No matter if you turn it off, the level of
>> magnetic pulse coming in from say, a megaton nuclear blast will anyway
>> induce such a level of current in almost any conductor in range that it
>> will start carrying hundreds, if not thousands of volts?
> 
> Interesting thing: According to Wikipedia [which is never wrong], a
> nuclear explosion only generates an EMP because of the Earth's magnetic
> field. Like, if it was in space, it wouldn't do that...

Huh? That doesn't sound right. An old strategic option the USSR apparently
had was to detonate a -real- big (50 megaton) thermonuke over the US, but
out in space / low orbit. The idea was to melt all radios and computers,
the entire US telephone network, etc. As far as I know EMP damage is caused
by the massive radio waves generated by a nuclear explosion (besides all
the "hard" gamma radiation, and other nasty stuff besides heat and light).
These induce current in conductors (i. e. they fry microchips).

Radio definitely travels in a vacuum where there is no magnetism - IMO,
magnetism CAN effect radio but just to distort or interfere with it. So I'd
think that a magnetic field will -moderate- or interfere an EMP pulse a
bit, not be the part-cause of it?

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> Yeah, I agree. I'm amazed at the fuel consumption levels a modern
>> computer-controlled ignition system and fuel injection system can
>> deliver.
 
> Me too - my car has 180 BHP, yet when I drive carefully my record is 960
> km
> on a single 50 litre tank!  To me that is just amazing, a car I had that
> was 20 years older had only 60 BHP and could do only 400 km on a tank
> (probably a bit smaller tank as well though).

Not sure what it is in BHP (oh you continentals!) but my car has a 1595cc
engine with max. output of about 71KW (kilowatts). In city driving I get
about 680km to a tank (40 liter capacity, unleaded, o' course) and on the
freeway it does about 810km on 40 liters. Guess it doesn't compare as
linearly, but the Ford I referred to in my post is a 2995cc V6 (the so
called "Essex big six" - 101.5KW at 5900 rpm) dating from 1969 with a
double-barrel Webber and mechanical ignition. It struggled to do 400 kilos
on a 65 liter tank even when it was new. Yup, he still has it.
 
> I think the biggest improvement is that today, even if you haven't used
> your car for 2 weeks and it's -15 degrees outside, you can turn the key
> and the
> engine will fire up perfectly within a second and then idle smoothly.  My
> dad had a car (actually he still has it) that has no choke at all, not
> even a manual one, starting that is a PITA unless you are very good
> friends with the accelerator pedal - and it won't idle at all until warmed
> up fully, so you need some tricks with your feet when in traffic to stop
> it stalling!

I KNOW THAT FEELING! The Ford Cortina I refer to above behaves much like
that too. Once it is running though it is quite ok, but I've also had to do
the "pedal dance" with it once or twice when I cranked it up to take some
trash away. Its got one of those "auto chokes" Ford used to have where you
depress the gas pedal all the way to the floor, firmly, then try to start.
But often its better to pop the hood and set it manually on the side of the
carb before even thinking of cranking it in cold wheather. It also likes
priming - i. e. it is much easier to start if you pump the pedal ten times
or so before trying to start, especially if it was standing for a week or
more.
 
> I wonder how long the "pulse" of radar would need to be - the engine could
> charge up a big capacitor to discharge in a roof mounted dish - hmm maybe
> not that sounds a bit too much James Bond :-)

Maybe not, that's sounds like a good idea! If you can aim and modulate it
right a one-second high intensity burst might do the job on a computerised
injection and ignition system... You'll just have to deal with the lawsuits
and damage claims if you zap somebody's car who is innocent...!

And hope the criminal isn't wise to the deal and driving a mechanically
ignited and carb'ed vintage model. Or a diesel!
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

> I've seen quite a few programs (mostly stuff ported from Unix, oddly 
> enough) which don't like spaces in pathnames.

Yeh an old CAD program we had here (ported from Unix) worked like that. 
You'd navigate using some standard Windows file open dialog box (at least 
they managed to use that) then when you chose the file it would give a "File 
not found" error!  If you didn't remember this then you'd be sat there 
thinking WTF why can't it open this file...

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> Not sure what it is in BHP (oh you continentals!)

Brake Horse-Power.

