If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
Mark Twain wrote:
Yes Mark Twain died a century ago but Why does it seem weird? It's just a username. I could of put anything and just decided to use that. Robert The idea of using someone else's name just seemed weird to me. I guess I'm not used to it. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
On 11/30/2018 8:12 PM, Mark Twain wrote:
I meant (rivets) not(2) of course.. Maybe I can get a set of anti-static brushes that can get in-between the fan blades to clean/loosen the dust and then vacuum? I don't think they thought much about maintenance when they build computers. . Just use a vacuum cleaner briefly, but block the fan blade with something so it cannot turn first, otherwise, you could overspeed it and fry the bearings. The vacuum alone should get out most of the dust. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
On 12/1/2018 6:12 AM, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Paul writes: [] Where the fan blows down onto the heatsink, the dust will be near the top of the heatsink. A [] What proportion of such fans blow onto the heatsink, as opposed to sucking off the heatsink - about 50-50, or is one type much commoner than the other? I know "clean box" cabinets tend to operate under positive pressure, which is counter-intuitive (though does make sense when you think it through), but there the concentration is on air filtration, rather than cooling. JPG Most of these will blow the air downwards, which can help cool the Vcore regulator or any other VRM-like portions near the CPU. Drawing air upwards has been tried, but doesn't work quite as well. The design the OP has, has no plenum to speak of, and a "suction" design would need a plenum to maintain pressure. ******* Dust in computer cases, is a function of positive or negative pressure. And fan location makes a difference, in terms of "stirring" the dust until the air vents out the back. With some fan installations "dumping" more of the dust load into the PC, than others. Some PCs have dust filters on the front. All that this does, is guarantee a cleaning job every three months. And you have to position the PC, so you can pull the washable filter out of the computer case (at the bottom front). Without the dust filter, the same PC can run for a year or two, without a cleaning. Â*Â* Paul I have "positive ventilation" on my desktop. I have a 5" fan at the back of 3 unused drive bays. The fan has a manual controller on it to moderate the noise and air flow, and it draws air into the computer through the drive bays. In the front of the fan, I have 4 1/4" layers of soft foam packing material which air easily goes through. The foam is hot glued together on alternate front or back edges to form a W shaped filter element. Every couple months I remove the filter and vacuum it off, then replace it. This is very effective at limiting the dust that gets to the heatsink or elsewhere inside the computer, so I only need to open it up for cleaning every couple years. I used packing tape to block up "leaks" through holes in the drive bay sides. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
On 12/2/2018 6:46 AM, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Mr Pounder Esquire writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Mr Pounder Esquire writes: [] Oh, I've always earthed myself to a radiator before I take the desktop into the garage. Good idea, but voltage is relative - it's more important that you touch (an exposed metal part of) the chassis before touching anything inside - in theory, it probably doesn't matter if you're at 1 kV, if the chassis is also at 1 kV. (Well, I exaggerate for effect, but YKWIM.) If the chassis and you are both grounded, even better. Often achievable by leaving the mains lead (US: line cord) plugged in, assuming it's a 3-pin plug. I need to take it into the garage and take the panels off before I can touch the chassis. Then I have to find an earth. That might be one case where, indeed, you and the chassis are at the same potential (thus you're unlikely to cause damage by a discharge), even if that potential isn't earth potential. (Although I'm surprised you don't have a handy earth in your garage - don't you have power there, e. g. for a battery-charger? If so, I'd _hope_ it has earth terminals!) Plenty of power sockets in there. Are you suggesting that I remove the cover off one of them, find the earth and hold it? JPG Ever been frustrated that you can't *disagree* with a petition? If so, visit 255soft.uk - and please pass it on, too. Just touch the screw that holds the cover on if it is a grounded outlet. Or, if the computer has a grounding plug on its cord, just plug it in, then touch the computer chassis. Then unplug it. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
In message , Bill in Co
writes: Mark Twain wrote: Yes Mark Twain died a century ago but Why does it seem weird? It's just a username. I could of put anything and just decided to use that. Though I suspect the real Mark Twain would never have written "could of" (-: Robert The idea of using someone else's name just seemed weird to me. I guess I'm not used to it. It's not uncommon. It's not an attempt to personate: in this case I suspect most people know the real MT is long dead. Robert's choice could well be seen as a respectful homage. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of one. (George Mikes in "How to be an Alien".) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: Mark Twain wrote: Yes Mark Twain died a century ago but Why does it seem weird? It's just a username. I could of put anything and just decided to use that. Though I suspect the real Mark Twain would never have written "could of" (-: Robert The idea of using someone else's name just seemed weird to me. I guess I'm not used to it. It's not uncommon. It's not an attempt to personate: in this case I suspect most people know the real MT is long dead. Robert's choice could well be seen as a respectful homage. So I could sign myself as Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein or Ernest Hemingway? Ummm, I don't think so, and respectfully disagree. :-) It is impersonating, by definition, since you're taking someone else's name, and using it as if it were your own. And whether or not the actual real person is dead or alive isn't germane to this - you're still using their name, as if it were your own. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
