Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forcesLinux, Windows redesign

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 23:51:15 +0100, Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 23:47, skrev Doomsdrzej:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 21:55:47 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

On 01/08/2018 02:59 PM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

Funny, Europe seems to have changed their tune on that one lately.

Well the stupid Germans shut down a lot of their non-polluting nukes,
in favour of old power stations burning lignite (the worst possible
fuel you could use). That's what happens with their stupid political
system.

The same political system that assumed that importing a million
low-IQ, rapey and murdery Muslim negroes from Africa was going to be a
great idea?


Those that thought so has left the government. This has nothing to
do with any "politcal system"...

When did Merkel leave the government? Do tell!

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 23:55, skrev Doomsdrzej:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 23:51:15 +0100, Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 23:47, skrev Doomsdrzej:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 21:55:47 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

On 01/08/2018 02:59 PM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

Funny, Europe seems to have changed their tune on that one lately.

Well the stupid Germans shut down a lot of their non-polluting nukes,
in favour of old power stations burning lignite (the worst possible
fuel you could use). That's what happens with their stupid political
system.

The same political system that assumed that importing a million
low-IQ, rapey and murdery Muslim negroes from Africa was going to be a
great idea?


Those that thought so has left the government. This has nothing to
do with any "politcal system"...

When did Merkel leave the government? Do tell!


Ah, you were talkning about Germany. OK, then don't ask me... :-)

In article
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

On 01/08/2018 1:56 PM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-08 kl. 19:10, skrev Doomsdrzej:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:11:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Doomsdrzej
wrote:


If you buy a Chrysler, you can expect a problem every 500 miles.

nonsense.

I speak as someone who actually owned a Chrysler and know just how
awful they are.


To juge a whole car brand from one single car is just as trying to
juge the Global Warming from the amount of snow on ones own backyard.



Exactly, My father in law Had a 1968 Chrysler Stn wagon, 224,000 miles
best car he ever owned.
My son had a 1988 Toyota ForeRunner 241,000 miles, 1 PS pump, warranty
Great.
He then had a 2003 Chevy Silverado 195,000 KM,nary a problem .
He also had a Dodge Magic wagon, Piece of crap
So now you can say there are millions of good ones and yes a few lemons.

Rene

On 01/08/2018 05:51 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

The Jeeps I have worked on over the years where all junk.
The Gm Silverdos trucks were all pretty good.
The Caravans where super scrap material.


My wife was a die hard Jeep owner until two in a row, brand new
purchases both lemons. One leaked like a sieve through the sun
roof not only resulting in wet feet from the soaked carpet but
playing havoc with the electronics, too. In the shop more than
a dozen times and they could not even fix the drain that was
supposed to keep the water out of the cabin. Now she is a
Honda CRV customer and on her fourth. With the exception of
the truck with the 6 cylinder engine that the Army bought back
in the early 70's they used to be great. Today, garbage.

I am on my third Silverado. Second brand new. With the exception
of the Onstar crap you get stuck with on most cars today, I am
completely satisfied and will continue to buy another every couple
of years.

Would never own any kind of a van, well, except maybe for an
antique VW.

bill

In article
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

chrisv wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Hell, I remember when gasoline engines were effectively useless at -25C....
they got a lot better..

Just using synthetic oil helps a LOT.

Yes, although even conventional oil technology has improved dramatically.
You get a narrower range of molecular weights and way better viscosity
improvers than you did even back in the nineties. So oil that does not
turn to putty in the cold. Synthetic technology makes it even better.

Add in fuel injection and you get a far more pleasant starting experience.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 21:05, skrev chrisv:
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

Think about this. That waste heat wasn't free. It's unused energy. That
means you've had to put much more potential into the gasoline engine to
get what you need. With electric, less energy is required. Of course,
the heat is nice when it's cold. Still, from an energy perspective, the
gasoline engine is rather wasteful.

Try tracing the power from the battery in the car all the way back
to it's origination. Take all the "efficiencies" into consideration.
Now tell me how wasteful the gasoline engine really is.

The problem is not efficient of the engine is as such. The problem is
that it in most cases is burning fosile fules and releasing CO2 that
was "in the loop" millions of years ago.

Yet another subject shift.

Much of our electricity comes from burning coal or natural gas, BTW.


