Discussion:
New g5 purchase.
(too old to reply)
Andrew Horne
2005-11-22 14:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

Really tempted to buy a new g5 dual 2.3 GHz now, been doing some homework,
but a couple of questions if I may, any help would be greatly appreciated

1 - ram, is crucial's ram good? 2 x 512 MB for £70 is there any real
difference between the 2 below?

DDR2 PC2-4200 € CL=4 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-533 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64

or

DDR2 PC2-5300 € CL=5 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-667 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64

2- displays, I have 2 x 15" ADC displays with one ADC to DVI convertor
running on my g4.
If i bought the dual 2.3 GHz g5 can i run a new apple display (20" DVI) and
still use one of my 15" ADC with the convertor?

3-SATA drives, how much roughly (£ or $), and what model should I use, to
install a second internal drive in a g5, I suppose I want to know what Apple
use themselves, is it hitatchi etc?

Thanks in advance for the input!

Andrew
Mike Jenkins
2005-11-22 14:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Horne
1 - ram, is crucial's ram good? 2 x 512 MB for £70 is there any real
difference between the 2 below?
DDR2 PC2-4200 € CL=4 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-533 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64
or
DDR2 PC2-5300 € CL=5 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-667 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64
The G5s currently use 533Mhz memory so you need the first one. Crucial's
RAM is excellent quality and has a very good lifetime warranty.
Post by Andrew Horne
2- displays, I have 2 x 15" ADC displays with one ADC to DVI convertor
running on my g4.
If i bought the dual 2.3 GHz g5 can i run a new apple display (20" DVI) and
still use one of my 15" ADC with the convertor?
Yep. Consider looking at the Dell 2005FPW which is superior to the Apple
display and much cheaper.
Post by Andrew Horne
3-SATA drives, how much roughly (£ or $), and what model should I use, to
install a second internal drive in a g5, I suppose I want to know what Apple
use themselves, is it hitatchi etc?
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.

Also I would say that the Dual 2.3 doesn't seem to be worth the extra
£350 over the dual 2.0 model.
--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/2374h
Andrew Horne
2005-11-22 14:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by Andrew Horne
1 - ram, is crucial's ram good? 2 x 512 MB for £70 is there any real
difference between the 2 below?
DDR2 PC2-4200 € CL=4 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-533 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64
or
DDR2 PC2-5300 € CL=5 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-667 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64
The G5s currently use 533Mhz memory so you need the first one. Crucial's
RAM is excellent quality and has a very good lifetime warranty.
Post by Andrew Horne
2- displays, I have 2 x 15" ADC displays with one ADC to DVI convertor
running on my g4.
If i bought the dual 2.3 GHz g5 can i run a new apple display (20" DVI) and
still use one of my 15" ADC with the convertor?
Yep. Consider looking at the Dell 2005FPW which is superior to the Apple
display and much cheaper.
Post by Andrew Horne
3-SATA drives, how much roughly (£ or $), and what model should I use, to
install a second internal drive in a g5, I suppose I want to know what Apple
use themselves, is it hitatchi etc?
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
Also I would say that the Dual 2.3 doesn't seem to be worth the extra
£350 over the dual 2.0 model.
I originally wanted the quad though, so I am seeing the dual 2.3 as a hefty
saving! ;-)
I have always used crucial for ram and have been very happy, was just unsure
about the difference above, thanks for clearing it up!
Will check out the Dell monitor too, cheers.
marcb
2005-11-22 15:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
What's wrong with Maxtors? I was just about to buy one - Mac User gives one
of the models 5 stars or mouses.

M.
Mike Jenkins
2005-11-22 15:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
What's wrong with Maxtors? I was just about to buy one - Mac User gives one
of the models 5 stars or mouses.
They are hideously unreliable in my experience. They also used to be
noisy and slow but apparently they are less noisy and quite fast now if
you get the more expensive ones.

Also Seagate give a 5-year warranty on their drives, whereas you only
get 1 year (AFAIK) with Maxtors.
--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/2374h
marcb
2005-11-22 15:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
They are hideously unreliable in my experience.
In 25 years of using many PCs, Macs and Unix/Vax boxes the
only drive failure I've had is when I didn't mount a removable
drive properly. have you really experienced many problems?

M.
Mike Jenkins
2005-11-22 15:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
They are hideously unreliable in my experience.
In 25 years of using many PCs, Macs and Unix/Vax boxes the
only drive failure I've had is when I didn't mount a removable
drive properly. have you really experienced many problems?
In my Dead Hard Drives chart, having received roughly equal quantities
of Maxtor, WD, Seagate and Fujitsu hard drives, Maxtor have approx.
twice the amount of dead drives as Fujitsu and approx. 3 times the
amount of dead drives as Seagate.

