SATA 2 & 3 hard drives

Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:

Looks bad to me.

Ed

I wonder why HDTune couldn't read out the SMART table ?
Some interaction with Data Lifeguard ? Maybe a reboot
will change things ? Or, running the tool as Administrator ?

The red boxes imply areas of the disk, with no more
spare blocks available for substitution. So yes, that's
all the bad news you need, to kick off a replacement effort.
Your HDTune surface scan shows there is trouble.

The disks I've replaced here, the surface scan was still
showing all green.

The benchmark results don't show any precipitous dips in the
transfer rate curve. But the seek dots scatter plot shows
some abnormality. (Occasionally, on a modern Windows, background
activities can start running, when HDTune is using the machine,
and that can upset the benchmark curve. I noticed that the
other day - freaked out when a drive showed low transfer
rate near the end of the disk, but it was maintenance activity
that was happening at the same time. Further checks, booting
an older version of Windows and rerunning HDTune, showed no
actual trouble.)

The thing I've noticed so far with SMART, is it correlates
better if the problems are spread over the surface of the
disk. If a problem is concentrated in just one area,
the statistics in SMART are more likely to give a passing
grade (due to the thresholding of the bad news).

The Data Lifeguard has a button to click, to "run tests".
And that might give a counterpoint to the "Pass" status
coming from SMART.

Paul

Right, it's going to be replaced then. I might try an SSD; probably a
Samsung 500GB;
http://tinyurl.com/qc4mum8

Plus a 3.5 bracket mounting kit.

What do you say to this?
1. Reduce size of C to about 300GB, delete D.
1. Full Macrium image of the whole drive.
2. Remove old HD, install SSD.
3. Restore from backup.

Regards,
Ed



1. Using Disk Management, you'll be able to shrink C: to
half the original size. Unmovable metadata prevents Disk
Management from shrinking it further. This causes no
problems for a real, third-party partition management tool.
Virtually any other tool, works better than Disk Management.

2. Full Macrium - it should only need to write out the amount
of actual data on the disk. Doing it at this point, implies
a trust that step (1) isn't going to foul up. I'm pretty
trusting that way too. Macrium can "resize" a partition
during restoration, but will only do so, if the "fat" partition
needing resizing, is the "rightmost" partition. If your fat
partition is in the center of the disk, Macrium won't know
what to do. Since you're resizing as step (1), this possibility
won't raise its head, because the image will already be small
enough to fit the new SSD. So there is a tiny difference,
between doing Macrium before step (1), versus after step (1).

3. The partitions already have 1MB alignment, so restoring
to the SSD should not cause a problem for Windows 7. If
somehow, you'd used legacy partitioning (WinXP machine upgraded
to Windows 7 somehow, without cleaning the disk), then the
restoration may need to be re-aligned. The SSD works best, with
the natural 1MB alignment the Windows 7 installer likes to do.
On a legacy alignment, the LBAs are divisible by 63. Whereas
modern alignment, the LBAs have more "power_of_two" type numbers.
The idea is, to have clusters in the file system, align with
flash pages on the SSD drive. A hard drive would be less interested
in this kind of alignment, but Windows 7 installed from scratch,
would still use the 1MB alignment.

HTH,
Paul

Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:

Looks bad to me.

Ed

I wonder why HDTune couldn't read out the SMART table ?
Some interaction with Data Lifeguard ? Maybe a reboot
will change things ? Or, running the tool as Administrator ?

The red boxes imply areas of the disk, with no more
spare blocks available for substitution. So yes, that's
all the bad news you need, to kick off a replacement effort.
Your HDTune surface scan shows there is trouble.

The disks I've replaced here, the surface scan was still
showing all green.

The benchmark results don't show any precipitous dips in the
transfer rate curve. But the seek dots scatter plot shows
some abnormality. (Occasionally, on a modern Windows, background
activities can start running, when HDTune is using the machine,
and that can upset the benchmark curve. I noticed that the
other day - freaked out when a drive showed low transfer
rate near the end of the disk, but it was maintenance activity
that was happening at the same time. Further checks, booting
an older version of Windows and rerunning HDTune, showed no
actual trouble.)