Bill,
It is impersonating, by definition, since you're taking someone else's name, Lolz. There are *lots* of people name "bill". Why did you take mr. Gates, Clintons, Murrays, Christals and Joels christian name (to name just a few famous people) ? Also, "Mark Twain" is 1) a pseudonym 2) something he took from a water-dept measurement statement on the mississippi boats he worked on. Yes, thats right, it was not his to begin with. And no, its not. Only when you try to make others believe that you *are* that other person its impersonation. Which does not even have to include using someones name. Lots of people share their christian *and* family name with other people, most of which are not even known to them. I hope you're not going to claim that means all of them are impersonating each other. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
R.Wieser wrote:
Bill, It is impersonating, by definition, since you're taking someone else's name, Lolz. There are *lots* of people name "bill". Why did you take mr. Gates, Clintons, Murrays, Christals and Joels christian name (to name just a few famous people) ? Also, "Mark Twain" is 1) a pseudonym 2) something he took from a water-dept measurement statement on the mississippi boats he worked on. Yes, thats right, it was not his to begin with. And no, its not. Only when you try to make others believe that you *are* that other person its impersonation. Which does not even have to include using someones name. Lots of people share their christian *and* family name with other people, most of which are not even known to them. I hope you're not going to claim that means all of them are impersonating each other. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser Well Rudy, I still don't get it. It sure seems to me if I sign as Ernest Hemingway, it's implying I think I'm Ernest Hemingway and sending that message out. But maybe nowadays none of this stuff matters. Signing as Bill or Joe or Sue is completely different. Because we are those people. I guess I'm too old fashioned. And that wouldn't surprise me in this day and age. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
Bill,
Well Rudy, I still don't get it. It sure seems to me if I sign as Ernest Hemingway, it's implying I think I'm Ernest Hemingway. I'm afraid that that "implies that" is your own projection of what you think other people think. I for one never assumed our Mark Twain here was Samuel Langhorne Clemens. For starters, the former one lives, and the latter one died over a century ago. But as I already mentioned, you are inconsistent: You have a problem with someone sharing the Mark Twain name, but at the same time you do not seem to have any with all those Bills, Joes and Sues doing the same. Somehow you think that that is different, and I on my part do not understand that I'm afraid. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
R.Wieser wrote:
Bill, Well Rudy, I still don't get it. It sure seems to me if I sign as Ernest Hemingway, it's implying I think I'm Ernest Hemingway. I'm afraid that that "implies that" is your own projection of what you think other people think. I for one never assumed our Mark Twain here was Samuel Langhorne Clemens. For starters, the former one lives, and the latter one died over a century ago. But as I already mentioned, you are inconsistent: You have a problem with someone sharing the Mark Twain name, but at the same time you do not seem to have any with all those Bills, Joes and Sues doing the same. Somehow you think that that is different, and I on my part do not understand that I'm afraid. Regards, Rudy Wieser We have lots of Bills, Joes, and Sues. We only have one Ernest Hemingway (AFAIK). I don't see the inconsistency. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
Bill,
We have lots of Bills, Joes, and Sues. We only have one Ernest Hemingway (AFAIK). I don't see the inconsistency. And all those Bills, Joes and Sues all started with just a single other person having the same name. Would that have been a problem then too ? Would something change for you if there already where five Mark Twains and/or Ernest Hemingways when you became aware of the re-use of that name ? It seems to be that way for you for those Bills, Joes and Sues. Which absolutily makes no sense to me. You inconsistency is an arbitrary count. In assuming that sharing the same name means impersonation. In having problems with re-use even if "Mark Twain" and Ernest Hemmingway are both long dead. And by the way, you took a bad example as Hemmingway is an actual family name (which Twain is not), possibly shared with hundreds, if not thousands other people. But, I'm going to end our conversation here. You see, I do not see or have a problem with names being re-used, regardless of if they where once worn by famous people or not. You do (but do not seem to have a good idea why). As such we will never see eye-to-eye I'm afraid. So, goodbye Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