With “our” I guess you are talking of the world at large, right? How
electricity is produced is highly depending on where you live. But, of
course, the electricity generation must also switch to renewable sources.
There is no difference in electricity generation from driving combustion
engines in that regard. It has both to minimize the use of fossil fuels.

But there are also a lot of other things that has to be done. Such us
moving the real short distances work travels to cycling, where that
works, or to community transportation. And of course a continued move
of the car fleet to smaller and less gasoline hungry models. The most
environment friendly mile is the mile that was never travelled.

On 2018-01-08 16:49:08 +0000, Doomsdrzej said:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:38:58 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

You still running that 50 year old computer with no issues? Or even 2-3 years.

I used a PowerMac G3 for nearly 20 years without major problems, until
a major fault somewhere in the IO system on the motherboard meant I was
forced to upgrade to a new Mac. Even the original hard drive was still
working ... and is still working, now in an external USB enclosure.

That's pretty impressive.

It died about March last year. I would still be using it now if it hadn't died.

It was still running Mac OS X 10.2 (released August 2002). I would
still probably have been using Mac OS 9, if it wasn't for an incomptent
ISP who wouldn't fix their servers!

What kind of server issues affected only Mac OS 9? I am sincerely
curious.

For people using a dial-up internet connection, the ISP's
authentication servers would ocassionally stop working (probably due to
a system update) meaning users couldn't log on. The original ISP fixed
the issue relatively quickly the couple of times I managed to finally
get the (non)Help Desk drones to understand the issue was at their end
and not mine.

Unfortuantely the ISP was then bought up by Vodafone New Zealand who
are utterly useless. They did fix the problem when it first showed up
again, but the next time they screwed me about for weeks saying they
would fix it, and then finally admitted they weren't going to bother.

The problem apparently only affect those still using Mac OS 9 or older
(and only via that ISP - it worked fine when I tested other ISPs via
friend's log-ins), so the only way solution was to upgrade to Mac OS X,
so I was forced to install 10.1. I later upgraded to 10.2, although I
regretted that a littel because it was more buggy than 10.1.

Vodafone New Zealand also showed their uselessness (and greediness
since they didn't decrease the fees!) by shutting down the Usenet
server, and a couple of months ago they shut down their email servers
as well.



The only other issue was web
browsers becoming less compatible, so I was about to update it to Mac
OS X 10.3 (released in October 2003).

I will also have had my current car (and only car I've owned) for 20
years this year, but it was four years old when I bought it. It also
still runs fine with only normal wear and tear problems. It's just
passed 200,000kms, so is due for it's second cambelt replacement ... at
twice the price of the first one!

Had I not ruined its paint job by trying to do the work myself, I
wouldn't have been embarrassed to drive my Volvo over its 210,000 km.
I would have had it for thirteen years.

I saw a car like mine advertised on a local eBay clone website recently
which had done over 300,000kms. The starting bid price was WAY too high
- at least four times what it was really worth. There was another one
before Christmas in even worse condition, but lower mileage, for about
the same price. The sellers were simply trying to cash-in on the
model's now-popularity with the hoon / boy racer brigade for modifying.




But I do know quite a few iMacs (both CRT and LCD models) from around
that same period that have either had multiple dead hard drives or
completely failed), possibly due to the all-in-one design and heat
issues over time.

I owned an iBook G3 back in 2002 and I can't imagine still working on
it today even though it likely would have managed to do pretty much
everything I would need for it to. Even maxed out at 640MB of RAM,
that thing was slow. Mac OS being the bloated behemoth that it is
didn't help. It ran Mac OS 9.2.2 beautifully though.

When my PowerMac G3 died, I did switch over to a iBook G4 for a couple
of months to finish off some work I was in the middle of, but that
laptop had already been having problems and quickly died under daily
use (it was a hand-me-down from another family member - the battery
never worked, one shift key was broken, the power socket kept coming
loose and needing re-soldering, etc.).

The PowerMac G3 had only 128MB RAM. I was using it pretty much every
day to do all sorts of things, including DTP with Adobe's apps. I can't
remember how much RAM the iBook G4 had - possibly just the standard
512MB.

I was also had only a dial-up internet connection with it and the
laptop, and both used with a 17" CRT display.