The thing I've noticed so far with SMART, is it correlates
better if the problems are spread over the surface of the
disk. If a problem is concentrated in just one area,
the statistics in SMART are more likely to give a passing
grade (due to the thresholding of the bad news).

The Data Lifeguard has a button to click, to "run tests".
And that might give a counterpoint to the "Pass" status
coming from SMART.

Paul

Right, it's going to be replaced then. I might try an SSD; probably a
Samsung 500GB;
http://tinyurl.com/qc4mum8

Plus a 3.5 bracket mounting kit.

What do you say to this?
1. Reduce size of C to about 300GB, delete D.
1. Full Macrium image of the whole drive.
2. Remove old HD, install SSD.
3. Restore from backup.

Regards,
Ed



1. Using Disk Management, you'll be able to shrink C: to
half the original size. Unmovable metadata prevents Disk
Management from shrinking it further. This causes no
problems for a real, third-party partition management tool.
Virtually any other tool, works better than Disk Management.

2. Full Macrium - it should only need to write out the amount
of actual data on the disk. Doing it at this point, implies
a trust that step (1) isn't going to foul up. I'm pretty
trusting that way too. Macrium can "resize" a partition
during restoration, but will only do so, if the "fat" partition
needing resizing, is the "rightmost" partition. If your fat
partition is in the center of the disk, Macrium won't know
what to do. Since you're resizing as step (1), this possibility
won't raise its head, because the image will already be small
enough to fit the new SSD. So there is a tiny difference,
between doing Macrium before step (1), versus after step (1).

3. The partitions already have 1MB alignment, so restoring
to the SSD should not cause a problem for Windows 7. If
somehow, you'd used legacy partitioning (WinXP machine upgraded
to Windows 7 somehow, without cleaning the disk), then the
restoration may need to be re-aligned. The SSD works best, with
the natural 1MB alignment the Windows 7 installer likes to do.
On a legacy alignment, the LBAs are divisible by 63. Whereas
modern alignment, the LBAs have more "power_of_two" type numbers.
The idea is, to have clusters in the file system, align with
flash pages on the SSD drive. A hard drive would be less interested
in this kind of alignment, but Windows 7 installed from scratch,
would still use the 1MB alignment.

HTH,
Paul


Thanks Paul.
I'm afraid I've switched back into little rich kid mode. I've ordered a
new 2TB HD, the Samsung SAD and a 3.5" housing bracket.
I'll simply replace the HD first; and then later try the SSD.

Better weather's arrived here in the UK. I prefer being outside.
How's the Arctic scene at your place?

Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:

Looks bad to me.

Ed

I wonder why HDTune couldn't read out the SMART table ?
Some interaction with Data Lifeguard ? Maybe a reboot
will change things ? Or, running the tool as Administrator ?

The red boxes imply areas of the disk, with no more
spare blocks available for substitution. So yes, that's
all the bad news you need, to kick off a replacement effort.
Your HDTune surface scan shows there is trouble.

The disks I've replaced here, the surface scan was still
showing all green.

The benchmark results don't show any precipitous dips in the
transfer rate curve. But the seek dots scatter plot shows
some abnormality. (Occasionally, on a modern Windows, background
activities can start running, when HDTune is using the machine,
and that can upset the benchmark curve. I noticed that the
other day - freaked out when a drive showed low transfer
rate near the end of the disk, but it was maintenance activity
that was happening at the same time. Further checks, booting
an older version of Windows and rerunning HDTune, showed no
actual trouble.)

The thing I've noticed so far with SMART, is it correlates
better if the problems are spread over the surface of the
disk. If a problem is concentrated in just one area,
the statistics in SMART are more likely to give a passing
grade (due to the thresholding of the bad news).

The Data Lifeguard has a button to click, to "run tests".
And that might give a counterpoint to the "Pass" status
coming from SMART.

Paul

Right, it's going to be replaced then. I might try an SSD; probably a
Samsung 500GB;
http://tinyurl.com/qc4mum8

Plus a 3.5 bracket mounting kit.

What do you say to this?
1. Reduce size of C to about 300GB, delete D.
1. Full Macrium image of the whole drive.
2. Remove old HD, install SSD.
3. Restore from backup.