I see a lot of dead hard drives.
--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/2374h
James Dore
2005-11-22 15:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:44:50 -0000, Mike Jenkins
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
They are hideously unreliable in my experience.
In 25 years of using many PCs, Macs and Unix/Vax boxes the
only drive failure I've had is when I didn't mount a removable
drive properly. have you really experienced many problems?
In my Dead Hard Drives chart, having received roughly equal quantities
of Maxtor, WD, Seagate and Fujitsu hard drives, Maxtor have approx.
twice the amount of dead drives as Fujitsu and approx. 3 times the
amount of dead drives as Seagate.
I see a lot of dead hard drives.
We've got a copier paper box full of drives for disposal, containing:

Maxtor: 10
Fujitsu: 9
Seagate: 3
WD: 2
IBM: 2
Quantumn: 2
NEC: 1

All dead ones. I was expecting Maxtor to be better than that.

cheers,
James
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
marcb
2005-11-22 15:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
In my Dead Hard Drives chart, having received roughly equal quantities
of Maxtor, WD, Seagate and Fujitsu hard drives, Maxtor have approx.
twice the amount of dead drives as Fujitsu and approx. 3 times the
amount of dead drives as Seagate.
I see a lot of dead hard drives.
OK - you've convinced me. Are the Seagates on this page the ones to go
for in
a G5 (scroll past the Maxtors...)? Prices look OK to me.

http://ezpcshop.com/acatalog/Serial_ATA_Hard_Drives.html

thx

m.
Mike Jenkins
2005-11-22 16:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
In my Dead Hard Drives chart, having received roughly equal quantities
of Maxtor, WD, Seagate and Fujitsu hard drives, Maxtor have approx.
twice the amount of dead drives as Fujitsu and approx. 3 times the
amount of dead drives as Seagate.
I see a lot of dead hard drives.
OK - you've convinced me. Are the Seagates on this page the ones to go
for in
a G5 (scroll past the Maxtors...)? Prices look OK to me.
http://ezpcshop.com/acatalog/Serial_ATA_Hard_Drives.html
Yep, they are the ones. www.komplett.co.uk look to be cheaper and are a
reliable supplier.
--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/2374h
Robert Moir
2005-11-23 19:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
They are hideously unreliable in my experience.
In 25 years of using many PCs, Macs and Unix/Vax boxes the
only drive failure I've had is when I didn't mount a removable
drive properly. have you really experienced many problems?
Can't speak for Mike but my £0.02:
I've never worked with a drive brand that *hasn't* failed. After that we're
dealing in probabilities, and some brands score worse than others in this
regard.

At the end of the day, look at the warranty a manufacturer offers on their
drive. If you're buying a drive hoping it will last for (shall we say for
example) 3 years and the manufacturer is only offering a 1 year warranty
then ask yourself why you're betting against them? It isn't because you know
more about their hard drives than they do, is it?

Most of the time, on a personal level, yes you'll most likely get away with
it, but the manufacturer offering the warranties is dealing in failiure
predictions and probabilities and has a far larger and more reliable sample
base of its own products than anyone else to work from, and they've
discovered that a 1yr warranty is most cost effective. Nothing wrong with
gambling, but you do need to understand what all the possible bets on the
roulette table mean before you throw chips around at random.
marcb
2005-11-24 10:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Moir
Most of the time, on a personal level, yes you'll most likely get away with
it, but the manufacturer offering the warranties is dealing in failiure
predictions and probabilities and has a far larger and more reliable sample
base of its own products than anyone else
Well yes - if I was buying 100 drives then reliability becomes more of an isue
than buying one -
the chances of any one failing from any brand are surely fairly similar and
very small.

M.
Robert Moir
2005-11-24 13:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Robert Moir
Most of the time, on a personal level, yes you'll most likely get
away with it, but the manufacturer offering the warranties is
dealing in failiure predictions and probabilities and has a far
larger and more reliable sample base of its own products than anyone
else
Well yes - if I was buying 100 drives then reliability becomes more
of an isue than buying one -
the chances of any one failing from any brand are surely fairly
similar and very small.
Well assuming we leave aside manufacturing faults and other things that
"artificially" shorten the life of a drive then yes, the odds are fairly
small.

But lets say the odds are 500,000 to 1, just to pluck a figure from thin
air, of a "BrandX Fastadrive" failing within 1 year, and they sell 10
million drives...

The odds of being one of the unlucky might not be terribly high, but they
still exist. Someone has to have hold of the crappy end of the deal... and
the numbers don't guarantee you won't get hit. In fact, they guarantee that
someone *will* get hit, and you have just as much chance of being the victim
as anyone else.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't buy the drives, it does mean that you need to
know what you're buying exactly, that backups are important (but you already
know that) and it does mean that it is unwise to bet against the
manufacturer (if you need a drive to last 4 years, don't buy the 1 year
warranty model, buy the seagate 5 year warranty model that someone else
talked about on the thread).
marcb
2005-11-24 13:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Moir
It doesn't mean you shouldn't buy the drives, it does mean that you need to
know what you're buying exactly, that backups are important (but you already
know that) and it does mean that it is unwise to bet against the
manufacturer (if you need a drive to last 4 years, don't buy the 1 year
warranty model, buy the seagate 5 year warranty model that someone else
talked about on the thread).
Quite so - the discussion is a bit academic anyway as of course the data is the
key given that the drives are now so cheap. However, it's always nice to get
advice and I'm going to buy the 200MB Seagate which is only £54.25 + VAT (at
Savastore).

I was just surprised to see such views on differing reliability given we are
talking about commodity items. However, the feedback does seem a tad small
scale - has any agency actually run large scale trials of this class of drive?