The forced upgrade to a new Mac Mini, with MacOS X 10.12 and all new
apps, as well as a broadband connection was a bit of a culture shock
... although my job meant I have always been helping people with their
newer Macs anyway.

Even though my exposure to Mac OS 8/9 was fairly limited, I liked the
operating system quite a bit and switched over to it for a while when
I got my iBookl G3 (600MHz). OS X was so sluggish that Mac OS 9 felt
rewarding to use but the apps for it were already disappearing at that
point and, if I remember correctly, I didn't like the way it
multitasked.

Mac OS 9 multitasked fine, but it didn't co-operatively multitask,
which meant some (badly written) applications could hog the system
resources.

I never really had any problem with the speed of the OSes running on my
PowerMac G3, and that was only 266MHz. It even ran Windoze (95? Can't
remember now) under emulation at a usable, if slow, speed. It was
unsurprisingly horribly slow at Nintendo GameCube emulation though.
:-) Yes, it could take a few minutes to generate a PDF from InDesign or
an hour or so to render a short video clip, but it was easy enough to
do something else and levave it to run.

In article , Your Name
wrote:

It was still running Mac OS X 10.2 (released August 2002). I would
still probably have been using Mac OS 9, if it wasn't for an incomptent
ISP who wouldn't fix their servers!

What kind of server issues affected only Mac OS 9? I am sincerely
curious.

For people using a dial-up internet connection, the ISP's
authentication servers would ocassionally stop working (probably due to
a system update) meaning users couldn't log on. The original ISP fixed
the issue relatively quickly the couple of times I managed to finally
get the (non)Help Desk drones to understand the issue was at their end
and not mine.

Unfortuantely the ISP was then bought up by Vodafone New Zealand who
are utterly useless. They did fix the problem when it first showed up
again, but the next time they screwed me about for weeks saying they
would fix it, and then finally admitted they weren't going to bother.

The problem apparently only affect those still using Mac OS 9 or older
(and only via that ISP - it worked fine when I tested other ISPs via
friend's log-ins), so the only way solution was to upgrade to Mac OS X,
so I was forced to install 10.1.

there is no reason why you (or anyone) would have had to upgrade to mac
os x just to connect to an isp, assuming the isp supported standard ppp
dial-up connections.

if your isp was doing something non-standard, then *they* are the
problem, not the mac.

I later upgraded to 10.2, although I
regretted that a littel because it was more buggy than 10.1.

nonsense. 10.2 was *much* better than 10.1.




Even though my exposure to Mac OS 8/9 was fairly limited, I liked the
operating system quite a bit and switched over to it for a while when
I got my iBookl G3 (600MHz). OS X was so sluggish that Mac OS 9 felt
rewarding to use but the apps for it were already disappearing at that
point and, if I remember correctly, I didn't like the way it
multitasked.

Mac OS 9 multitasked fine, but it didn't co-operatively multitask,
which meant some (badly written) applications could hog the system
resources.

wrong on that too. mac os *did* cooperatively multitask (as well as
preemptive in some cases).

badly written apps can hog any system. try a fork bomb on unix.

On Jan 8, 2018, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:11:20 -0500,
wrote:

In , Doomsdrzej
wrote:


If you buy a Chrysler, you can expect a problem every 500 miles.

nonsense.

I speak as someone who actually owned a Chrysler and know just how
awful they are.

I had a Chrysler Pacifica, it ran very well until at about 22K miles the V6
engine threw a rod, and smashed a hole in the crankcase. I had to dive
through all sorts of hoops with regard to the warranty. Eventually they gave
me an astonishing deal on a loaded Chrysler 300C with a nice V8 Hemi. The
300C gave me good service until I traded it on a Mercedes E350.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jan 8, 2018, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:56:16 +0100, Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 19:10, skrev Doomsdrzej:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:11:20 -0500,
wrote:

In , Doomsdrzej
wrote:


If you buy a Chrysler, you can expect a problem every 500 miles.

nonsense.

I speak as someone who actually owned a Chrysler and know just how
awful they are.

To juge a whole car brand from one single car is just as trying to
juge the Global Warming from the amount of snow on ones own backyard.