Regards,
Ed



1. Using Disk Management, you'll be able to shrink C: to
half the original size. Unmovable metadata prevents Disk
Management from shrinking it further. This causes no
problems for a real, third-party partition management tool.
Virtually any other tool, works better than Disk Management.

2. Full Macrium - it should only need to write out the amount
of actual data on the disk. Doing it at this point, implies
a trust that step (1) isn't going to foul up. I'm pretty
trusting that way too. Macrium can "resize" a partition
during restoration, but will only do so, if the "fat" partition
needing resizing, is the "rightmost" partition. If your fat
partition is in the center of the disk, Macrium won't know
what to do. Since you're resizing as step (1), this possibility
won't raise its head, because the image will already be small
enough to fit the new SSD. So there is a tiny difference,
between doing Macrium before step (1), versus after step (1).

3. The partitions already have 1MB alignment, so restoring
to the SSD should not cause a problem for Windows 7. If
somehow, you'd used legacy partitioning (WinXP machine upgraded
to Windows 7 somehow, without cleaning the disk), then the
restoration may need to be re-aligned. The SSD works best, with
the natural 1MB alignment the Windows 7 installer likes to do.
On a legacy alignment, the LBAs are divisible by 63. Whereas
modern alignment, the LBAs have more "power_of_two" type numbers.
The idea is, to have clusters in the file system, align with
flash pages on the SSD drive. A hard drive would be less interested
in this kind of alignment, but Windows 7 installed from scratch,
would still use the 1MB alignment.

HTH,
Paul


Thanks Paul.
I'm afraid I've switched back into little rich kid mode. I've ordered a
new 2TB HD, the Samsung SAD and a 3.5" housing bracket.
I'll simply replace the HD first; and then later try the SSD.

Better weather's arrived here in the UK. I prefer being outside.
How's the Arctic scene at your place?

Ed

Last night's low was -7C. The weather for the next week is
above zero the whole time, so I guess that means it's
spring or something :-)

Our spring here can be rather sudden, with single digit
temperatures one day, and 25C the next. I don't know if
that's going to happen this year though. I think the promise
is, we'll be getting broiled later this summer. That'll
give the air conditioner a good workout (it only works
well when it's broiling, as it has a bit too much
capacity).

Paul

Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:

Looks bad to me.

Ed

I wonder why HDTune couldn't read out the SMART table ?
Some interaction with Data Lifeguard ? Maybe a reboot
will change things ? Or, running the tool as Administrator ?

The red boxes imply areas of the disk, with no more
spare blocks available for substitution. So yes, that's
all the bad news you need, to kick off a replacement effort.
Your HDTune surface scan shows there is trouble.

The disks I've replaced here, the surface scan was still
showing all green.

The benchmark results don't show any precipitous dips in the
transfer rate curve. But the seek dots scatter plot shows
some abnormality. (Occasionally, on a modern Windows, background
activities can start running, when HDTune is using the machine,
and that can upset the benchmark curve. I noticed that the
other day - freaked out when a drive showed low transfer
rate near the end of the disk, but it was maintenance activity
that was happening at the same time. Further checks, booting
an older version of Windows and rerunning HDTune, showed no
actual trouble.)

The thing I've noticed so far with SMART, is it correlates
better if the problems are spread over the surface of the
disk. If a problem is concentrated in just one area,
the statistics in SMART are more likely to give a passing
grade (due to the thresholding of the bad news).

The Data Lifeguard has a button to click, to "run tests".
And that might give a counterpoint to the "Pass" status
coming from SMART.

Paul

Right, it's going to be replaced then. I might try an SSD; probably a
Samsung 500GB;
http://tinyurl.com/qc4mum8

Plus a 3.5 bracket mounting kit.

What do you say to this?
1. Reduce size of C to about 300GB, delete D.
1. Full Macrium image of the whole drive.
2. Remove old HD, install SSD.
3. Restore from backup.

Regards,
Ed



1. Using Disk Management, you'll be able to shrink C: to
half the original size. Unmovable metadata prevents Disk
Management from shrinking it further. This causes no
problems for a real, third-party partition management tool.
Virtually any other tool, works better than Disk Management.