M.
Jon B
2005-11-22 15:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
What's wrong with Maxtors? I was just about to buy one - Mac User gives one
of the models 5 stars or mouses.
They are hideously unreliable in my experience. They also used to be
noisy and slow but apparently they are less noisy and quite fast now if
you get the more expensive ones.
Rumour I heard was a few years ago they pushed for a new platter tech
before it was reliable in order to go for bigger capacities, and ditched
the old fab equipment that was doing decent drives. The stigma hung
around for a long time after. But yes I'm in the avoid maxtor camp, but
Apple uses them and i've got machines factory fitted with Maxtor drives
still runn.....
Post by Mike Jenkins
Also Seagate give a 5-year warranty on their drives, whereas you only
get 1 year (AFAIK) with Maxtors.
1 yr is for brown boxed OEM drives (just about any make), 3 yr is usual
for full retail (although a quick check of a boxed retail on Amazon says
2yr warranty on Maxtors)
--
Jon B
real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com
Mike Jenkins
2005-11-22 15:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon B
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
What's wrong with Maxtors? I was just about to buy one - Mac User gives one
of the models 5 stars or mouses.
They are hideously unreliable in my experience. They also used to be
noisy and slow but apparently they are less noisy and quite fast now if
you get the more expensive ones.
Rumour I heard was a few years ago they pushed for a new platter tech
before it was reliable in order to go for bigger capacities, and ditched
the old fab equipment that was doing decent drives. The stigma hung
around for a long time after.
That would sound more like the IBM/Glass Platter fiasco to me. Maxtor
have been unreliable for as long as I can remember.
Post by Jon B
But yes I'm in the avoid maxtor camp, but
Apple uses them and i've got machines factory fitted with Maxtor drives
still runn.....
<beep> <beep> <beep>
Post by Jon B
Post by Mike Jenkins
Also Seagate give a 5-year warranty on their drives, whereas you only
get 1 year (AFAIK) with Maxtors.
1 yr is for brown boxed OEM drives (just about any make), 3 yr is usual
for full retail (although a quick check of a boxed retail on Amazon says
2yr warranty on Maxtors)
Seagate actually offer a 5 year warranty on bare drives.
--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/2374h
Jon B
2005-11-22 16:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by Jon B
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
What's wrong with Maxtors? I was just about to buy one - Mac User
gives one of the models 5 stars or mouses.
They are hideously unreliable in my experience. They also used to be
noisy and slow but apparently they are less noisy and quite fast now if
you get the more expensive ones.
Rumour I heard was a few years ago they pushed for a new platter tech
before it was reliable in order to go for bigger capacities, and ditched
the old fab equipment that was doing decent drives. The stigma hung
around for a long time after.
That would sound more like the IBM/Glass Platter fiasco to me. Maxtor
have been unreliable for as long as I can remember.
Well iirc they bought out Quantums HD division which was going through a
bad time with their aptly named Fireball drives ;) I got told the above
anyway by a WD employee at a not that long ago expo. Not that I buy
their drives either.
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by Jon B
But yes I'm in the avoid maxtor camp, but
Apple uses them and i've got machines factory fitted with Maxtor drives
still runn.....
<beep> <beep> <beep>
One I can remember is whining its head off upstairs in an iMac, I'd
ripped it out another higher spec iMac a week before because I was
selling it and thought it can't go like that (and fitted a 60gb Seagate
I happened to have going spare), then the iMac that passed through a
week later which was going to be sold turns out to be needed and had to
run osX, bit tight on the orig 6gb drive so the maxtors gone in that.
I've got an IBM drive kicking around in a machine somewhere thats
sounded rough since it was 6 months old, but its in a quicksilver
somewhere and still going, so that gives an idea on its age now.
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by Jon B
Post by Mike Jenkins
Also Seagate give a 5-year warranty on their drives, whereas you only
get 1 year (AFAIK) with Maxtors.
1 yr is for brown boxed OEM drives (just about any make), 3 yr is usual
for full retail (although a quick check of a boxed retail on Amazon says
2yr warranty on Maxtors)
Seagate actually offer a 5 year warranty on bare drives.
Ah so they do now, not on them all, but on newer big drives they do.
--
Jon B
real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com
Odie Ferrous
2005-11-22 16:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
What's wrong with Maxtors? I was just about to buy one - Mac User gives one
of the models 5 stars or mouses.
Many "reviewers" give Maxtor top marks, which is why I tend to take
"reviews" on the whole with a large pinch of salt.

I would not currently supply a Maxtor drive. Perhaps in two years' time
their reliability will be improved - in the same way as Hitachi are now
becoming infinitely more reliable and almost useable than their
offspring over the last few years.

CustomPC sees Seagate off with the worst marks of their tests in the
latest issue. All because, on some of their testing (most of which was
done using utility programs, which never give the true "real world"
speed anyway) the Seagates were reported as being 5% slower than the
others.

I sell two drives; 120GB and 300GB and they are both Seagate. I will
not sell (unless under duress) any other brand of drive.

For the time being, Maxtor should be avoided like the plague.
Especially if they are supplied in an external housing. They top my
list of drives that come in for recovery. By a long, long margin.