Post a reply to this message

>> Interesting thing: According to Wikipedia [which is never wrong], a
>> nuclear explosion only generates an EMP because of the Earth's magnetic
>> field. Like, if it was in space, it wouldn't do that...
> 
> Huh? That doesn't sound right. An old strategic option the USSR apparently
> had was to detonate a -real- big (50 megaton) thermonuke over the US, but
> out in space / low orbit. The idea was to melt all radios and computers,
> the entire US telephone network, etc. As far as I know EMP damage is caused
> by the massive radio waves generated by a nuclear explosion (besides all
> the "hard" gamma radiation, and other nasty stuff besides heat and light).
> These induce current in conductors (i. e. they fry microchips).
> 
> Radio definitely travels in a vacuum where there is no magnetism - IMO,
> magnetism CAN effect radio but just to distort or interfere with it. So I'd
> think that a magnetic field will -moderate- or interfere an EMP pulse a
> bit, not be the part-cause of it?

According to Wikipedia, the nuke generates gamma rays, these shred the 
Earth's atmosphere and produce current, and the Earth's magnetic field 
directs this current towards the ground. (Depending on where in the 
world you are. Apparently the USA has a field alignment which makes it a 
particularly suitable target to hit.)

All of which makes it sound like if you did this in space, you'd just 
get gamma rays...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> 
>> Not sure what it is in BHP (oh you continentals!)
> 
> Brake Horse-Power.

Yes, but I've long ago given up trying to convert to that from
joules-per-second, or from it!

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

>>> Not sure what it is in BHP (oh you continentals!)
>> Brake Horse-Power.
> 
> Yes, but I've long ago given up trying to convert to that from
> joules-per-second, or from it!

Most people refer to that as Watts, not joules per second. But anyway:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=brake+horsepower

1 BPH = roughly 0.75 kW.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> According to Wikipedia, the nuke generates gamma rays, these shred the
> Earth's atmosphere and produce current, and the Earth's magnetic field
> directs this current towards the ground. (Depending on where in the
> world you are. Apparently the USA has a field alignment which makes it a
> particularly suitable target to hit.)

Could be I suppose. Wouldn't that imply that if your PC is fried by a nuke
due to EMP, you wouldn't be far behind (since if gamma rays cause EMP, your
DNA'd be shredded too by them... right along with your electronics based
friend.)
 
Vs. where if it was the intense burst of -radio- waves that caused EMP, you
might have a chance to biologically survive (at least in the moment) when
your PC is fried by EMP from a nuke.

> All of which makes it sound like if you did this in space, you'd just
> get gamma rays...

Might be. Though I wonder if EMP is caused by interaction between oxygen /
nitrogen being bombarded with high-intensity gamma rays? Because that seems
to be what Wik implies here. Intense radio waves seems to me to make more
sense.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

>> According to Wikipedia, the nuke generates gamma rays, these shred the
>> Earth's atmosphere and produce current, and the Earth's magnetic field
>> directs this current towards the ground. (Depending on where in the
>> world you are. Apparently the USA has a field alignment which makes it a
>> particularly suitable target to hit.)
> 
> Could be I suppose. Wouldn't that imply that if your PC is fried by a nuke
> due to EMP, you wouldn't be far behind (since if gamma rays cause EMP, your
> DNA'd be shredded too by them... right along with your electronics based
> friend.)

No - because the gamma rays have all been turned into heat and 
electricity and filtered out by the Earth's atmosphere. (There's 
actually quite a lot of gamma rays out there, all the time. And cosmic 
rays, which are even higher energy. They just never reach the ground.) 
The electric current, however, is *not* stopped by the atmosphere...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> According to Wikipedia, the nuke generates gamma rays, these shred the
> >> Earth's atmosphere and produce current, and the Earth's magnetic field
> >> directs this current towards the ground. (Depending on where in the
> >> world you are. Apparently the USA has a field alignment which makes it a
> >> particularly suitable target to hit.)
> >
> > Could be I suppose. Wouldn't that imply that if your PC is fried by a nuke
> > due to EMP, you wouldn't be far behind (since if gamma rays cause EMP, your
> > DNA'd be shredded too by them... right along with your electronics based
> > friend.)
>
> No - because the gamma rays have all been turned into heat and
> electricity and filtered out by the Earth's atmosphere. (There's
> actually quite a lot of gamma rays out there, all the time. And cosmic
> rays, which are even higher energy. They just never reach the ground.)
> The electric current, however, is *not* stopped by the atmosphere...