2. Full Macrium - it should only need to write out the amount
of actual data on the disk. Doing it at this point, implies
a trust that step (1) isn't going to foul up. I'm pretty
trusting that way too. Macrium can "resize" a partition
during restoration, but will only do so, if the "fat" partition
needing resizing, is the "rightmost" partition. If your fat
partition is in the center of the disk, Macrium won't know
what to do. Since you're resizing as step (1), this possibility
won't raise its head, because the image will already be small
enough to fit the new SSD. So there is a tiny difference,
between doing Macrium before step (1), versus after step (1).

3. The partitions already have 1MB alignment, so restoring
to the SSD should not cause a problem for Windows 7. If
somehow, you'd used legacy partitioning (WinXP machine upgraded
to Windows 7 somehow, without cleaning the disk), then the
restoration may need to be re-aligned. The SSD works best, with
the natural 1MB alignment the Windows 7 installer likes to do.
On a legacy alignment, the LBAs are divisible by 63. Whereas
modern alignment, the LBAs have more "power_of_two" type numbers.
The idea is, to have clusters in the file system, align with
flash pages on the SSD drive. A hard drive would be less interested
in this kind of alignment, but Windows 7 installed from scratch,
would still use the 1MB alignment.

HTH,
Paul


Thanks Paul.
I'm afraid I've switched back into little rich kid mode. I've ordered
a new 2TB HD, the Samsung SAD and a 3.5" housing bracket.
I'll simply replace the HD first; and then later try the SSD.

Better weather's arrived here in the UK. I prefer being outside.
How's the Arctic scene at your place?

Ed

Last night's low was -7C. The weather for the next week is
above zero the whole time, so I guess that means it's
spring or something :-)

Our spring here can be rather sudden, with single digit
temperatures one day, and 25C the next. I don't know if
that's going to happen this year though. I think the promise
is, we'll be getting broiled later this summer. That'll
give the air conditioner a good workout (it only works
well when it's broiling, as it has a bit too much
capacity).

Paul

WE're in full-bloom spring; crocuses, daffodils, etc - the "patchwork
quilt of Britain in spring" as a mate of mine in Venezuela once called it.
We've had a very mild winter, but a lousy one where the jet stream got
stuck for months and wafted in damaging storms one after the other.

We have to put up with "global warming, no global warming" debates where
"experts" display how inexpert a science meteorology just is.
:-)

Chaos theory was started by Edward Norton Lorenz after running weather
prediction models on a computer. He found that just one teeny-weeny
change in the initial conditions created immense differences in the
outcome; the butterfly effect.

Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:

Looks bad to me.

Ed

I wonder why HDTune couldn't read out the SMART table ?
Some interaction with Data Lifeguard ? Maybe a reboot
will change things ? Or, running the tool as Administrator ?

The red boxes imply areas of the disk, with no more
spare blocks available for substitution. So yes, that's
all the bad news you need, to kick off a replacement effort.
Your HDTune surface scan shows there is trouble.

The disks I've replaced here, the surface scan was still
showing all green.

The benchmark results don't show any precipitous dips in the
transfer rate curve. But the seek dots scatter plot shows
some abnormality. (Occasionally, on a modern Windows, background
activities can start running, when HDTune is using the machine,
and that can upset the benchmark curve. I noticed that the
other day - freaked out when a drive showed low transfer
rate near the end of the disk, but it was maintenance activity
that was happening at the same time. Further checks, booting
an older version of Windows and rerunning HDTune, showed no
actual trouble.)

The thing I've noticed so far with SMART, is it correlates
better if the problems are spread over the surface of the
disk. If a problem is concentrated in just one area,
the statistics in SMART are more likely to give a passing
grade (due to the thresholding of the bad news).

The Data Lifeguard has a button to click, to "run tests".
And that might give a counterpoint to the "Pass" status
coming from SMART.

Paul

Right, it's going to be replaced then. I might try an SSD; probably a
Samsung 500GB;
http://tinyurl.com/qc4mum8

Plus a 3.5 bracket mounting kit.

What do you say to this?
1. Reduce size of C to about 300GB, delete D.
1. Full Macrium image of the whole drive.
2. Remove old HD, install SSD.
3. Restore from backup.