Buy one if you must - it's all extra business for me!


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Sam Nelson
2005-11-22 17:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odie Ferrous
I would not currently supply a Maxtor drive.
[snip]
For the time being, Maxtor should be avoided like the plague.
Especially if they are supplied in an external housing. They top my
list of drives that come in for recovery. By a long, long margin.
Thanks for that.
Post by Odie Ferrous
Buy one if you must - it's all extra business for me!
Oh, I hope not.
--
SAm.
marcb
2005-11-22 17:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odie Ferrous
Buy one if you must - it's all extra business for me!
Caveat maxtor, I guess.

M.
Chris Ridd
2005-11-22 17:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odie Ferrous
Post by marcb
Post by Mike Jenkins
Apple use whatever is cheapest at the time. My current favourite make is
Seagate, I would avoid Maxtor and Hitachi drives.
What's wrong with Maxtors? I was just about to buy one - Mac User gives one
of the models 5 stars or mouses.
Many "reviewers" give Maxtor top marks, which is why I tend to take
"reviews" on the whole with a large pinch of salt.
I would not currently supply a Maxtor drive. Perhaps in two years' time
If you're a Data Recovery Expert (your .sig), wouldn't you want to sell
people unreliable drives? ;-)

Cheers,

Chris
Andrew Horne
2005-11-22 16:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
Post by Andrew Horne
1 - ram, is crucial's ram good? 2 x 512 MB for £70 is there any real
difference between the 2 below?
DDR2 PC2-4200 € CL=4 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-533 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64
or
DDR2 PC2-5300 € CL=5 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-667 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64
The G5s currently use 533Mhz memory so you need the first one. Crucial's
RAM is excellent quality and has a very good lifetime warranty.
Regarding ECC or nonEEC, crucial seems to think eec is for servers etc, so I
take it I will be ok with nonEEC, or is it worth the extra £12?


DDR2 PC2-4200 € CL=4 € UNBUFFERED € ECC € DDR2-533 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 72
£83.41 inc. VAT

Or

DDR2 PC2-4200 € CL=4 € UNBUFFERED € NON-ECC € DDR2-533 € 1.8V € 64Meg x 64
£71.66 inc. VAT
Mark Conrad
2005-11-24 02:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Horne
Regarding ECC or nonEEC, crucial seems to think eec is for servers etc, so I
take it I will be ok with nonEEC, or is it worth the extra £12?
It depends.

ECC stands for Error Checking and Correcting.

For a long time, I refused to buy a G5 because Apple did not include
ECC support.

Apple's newest line of G5s are the first "personal" computers that
Apple makes, that will support ECC.

The computer itself has to support ECC, otherwise it can't take
advantage of ECC RAM. All three versions of the _present_ G5 line
do support ECC, including the 2.3 GHz model you are contemplating.

There is a type of RAM failure, called a "soft" failure. Such a
failures occur because of radiation:

<http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.aspx?i=3>


According to IBM in that article, you would get one soft failure of RAM
every four seconds, on the average - - - IF you were running a quad G5
with 16 GBs of RAM in an aircraft flying at 60,000 feet:

1 * 8 * 16 * 100 = 12,800 RAM failures per month

12800 / 30 / 24 / 60 / 60 * 4 = one RAM failure every 4 seconds


At sea level, that rate would improve to approx' one RAM failure every
seven minutes.

Cut back to using only one GB of RAM, situation would improve to
approx' one RAM failure every two hours.


It is not without reason that the space shuttle carries five
independent computers, because it is necessary in that high radiation
environment.


Bottom line, the more RAM you use, and the more radiation that RAM is
exposed to, at high altitudes for example, then the more likely you are
to need ECC RAM.

Otherwise, get the ordinary RAM and take your chances, generally the
odds are in your favor.

Mark-
(lusting for a quad G5, but can't afford it)
marcb
2005-11-24 10:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Otherwise, get the ordinary RAM and take your chances, generally the
odds are in your favor.
You also wear a lead helmet to stop cosmic rays hitting your brain ram.

M.
Mark Conrad
2005-11-24 21:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
Otherwise, get the ordinary RAM and take your chances, generally the
odds are in your favor.
You also wear a lead helmet to stop cosmic rays hitting your brain ram.
Ahh, sounds like one of the lower life forms is trying to communicate.

Well, boopkins, try to at least get your terminology straight.

The term "cosmic rays" is a misnomer, used primarily by lesser life
forms like yourself.

I dug around in my IEEE references, trying to find something simple
enough to educate you - - - ah, here it is!

<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>


(heh, poor bugger probably does not have enough sense to know how to
download the pdf file)

Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
David Kennedy
2005-11-24 22:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
And Honorary Twerp [2nd class]
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Mark Conrad
2005-11-25 03:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kennedy
Post by Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
And Honorary Twerp [2nd class]
Now now, don't be bitter just because you don't have a string of
letters behind your name.

BTW, I don't see you offering any help to the OP.

Wasamatter, too stupid?