What I found most interesting in that wikipedia article (which is an uncommonly
good one) was that this widespread EMP effect is almost zero for very low
altitude airbursts or ground detonations, and is most effective at
nearly-orbital altitudes. Which means that a pivotal scene in the movie "Broken
Arrow" is particularly impossible. :)

Post a reply to this message

>>>> According to Wikipedia, the nuke generates gamma rays, these shred the
>>>> Earth's atmosphere and produce current, and the Earth's magnetic field
>>>> directs this current towards the ground. (Depending on where in the
>>>> world you are. Apparently the USA has a field alignment which makes it a
>>>> particularly suitable target to hit.)
>>> Could be I suppose. Wouldn't that imply that if your PC is fried by a nuke
>>> due to EMP, you wouldn't be far behind (since if gamma rays cause EMP, your
>>> DNA'd be shredded too by them... right along with your electronics based
>>> friend.)
>> No - because the gamma rays have all been turned into heat and
>> electricity and filtered out by the Earth's atmosphere. (There's
>> actually quite a lot of gamma rays out there, all the time. And cosmic
>> rays, which are even higher energy. They just never reach the ground.)
>> The electric current, however, is *not* stopped by the atmosphere...
> 
> What I found most interesting in that wikipedia article (which is an uncommonly
> good one) was that this widespread EMP effect is almost zero for very low
> altitude airbursts or ground detonations, and is most effective at
> nearly-orbital altitudes. Which means that a pivotal scene in the movie "Broken
> Arrow" is particularly impossible. :)

Also, as I mentioned, millions of films seem to assume that an EMP only 
affects devices which are turned on. (E.g., War of the Worlds, only one 
working car because it wasn't turned on. WTF? Then again... War of the 
Worlds. WTF?)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

>> What I found most interesting in that wikipedia article (which is an
>> uncommonly good one) was that this widespread EMP effect is almost zero
>> for very low altitude airbursts or ground detonations, and is most
>> effective at nearly-orbital altitudes. Which means that a pivotal scene
>> in the movie "Broken Arrow" is particularly impossible. :)
> 
> Also, as I mentioned, millions of films seem to assume that an EMP only
> affects devices which are turned on. (E.g., War of the Worlds, only one
> working car because it wasn't turned on. WTF? Then again... War of the
> Worlds. WTF?)

Its movieland! Good science almost never makes for good drama.

Its like Captain Picard saying "Full stop!" on the Enterprise, and in ten
seconds they are at relative dead stop from going several hundred times
lightspeed. I wonder exactly how much energy you'd need to decelerate ten
grammes of mass, from, say, 100 * c to 0 in ten seconds - if
Einsteinian "thou shalt NOT exceed, or even closely approach, C" did not
apply. Nevermind a gigatonne starship.

I guess you'd need the full output of all a the Milky Way galaxy's stars for
a few minutes or something. Even 1701-D's anti-matter power generation
systems would be sucked dry in moments.

But it isn't good drama to have the crew become a biological soup one
molecule thick against the viewscreen each time Geordi or Wesley steps on
the footbrake, thus exposing them all to 100000000000000000000000000G of
deceleration.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> Its movieland! Good science almost never makes for good drama.
> 
> Its like Captain Picard saying "Full stop!" on the Enterprise, and in ten
> seconds they are at relative dead stop from going several hundred times
> lightspeed.

Never mind the "minor detail" of the fact that "stationary" doesn't 
exist in outer space.

Or that you don't actually need engines in order to move, only to 
accelerate or deccelerate.

Or the fact that things don't make that "swoshing" noise in space. In 
fact, they don't make *any* noise!

Or the Weighted Companion Cube will never threaten to stab you and, in 
fact, cannot speak.

> I wonder exactly how much energy you'd need to decelerate ten
> grammes of mass, from, say, 100 * c to 0 in ten seconds - if
> Einsteinian "thou shalt NOT exceed, or even closely approach, C" did not
> apply. Nevermind a gigatonne starship.

Well, the fastest starships reputedly reach Warp 10 (i.e., 10c). Never 
mind the "minor detail" that this would cause the ship to travel 
backwards in time, and have an imaginary mass. (Irony?)

> But it isn't good drama to have the crew become a biological soup one
> molecule thick against the viewscreen each time Geordi or Wesley steps on
> the footbrake, thus exposing them all to 100000000000000000000000000G of
> deceleration.

Perhaps you're forgetting the Inertial Dampers?

Even the teleporters have Hiesenburg Compensators on them...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> 
>> Its movieland! Good science almost never makes for good drama.
>> 
>> Its like Captain Picard saying "Full stop!" on the Enterprise, and in ten
>> seconds they are at relative dead stop from going several hundred times
>> lightspeed.
> 
> Never mind the "minor detail" of the fact that "stationary" doesn't
> exist in outer space.