R.Wieser wrote:
Bill, We have lots of Bills, Joes, and Sues. We only have one Ernest Hemingway (AFAIK). I don't see the inconsistency. And all those Bills, Joes and Sues all started with just a single other person having the same name. Would that have been a problem then too ? Would something change for you if there already where five Mark Twains and/or Ernest Hemingways when you became aware of the re-use of that name ? It seems to be that way for you for those Bills, Joes and Sues. Which absolutily makes no sense to me. You inconsistency is an arbitrary count. In assuming that sharing the same name means impersonation. In having problems with re-use even if "Mark Twain" and Ernest Hemmingway are both long dead. And by the way, you took a bad example as Hemmingway is an actual family name (which Twain is not), possibly shared with hundreds, if not thousands other people. But, I'm going to end our conversation here. You see, I do not see or have a problem with names being re-used, regardless of if they where once worn by famous people or not. You do (but do not seem to have a good idea why). As such we will never see eye-to-eye I'm afraid. So, goodbye Regards, Rudy Wieser OK. I think on this one, I am reminded of the refrain, "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet". :-) Which seems ironically applicable here. I will conclude by just saying that I don't feel you honor the source by using their name, but instead, are just honoring yourself, unless, of course, it really is your name. But that's just the way I see it. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
In message , Bill in Co
writes: [] OK. I think on this one, I am reminded of the refrain, "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet". :-) Which seems ironically applicable here. I will conclude by just saying that I don't feel you honor the source by using their name, but instead, are just honoring yourself, unless, of course, it really is your name. But that's just the way I see it. I think I'll agree to disagree too, and thus cease argument (which has been conducted with politeness, which makes a nice change), though I incline more to Rudy's view more than yours. But I just thought, as a parting shot, I'd try https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl, a resource I use a lot for UK genealogy, and I can tell you that, between 1837 (actually first 1853, but the records go from 1837) and 1964 (FreeBMD's records actually go up to 199x), there were at least 65 Ernest Hemingway births registered in the UK; I imagine several are till alive. (No Mark Twains though.) J - -- Are petitions unfair? See 255soft.uk (YOUR VOTE COUNTS)! [Pass it on.] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have the courage to be ordinary - people make themselves so desperately unhappy trying to be clever and totally original. (Robbie Coltrane, RT 8-14 Nov. 1997.) |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: [] OK. I think on this one, I am reminded of the refrain, "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet". :-) Which seems ironically applicable here. I will conclude by just saying that I don't feel you honor the source by using their name, but instead, are just honoring yourself, unless, of course, it really is your name. But that's just the way I see it. I think I'll agree to disagree too, and thus cease argument (which has been conducted with politeness, which makes a nice change), though I incline more to Rudy's view more than yours. But I just thought, as a parting shot, I'd try https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl, a resource I use a lot for UK genealogy, and I can tell you that, between 1837 (actually first 1853, but the records go from 1837) and 1964 (FreeBMD's records actually go up to 199x), there were at least 65 Ernest Hemingway births registered in the UK; I imagine several are till alive. (No Mark Twains though.) Just to be clear, IF my name were Ernest Hemingway, that would be fine. But it's not. I could sign myself as Ernest Hemingway, but to me, that's being disrespectful of him and his memory, because as I see it, I'm stealing his identity for myself, as if it were my own. Pretending I am an Ernest Hemingway since I signed my name that way, and wanting the recognition that goes along with it. At any rate, that's just how I see it. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
O.T. Cleaning computer
In message , Bill in Co
writes: [] Just to be clear, IF my name were Ernest Hemingway, that would be fine. But it's not. I could sign myself as Ernest Hemingway, but to me, that's being disrespectful of him and his memory, because as I see it, I'm stealing his identity for myself, as if it were my own. Pretending I am an Ernest Hemingway since I signed my name that way, and wanting the recognition that goes along with it. At any rate, that's just how I see it. How about if you signed yourself "The Earnest Hemingway appreciation society"? I think that's what our "Mark Twain" meant - he respects and admires MT. He's not pretending to _be_ MT, _nor_ trying to steal anything from him. He's just using the modern tendency to shorten everything - like using "app" for "application", "tab" for "tablet", even "'phone" for "telephone", "TV" for "TV set", and so on. JPG --- How about a three-way referendum, allowing second choices? -- Are petitions unfair? See 255soft.uk (YOUR VOTE COUNTS)! [Pass it on.] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged. - Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|