Mark-
Ben Shimmin
2005-11-25 04:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Post by David Kennedy
Post by Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
And Honorary Twerp [2nd class]
Now now, don't be bitter just because you don't have a string of
letters behind your name.
I expect he just can't quite be bothered to pay for the privilege of being
able to brag about some letters he can put after his name (which no one in
their right mind would care in the slightest about).

b.
HTH, HAND, OK
--
Enjoy responsibly. <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
David Kennedy
2005-11-25 07:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Post by David Kennedy
Post by Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
And Honorary Twerp [2nd class]
Now now, don't be bitter just because you don't have a string of
letters behind your name.
Bitter you freak, I've got more degrees than a thermometer.
Post by Mark Conrad
BTW, I don't see you offering any help to the OP.
I prefer to stick to things I have knowledge of and, not yet having a G5
that means keeping quiet if I haven't got anything useful to say.
Post by Mark Conrad
Wasamatter, too stupid?
Mark-
Spotted you first time out didn't I ?
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Bruce Horrocks
2005-11-25 20:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kennedy
Bitter you freak, I've got more degrees than a thermometer.
Do mathematicians measure their degrees in radians?
--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
<firstname>@<surname>.plus.com -- fix the obvious for email
David Kennedy
2005-11-25 20:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Horrocks
Post by David Kennedy
Bitter you freak, I've got more degrees than a thermometer.
Do mathematicians measure their degrees in radians?
Only on alternate Thursdays.
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Steve Firth
2005-11-25 12:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Post by David Kennedy
Post by Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
And Honorary Twerp [2nd class]
Now now, don't be bitter just because you don't have a string of
letters behind your name.
<snigger>

If you are going to go in for willy-waving, try to make sure that you
don't have such a small one. None of those organisations confer the
right to identify oneself with letters after one's name BTW.
X Kyle M Thompson
2005-11-25 13:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Mark Conrad
Post by David Kennedy
Post by Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
And Honorary Twerp [2nd class]
Now now, don't be bitter just because you don't have a string of
letters behind your name.
<snigger>
If you are going to go in for willy-waving, try to make sure that you
don't have such a small one. None of those organisations confer the
right to identify oneself with letters after one's name BTW.
Is AAAI and ACM summat too? IEEE always seems to be the poor
cousin to IEE.

kt.
Mark Conrad
2005-11-25 16:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
None of those organisations confer the
right to identify oneself with letters after one's name BTW.
Horsepucky and sheer nonsense.

Whatever makes you believe that those organizations have to "confer"
rights to anything as trivial as identifying oneself as a member?

Next you will be saying that because they did not confer my right to
scratch my ass, that I should not do so while being a member.

Weird reasoning on your part, bucko.

Mark-
Richard P. Grant
2005-11-27 16:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Next you will be saying that because they did not confer my right to
scratch my ass, that I should not do so while being a member.
Leave your equine perversions out of this.
--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 MRC Lab of Mol Biol
rpg 'at' mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
'My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack' - Marshal F. Fock (1851 - 1929)
X Kyle M Thompson
2005-11-24 22:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
I dug around in my IEEE references
<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>
Does Sun own IEEE? Logos all over that doc, and sun logo is
favicon for the ieee.org site
Post by Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad
IEEE
You have one more E than me, but I have an M to make up for it.

kt..
Mark Conrad
2005-11-25 03:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Post by Mark Conrad
I dug around in my IEEE references
<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>
Does Sun own IEEE? Logos all over that doc, and sun logo is
favicon for the ieee.org site
Nope. IEEE is not too proud to take money from anyone, including Sun.

It apparently pays off for Sun, because a lot of engineers use Sun
hardware. Very few run Macs, I am an exception.

Mark-
Chris Ridd
2005-11-25 08:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Post by Mark Conrad
I dug around in my IEEE references
<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>
Does Sun own IEEE? Logos all over that doc, and sun logo is
favicon for the ieee.org site
More likely IEEE's using a Netscape web server, and forgot to change the
favicon.

Cheers,

Chris
marcb
2005-11-25 09:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
The term "cosmic rays" is a misnomer, used primarily by lesser life
forms like yourself.
I dug around in my IEEE references, trying to find something simple
enough to educate you - - - ah, here it is!
<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>
LOL! Are you stocking up on bottled gas and water for your underground
bunker?

And seriously, if you don't want to use the term cosmic rays don't post a
presentation titled:

'How Cosmic Rays
Cause Computer
Downtime'

Makes you look even more silly.

M.

BSc - Physics and philosophy
Mark Conrad
2005-11-25 16:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
And seriously, if you don't want to use the term cosmic rays don't post a
'How Cosmic Rays
Cause Computer
Downtime'
Had to, so clueless people like you would know what was being discussed
in _their_ presentation, not my presentation.

At least get your facts straight, before you mis-represent whose
presentation it is, makes you look like an ignorant jackass.

Mark-
marcb
2005-11-25 17:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Post by marcb
And seriously, if you don't want to use the term cosmic rays don't post a
'How Cosmic Rays
Cause Computer
Downtime'
Had to, so clueless people like you would know what was being discussed
in _their_ presentation, not my presentation.
So the guy from Sun is clueless? Come on Einstein, let's see _your_
presentation. And you can use the term cosmic ray - it's a perfectly
acceptable and widespread way of discussing such high energy particles.
Post by Mark Conrad
At least get your facts straight, before you mis-represent whose
presentation it is, makes you look like an ignorant jackass.
Who said it was yours? You're acting rather weird. Anyway, the facts as
I see them are that no-one has proved that any down to Earth, ordinary
computer's ram has suffered a soft fault from a 'cosmic ray' event -
it's a theoretical idea - and lots of other things could be the cause of
such faults.