Correct - "relative dead stop". Apparently according to The Bible (the
Enterprise Tech Manual I bought in '92) StarFleet uses the galactic center
as navref.
 
> Or that you don't actually need engines in order to move, only to
> accelerate or deccelerate.
> 
> Or the fact that things don't make that "swoshing" noise in space. In
> fact, they don't make *any* noise!

How boring would that be?! Its part of what I love about old TNG episodes,
the "thrummmm" sound of the Enterprise is orbits
yet-another-planet-with-human-looking-aliens-and-hot-alien-chicks-only-distinction-is-a-new-head-piece.

>> I wonder exactly how much energy you'd need to decelerate ten
>> grammes of mass, from, say, 100 * c to 0 in ten seconds - if
>> Einsteinian "thou shalt NOT exceed, or even closely approach, C" did not
>> apply. Nevermind a gigatonne starship.
 
> Well, the fastest starships reputedly reach Warp 10 (i.e., 10c). Never
> mind the "minor detail" that this would cause the ship to travel
> backwards in time, and have an imaginary mass. (Irony?)

... and need infinite energy to move an infinite mass that occupies all
points in the universe simultaneously. Sounds painful.
 
>> But it isn't good drama to have the crew become a biological soup one
>> molecule thick against the viewscreen each time Geordi or Wesley steps on
>> the footbrake, thus exposing them all to 100000000000000000000000000G of
>> deceleration.
> 
> Perhaps you're forgetting the Inertial Dampers?

No, I intentionally -ignored- them! :) 

As I ignored the SIF (structural integrity field) and the artificial gravity
generators, the navigational deflector, subspace radio, etc. etc. and all
the other fanciful things you apparently "need" for supralight space travel
and five year space missions. (And discovering hot alien chicks on remote
planets.)
 
> Even the teleporters have Hiesenburg Compensators on them...

:-) the thought of uncertainty with a matter dematerialisation and
transportation device gives me the willies! Or could it possibly make you
LOOSE your willy? Along with other bits?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Also, as I mentioned, millions of films seem to assume that an EMP only
> affects devices which are turned on. (E.g., War of the Worlds, only one
> working car because it wasn't turned on. WTF? Then again... War of the
> Worlds. WTF?)

Well, IIRC, it was never explicitly stated that an EMP was responsible for that.

I quite enjoyed that film actually. Very little attempt to explain anything,
which is the best way to do SF, and definitely the best way to do first-person
drama.

Post a reply to this message

>> Never mind the "minor detail" of the fact that "stationary" doesn't
>> exist in outer space.
> 
> Correct - "relative dead stop". Apparently according to The Bible (the
> Enterprise Tech Manual I bought in '92) StarFleet uses the galactic center
> as navref.

Right. So an imaginary point in space. That's great. Now all we need is 
an unambiguous way to orient a cartesian grid... oh, wait...

> Its part of what I love about old TNG episodes,
> the "thrummmm" sound of the Enterprise is orbits
>
yet-another-planet-with-human-looking-aliens-and-hot-alien-chicks-only-distinction-is-a-new-head-piece.

Yeah. Amazing how all sentient beings are humanoids who just happen to 
speak American English, eh?

>> Well, the fastest starships reputedly reach Warp 10 (i.e., 10c). Never
>> mind the "minor detail" that this would cause the ship to travel
>> backwards in time, and have an imaginary mass. (Irony?)
> 
> ... and need infinite energy to move an infinite mass that occupies all
> points in the universe simultaneously. Sounds painful.

No, an object at speed c has infinite mass. An object at 10c has a 
finite, but imaginary mass.

I have no idea what the hell kind of energy it possesses. Look up Tachyon.

>> Perhaps you're forgetting the Inertial Dampers?
> 
> No, I intentionally -ignored- them! :) 
> 
> As I ignored the SIF (structural integrity field) and the artificial gravity
> generators, the navigational deflector, subspace radio, etc. etc. and all
> the other fanciful things you apparently "need" for supralight space travel
> and five year space missions. (And discovering hot alien chicks on remote
> planets.)

In other words, everything required to make travelling through space 
EXACTLY LIKE sailing across an uncharted ocean. :-P

>> Even the teleporters have Hiesenburg Compensators on them...
> 
> :-) the thought of uncertainty with a matter dematerialisation and
> transportation device gives me the willies! Or could it possibly make you
> LOOSE your willy? Along with other bits?

Maybe it "gives you the willies" - as in, you end up with 12 of them, 
instead of just 1.

Post a reply to this message