You're right. I should have bought another Jeep after the awful
experience with my Patriot just to make sure that they're not all bad.
What a moron I was to complement my super-reliable BMW 428i with an
Infiniti QX30 when I could have gotten a Dodge Caravan!

Seriously though, Chrysler and its subsidiaries are at the bottom of
*every* reliability list. In fact, I bought the Jeep to prove to
myself and the world that the brand WASN'T bad and that it was merely
soiled by the fact that its owners took poor care of the vehicles.
Seven years of misery and repairs later and I will never touch another
Chrysler again. I might give GM a chance one day but I doubt it.

Our family had one Chrysler product which proved to be pretty indestructible,
my father’s 1958 Desoto Firedome, which was sold in the late 1960s with
over 300,000 miles on the clock.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 01:13, skrev Wolf K:
On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy (ie, fuel)
to produce the biofuel.

If that "fule" is also bio-fule, I see no issue here. I don't expect the
amount of input fuel to be higher than the produced amount...


That cost can be stated as the proportion of the
fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many litres of some fuel does it
take to produce 100 litres of the stuff? A few years ago, Scientific
American published an article analysing this question. In terms of energy
cost/litre, gasoline was the cheapest at less than 10%. Other fuels
(diesel, jet, bunker C, etc) were 50% to 10% more expensive. Biofuel was
even more expensive. Ethanol costs more energy to produce than it contains.

In addition, as with all energy produced centrally in wholesale quantities
and dispensed locally in retail quantities, there is the energy cost of
distribution. Even electricity has a distribution cost: on average, 10% of
every kilowatt-hour produced at the generating station has to be allowed
for as line loss, transformer loss, etc.

Ultimately, all costs are energy. Dollar costs don't express energy cost
differences very well. "Carbon footprint" is better, but it's still only a
rough measure of the energy consumedÂ* by a person or other entity. So the
question is, how much of the energy we produce does any actually useful
work? Very, very little.

Consider that in a typical commute by car about 90% of the available energy
is used to move the car and its occupant. Since only about 25% to 30% of
the fuel's energy is converted into work (the rest is waste heat), that
means only about 3% of the energy in the fuel is used to move the driver.


Correct. We must remodel our way of living to a situation with far
less travel in general.


Modern technologies are extremely wasteful of energy.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Efficiency of the motors is very close to 100%.

No it's not. Don't confuse motors with heaters.

--
"The massive amount of rampant piracy in the Android Linux ecosystem
shows that Linux users are willing to steal a 99-cent app rather than
pay for it legally." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy (ie,
fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the proportion
of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many litres of some fuel
does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

On 01/08/2018 11:52 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 8, 2018, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:56:16 +0100, Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 19:10, skrev Doomsdrzej:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:11:20 -0500,
wrote:

In , Doomsdrzej
wrote:


If you buy a Chrysler, you can expect a problem every 500 miles.

nonsense.

I speak as someone who actually owned a Chrysler and know just how
awful they are.

To juge a whole car brand from one single car is just as trying to
juge the Global Warming from the amount of snow on ones own backyard.

You're right. I should have bought another Jeep after the awful
experience with my Patriot just to make sure that they're not all bad.
What a moron I was to complement my super-reliable BMW 428i with an
Infiniti QX30 when I could have gotten a Dodge Caravan!

Seriously though, Chrysler and its subsidiaries are at the bottom of
*every* reliability list. In fact, I bought the Jeep to prove to
myself and the world that the brand WASN'T bad and that it was merely
soiled by the fact that its owners took poor care of the vehicles.
Seven years of misery and repairs later and I will never touch another
Chrysler again. I might give GM a chance one day but I doubt it.

Our family had one Chrysler product which proved to be pretty indestructible,
my father’s 1958 Desoto Firedome, which was sold in the late 1960s with
over 300,000 miles on the clock.


There is a big difference between the 1958 company and today.

bill

Tim Streater wrote:

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?

It takes a lot of land, but you can think of this as being an alternate
solar power method. The sun grows the plants, the plants make the fuel.

It's not very efficient but it's very clean and it works well in warm
climates where land is cheap, such as Brazil. Brazil has pretty much
weaned themselves off of imported oil with a huge push toward bioethanol
in the 1970s. However, high sugar prices since 2010 or so have made oil
more competitive there.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."