Meanwhile, if you really think you're on to something, I suggest you put
yourself forward as an expert and warn the millions of computer users
using non-ECC ram that their household budgets won't reconcile, their
documents will be garbled and their friends will be disunited.

I'll put your lack of manners and humour down to a random event - cause
unknown.

M.
Mark Conrad
2005-11-26 05:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
And you can use the term cosmic ray - it's a perfectly
acceptable and widespread way of discussing such high energy particles.
Your mis-use of the word "ray" is amazing. Do you deliberately try to
mislead others, or do you merely encourage the use of misleading terms?

Language is intended to get across ideas, that is the purpose of
language.

Now if your intention is to get across the wrong idea and mislead
people, by all means continue using the term "cosmic ray".


The predominant and common use of the word "ray" is to get across the
idea that the thing being described is electromagnetic radiation, as in
the term "X-ray".

The predominant and common use of the word "particle" is to get across
the idea that the thing being described is _not_ electromagnetic
radiation, rather instead a physical particle traveling less that the
speed of light.

There are differences between particles and electrmagnetic radiation,
and several standard tests to tell which is which.

A cosmic particle is not electromagnetic radiation.


So you have the choice of correctly describing the object as a
"cosmic-particle", or misleading people by incorrectly describing the
object as a "cosmic-ray".




I ask the two questions again:

1) Are you deliberately trying to mislead people into believing that a
cosmic particle is electomagnetic radiation?

2) Do you encourage the use of misleading terms?
Post by marcb
So the guy from Sun is clueless?
To some extent, yes. I agree that the author of the presentation did
not use good judgement when he titled his presentation:
"How Cosmic Rays Cause Computer Downtime"

The technical accuracy of the content of his presentation seems to be
valid, and there are enough references in the content, to allow a
reader to verify the facts.
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
At least get your facts straight, before you mis-represent whose
presentation it is, makes you look like an ignorant jackass.
Who said it was yours?
You did, you posted the following:

"And seriously, if you don't want to use the term cosmic rays don't
post a presentation titled" ...<rest of crap clipped>...

Above partial quote tries to give the impression to others that _I_
am the one who authored the presentation from:




I don't appreciate that crap.
Post by marcb
Anyway, the facts as
I see them are that no-one has proved that any down to Earth, ordinary
computer's ram has suffered a soft fault from a 'cosmic ray' event -
it's a theoretical idea - and lots of other things could be the cause
of such faults.
You are completely wrong, it is easily provable that cosmic particles
do cause soft failures in ram. This is a major design headache for the
manufacturers of ram modules.

Not theoretical at all, if ram modules are subjected to cosmic particle
bombardment, they _will_ suffer soft ram failures, many laboratory
ram testing facilities have verified and re-verified that fact over
decades of time.

ECC ram lessens the soft ram failure rate 19 fold.

<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>



If that pdf is too heavy reading, a much clearer and simplier
description of soft ram failures is here:

<http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.aspx?i=3>
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
I dug around in my IEEE references, trying to find something simple
enough to educate you - - - ah, here it is!
<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>
LOL! Are you stocking up on bottled gas and water for your underground
bunker?
No, prickhead. I was answering a question specifically asked by the
OP, providing him with both the pros and cons, so he could make his own
choice.

Your further education, I will leave to others with more patience than
I have.

Go ahead and post your insinuations, bum dope, insults, lies,
misleading comments, and other assorted crap.

Mark-
marcb
2005-11-26 23:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Your mis-use of the word "ray" is amazing. Do you deliberately try to
mislead others, or do you merely encourage the use of misleading terms?
Surely you're aware that cosmic ray is the common use term for these
particles. Go to any site ­ NASA etc - and you'll see. Have a look at
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/cosmic.html for instance.
Post by Mark Conrad
Language is intended to get across ideas, that is the purpose of
language.
The English language is littered with misnomers in common use. You might
not like it, but it's a fact.
Post by Mark Conrad
A cosmic particle is not electromagnetic radiation.
Well, we could also have a discussion about wave-particle duality, but
I'm guessing you - as a highly educated man - know all about this.
Post by Mark Conrad
"And seriously, if you don't want to use the term cosmic rays don't
post a presentation titled" ...<rest of crap clipped>...
Above partial quote tries to give the impression to others that _I_
Posting _a_ presentation is not the same as posting _your_ presentation.
It's simple use of English.
Post by Mark Conrad
Not theoretical at all, if ram modules are subjected to cosmic particle
bombardment, they _will_ suffer soft ram failures, many laboratory
ram testing facilities have verified and re-verified that fact over
decades of time.
I'm not disputing that soft ram problems occur - just that many soft
faults are down to other issues such as thermal problems and local
impurities. Have a look at this paper:

http://www.srim.org/SER/SERTrends.htm

Note the following:

'As of 2002, there are no comprehensive models available to predict the
SER of sRAMs or dRAMs. None of the existing modeling programs include
adequate low-energy neutron cross-sections which would allow the SER
prediction of circuits within a factor of 2x. Also, there are no
reliable estimates of the flux of low-energy particles. Current
measurements vary up to 100x, possibly due to the influence of local
building materials on the flux, which has not been previously been
considered. Without knowledge of the flux of particles, no model can
predict a chip's SER.'

and:

'Modern CMOS chips are mostly sensitive to neutrons below 100 MeV. There
are no reliable estimates of the cosmic neutron flux at these energies.'