Regards,
Ed



1. Using Disk Management, you'll be able to shrink C: to
half the original size. Unmovable metadata prevents Disk
Management from shrinking it further. This causes no
problems for a real, third-party partition management tool.
Virtually any other tool, works better than Disk Management.

2. Full Macrium - it should only need to write out the amount
of actual data on the disk. Doing it at this point, implies
a trust that step (1) isn't going to foul up. I'm pretty
trusting that way too. Macrium can "resize" a partition
during restoration, but will only do so, if the "fat" partition
needing resizing, is the "rightmost" partition. If your fat
partition is in the center of the disk, Macrium won't know
what to do. Since you're resizing as step (1), this possibility
won't raise its head, because the image will already be small
enough to fit the new SSD. So there is a tiny difference,
between doing Macrium before step (1), versus after step (1).

3. The partitions already have 1MB alignment, so restoring
to the SSD should not cause a problem for Windows 7. If
somehow, you'd used legacy partitioning (WinXP machine upgraded
to Windows 7 somehow, without cleaning the disk), then the
restoration may need to be re-aligned. The SSD works best, with
the natural 1MB alignment the Windows 7 installer likes to do.
On a legacy alignment, the LBAs are divisible by 63. Whereas
modern alignment, the LBAs have more "power_of_two" type numbers.
The idea is, to have clusters in the file system, align with
flash pages on the SSD drive. A hard drive would be less interested
in this kind of alignment, but Windows 7 installed from scratch,
would still use the 1MB alignment.

HTH,
Paul


Thanks Paul.
I'm afraid I've switched back into little rich kid mode. I've ordered
a new 2TB HD, the Samsung SAD and a 3.5" housing bracket.
I'll simply replace the HD first; and then later try the SSD.

Better weather's arrived here in the UK. I prefer being outside.
How's the Arctic scene at your place?

Ed

Last night's low was -7C. The weather for the next week is
above zero the whole time, so I guess that means it's
spring or something :-)

Our spring here can be rather sudden, with single digit
temperatures one day, and 25C the next. I don't know if
that's going to happen this year though. I think the promise
is, we'll be getting broiled later this summer. That'll
give the air conditioner a good workout (it only works
well when it's broiling, as it has a bit too much
capacity).

Paul

WE're in full-bloom spring; crocuses, daffodils, etc - the "patchwork
quilt of Britain in spring" as a mate of mine in Venezuela once called it.
We've had a very mild winter, but a lousy one where the jet stream got
stuck for months and wafted in damaging storms one after the other.

We have to put up with "global warming, no global warming" debates where
"experts" display how inexpert a science meteorology just is.
:-)

Chaos theory was started by Edward Norton Lorenz after running weather
prediction models on a computer. He found that just one teeny-weeny
change in the initial conditions created immense differences in the
outcome; the butterfly effect.

Ed


Our government seems to subscribe to weather simulators,
so we do have predictions to work with. Now, if only
we could convince the people doing the "weather page"
for our government, to do a good job. For example,
they'll tell you rain is coming, and then not tell
you how many millimeters to expect. Whether it's
a 3" deluge or a sprinkling. When I need to pump out
my back yard, this is important data to have.

There used to be a site in the States I could use,
with a Honeywell 9 day simulation presented on
the web page. And you could see the accuracy tail
off after about the fourth day or so. The more
weather inputs they have (finer 3D grid mesh for
initial conditions), the better the forecast
gets. The simulations used to take the whole
day to run, but I don't know if that's still
true or not. I don't know how big a machine
they were using to run them. The chaos is manageable
with enough input data. And good models.

Paul

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:21:00 -0400, Paul wrote:

Our government seems to subscribe to weather simulators,
so we do have predictions to work with. Now, if only
we could convince the people doing the "weather page"
for our government, to do a good job. For example,
they'll tell you rain is coming, and then not tell
you how many millimeters to expect. Whether it's
a 3" deluge or a sprinkling. When I need to pump out
my back yard, this is important data to have.