M.
Mark Conrad
2005-11-27 09:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
Your mis-use of the word "ray" is amazing. Do you deliberately try to
mislead others, or do you merely encourage the use of misleading terms?
Surely you're aware that cosmic ray is the common use term for these
particles. Go to any site ­ NASA etc - and you'll see. Have a look at
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/cosmic.html for instance.
Yes, I am aware of all that. I admit I went overboard with criticism
against you, regarding my personal bias against the term "cosmic ray".

Frankly, at the time I was highly ticked off by the un-called for
criticism when I posted my membership in the 3 professional computer
organizations.

I occassionally post that info', because in the past it has resulted in
good contacts with other members of those same organizations.



NEVER in my experience has posting that info' resulted in the ridicule
that I was subjected to in this NG - - - and I post in some very rough
U.S. newsgroups.

I always thought the brit's prided themselves on their tact, however it
appears I was mistaken in that assumption.
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
A cosmic particle is not electromagnetic radiation.
Well, we could also have a discussion about wave-particle duality, but
I'm guessing you - as a highly educated man - know all about this.
Let me straighten out one thing very quickly, I am not a highly
educated man, in fact I have a very poor education.

The fact I happen to belong to 3 prestigious computer societies in no
way confers the mantle of technical knowledge upon me.

I _do_ have advanced technical achievements under my belt, however I
strongly suspect that mentioning them in this particular NG will result
in more of the same treatment that I encountered earlier.

...so instead I will flaunt my ignorance here, that might elicit a more
friendly response.<g>
Post by marcb
... we could also have a discussion about wave-particle duality...
Wave-particle duality, yes indeed, however one characteristic that
_particles_ like nuclei of atoms have, also particles like neutrons,
protons, electrons, have - - - is the ability to travel slower than the
speed of light.

That ability is not shared by electromagnetic _waves_, which always
travel at the speed of light.

But hey, what the heck do I know, I could very well be wrong about the
"particle" basis of cosmic particles, because I am uneducated.

I just hate to confuse our students and children by talking about
X-rays, which everyone agrees are electomagnetic "wave" phenomena, then
in the next breath talk about cosmic rays, misleading the students into
believing they are like X-rays.

There is already enough confusion in this world, without adding to it.

A single neutron particle from the cosmos, a "cosmic particle",
traveling at just under the speed of light, is a fearsome beast, able
to raise hell with ram cells if certain conditions are in effect.
Post by marcb
I'm not disputing that soft ram problems occur - just that many soft
faults are down to other issues such as thermal problems and local
http://www.srim.org/SER/SERTrends.htm
Note the following:...<clipped>....
That is a very good reference, many eye-opening facts, especially the
one about the 1000x variance in soft error rates (SER) depending on
who manufactured the RAM module !!!

Also, very consoling to know that SER has dropped over the years, that
fact will no doubt influence many users to choose non-ECC ram in order
to save money.

I _am_ glad that Apple is offering ECC ram on the new G5s, for
certain I will be one of the few who will take advantage of the
admittedly slightly added reliability of the ECC ram.

(supposedly 19 times more resistant to the effects of soft error
failures)

Mark-
David Kennedy
2005-11-27 09:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
Your mis-use of the word "ray" is amazing. Do you deliberately try to
mislead others, or do you merely encourage the use of misleading terms?
Surely you're aware that cosmic ray is the common use term for these
particles. Go to any site ­ NASA etc - and you'll see. Have a look at
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/cosmic.html for instance.
Yes, I am aware of all that. I admit I went overboard with criticism
against you, regarding my personal bias against the term "cosmic ray".
Frankly, at the time I was highly ticked off by the un-called for
criticism when I posted my membership in the 3 professional computer
organizations.
I occassionally post that info', because in the past it has resulted in
good contacts with other members of those same organizations.
NEVER in my experience has posting that info' resulted in the ridicule
that I was subjected to in this NG - - - and I post in some very rough
U.S. newsgroups.
I always thought the brit's prided themselves on their tact, however it
appears I was mistaken in that assumption.
It works both ways, had you not waded in with
Post by Mark Conrad
I dug around in my IEEE references, trying to find something simple
enough to educate you - - - ah, here it is!
<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rs/articles/ser-050323-talk-ref.pdf>
(heh, poor bugger probably does not have enough sense to know how to
download the pdf file)
then it might not have attracted any attention at all.

Also, there is a long tradition of foil beanies in this NG for defence
against cosmic rays - and other deleterious invaders.
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Peter Ceresole
2005-11-27 09:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
I always thought the brit's prided themselves on their tact
Probably that should be 'discretion'. The point about titles and
qualifications is that you don't wave them around until there's a good
reason. (This is not a problem for me as I have no titles,
qualifications or anything in that category.)