Try this one: http://www.yr.no/place/Canada/Ontario/Ottawa/
Ir's norwegian, but can show forecasts for places all over the globe.
Works well for Scandinavia; I have no idea how it reliable it is for
other contries.
--
Jesper Kaas -

Jesper Kaas wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:21:00 -0400, Paul wrote:

Our government seems to subscribe to weather simulators,
so we do have predictions to work with. Now, if only
we could convince the people doing the "weather page"
for our government, to do a good job. For example,
they'll tell you rain is coming, and then not tell
you how many millimeters to expect. Whether it's
a 3" deluge or a sprinkling. When I need to pump out
my back yard, this is important data to have.

Try this one: http://www.yr.no/place/Canada/Ontario/Ottawa/
Ir's norwegian, but can show forecasts for places all over the globe.
Works well for Scandinavia; I have no idea how it reliable it is for
other contries.


Interesting :-)

Temperature correlates fairly well.

We have an hourly forecast available as well. But your
web page lists amount of precipitation, whereas ours typically
doesn't. So this will be of some benefit to me.

Thanks!

My pumping gear is mostly put away (unless mother nature
decides otherwise). A number of years ago, I woke up on a
Saturday morning, with water lapping against my basement
window. Now, I'm a lot more careful. I had to rent 150 feet
of 2 inch hose and a sturdy pump, to clear up that mess.
Now I remove the water, before it gets nearly that bad.
A neighbor made alterations to their property (put in a
swimming pool), which now prevents proper drainage of some
back yards. Once the ground thaws out (almost completed
at this point in time), the problem is gone until the
next spring. That's why I call this "pumping season".

Paul

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:26:46 -0400, Paul wrote:


We have an hourly forecast available as well. But your
web page lists amount of precipitation, whereas ours typically
doesn't. So this will be of some benefit to me.

Yes, I see now that yr.no only gives hourly forecasts for europe. For
the rest of the world i t is 3 hurs interval, even if you select
hourly in the left side.
--
Jesper Kaas -

Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-18 8:43 AM, Jesper Kaas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:26:46 -0400, Paul wrote:


We have an hourly forecast available as well. But your
web page lists amount of precipitation, whereas ours typically
doesn't. So this will be of some benefit to me.

Yes, I see now that yr.no only gives hourly forecasts for europe. For
the rest of the world i t is 3 hurs interval, even if you select
hourly in the left side.

That's still pretty good.

I use cbc.ca/weather for local conditions. The weather forecasts on the
morning radio include expected precipitation range (Northern Ontario is
pretty large area), but it's more than good enough for us.

And I have an automatic sump pump, which runs quite a bit at this time
of year.


How does it compare with the BBC forecast?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/6094817

I wonder how far met. offices share data across the globe.

Ed



Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-04-18 8:43 AM, Jesper Kaas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:26:46 -0400, Paul wrote:


We have an hourly forecast available as well. But your
web page lists amount of precipitation, whereas ours typically
doesn't. So this will be of some benefit to me.

Yes, I see now that yr.no only gives hourly forecasts for europe. For
the rest of the world i t is 3 hurs interval, even if you select
hourly in the left side.

That's still pretty good.

I use cbc.ca/weather for local conditions. The weather forecasts on the
morning radio include expected precipitation range (Northern Ontario is
pretty large area), but it's more than good enough for us.

And I have an automatic sump pump, which runs quite a bit at this time
of year.


How does it compare with the BBC forecast?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/6094817

I wonder how far met. offices share data across the globe.

Ed

Your temperature forecasts, don't exactly match the ones
shown on my (local) page. So they must all be doing
their own forecasts somehow (not just copying the web
site contents or numbers).

It's also possible for a forecast to be done for a "different spot"
in town. Our forecasts are relative to the airport. And the airport
is 1 degree C warmer than my place. So when I read the local forecast
off that web page of mine, I have to remember that "water freezes at 1C".
As the airport is warmer than my locale. For some people in the outlying areas,
their temps can be 5C lower (hilly area, valleys).

Considering the accuracy of all this fine stuff, your forecast
is every bit as good as the one I'm shown :-)

Paul

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:29:34 -0400, Paul wrote:

I have to remember that "water freezes at 1C".

Obviously you need a water softener.

OK, I *could* have resisted, but really, I have no shame :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)