And of course some of them know how to use their apostrophes.
Post by Mark Conrad
however it appears I was mistaken in that assumption.
Not really. But denying wave/particle duality in cosmic rays is a bit
extreme, don't you think?
--
Peter
Bella Jones
2005-11-27 11:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Mark Conrad
I always thought the brit's prided themselves on their tact
Probably that should be 'discretion'. The point about titles and
qualifications is that you don't wave them around until there's a good
reason. (This is not a problem for me as I have no titles,
qualifications or anything in that category.)
And of course some of them know how to use their apostrophes.
I quite like "brit'". I might start putting that on application forms
and stuff.
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Mark Conrad
however it appears I was mistaken in that assumption.
Not really. But denying wave/particle duality in cosmic rays is a bit
extreme, don't you think?
I must assert, for the benefit of the attendees of today's Session, and
those following, that there have been concerns expressed at the capacity
of common-or-garden foil to repel said cosmic rays. Consequently, I feel
that we may need to re-examine the possibility, disagreeable though it
may be to some of you, of using some other form of head-covering. I
would like to open the discussion by suggesting that there is another
kitchen-related object that may be more effective, namely the item
usually known as a 'saucepan'.

We are all aware that there are those who do not susbscribe to the
concept of the harmfulness caused by these rays, and therefore I assert
that saucepans, due to their ease of removal by either (a) a single
rigid appendage known as a 'handle', or (b) two of the same on each
side, but smaller, may be the way ahead if we are to insert ourselves
in, and discover the thinking processes of, that marginal but
influential stratum of society.

Any questions?
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
Peter Ceresole
2005-11-27 12:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bella Jones
Any questions?
Yeah. What do you propose to do about neutrinos?
--
Peter
Bella Jones
2005-11-27 12:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Bella Jones
Any questions?
Yeah. What do you propose to do about neutrinos?
A thin layer of vaseline.
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
Chris Ridd
2005-11-27 12:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bella Jones
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Bella Jones
Any questions?
Yeah. What do you propose to do about neutrinos?
A thin layer of vaseline.
For bad cases of the neutrinos you should go straight to your GP :-)

Cheers,

Chris
David Kennedy
2005-11-27 12:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bella Jones
Any questions?
Aluminium, copper or cast iron ?
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Bella Jones
2005-11-28 20:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kennedy
Post by Bella Jones
Any questions?
Aluminium, copper or cast iron ?
That is an interesting question. I deal with matters of policy in
general, so I shall refer you to the august scientists in this group.

However, as I said, if you are concerned by the lack of insulation in
your chosen saucepan, a layer of vaseline is a perfectly acceptable
addition.
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
David Kennedy
2005-11-28 21:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bella Jones
Post by David Kennedy
Post by Bella Jones
Any questions?
Aluminium, copper or cast iron ?
That is an interesting question. I deal with matters of policy in
general, so I shall refer you to the august scientists in this group.
However, as I said, if you are concerned by the lack of insulation in
your chosen saucepan, a layer of vaseline is a perfectly acceptable
addition.
I think I lean more towards the zinc colander theory these days.
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
PeterD
2005-11-27 13:19:10 UTC
Permalink
I would like to open the discussion by suggesting that there is another
kitchen-related object that may be more effective, namely the item usually
known as a 'saucepan'.
Wrong shape, honey. Those corners concentrate and focus the beams,
arcing the incoming mind-control rays straight into your cranium.
Conversely, your thought waves are accumulated for easy scanning around
the bottom edges of the saucepan.

Oddly enough, the hemispherical colander is a much more effective
headpiece. You might think the holes are a problem, but in fact the
wavelengths and diffraction interference of brainwaves through
colander-spaced holes actually increases the protection (the only
exception being the Wessendorf Chef Pro 18", which creates tiny hotspots
within your brain due to a peculiarity of the stainless steel used in
its construction).
--
Pd
Bella Jones
2005-11-28 20:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterD
I would like to open the discussion by suggesting that there is another
kitchen-related object that may be more effective, namely the item usually
known as a 'saucepan'.
Wrong shape, honey. Those corners concentrate and focus the beams,
arcing the incoming mind-control rays straight into your cranium.
Conversely, your thought waves are accumulated for easy scanning around
the bottom edges of the saucepan.
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Post by PeterD
Oddly enough, the hemispherical colander is a much more effective
headpiece. You might think the holes are a problem, but in fact the
wavelengths and diffraction interference of brainwaves through
colander-spaced holes actually increases the protection (the only
exception being the Wessendorf Chef Pro 18", which creates tiny hotspots
within your brain due to a peculiarity of the stainless steel used in
its construction).
I wonder if the humble sieve might suffice, placed, notwithstanding,
over a layer of foil. Perhaps butter could also be substituted for the
vaseline.
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
PeterD
2005-11-28 21:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bella Jones
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Oh? So how do the sides join the bottom? If that's not a corner, you
have some mighty strange cookware.
--
Pd
Chris Ridd
2005-11-28 21:12:16 UTC
Permalink
On 28/11/05 9:09, in article
Post by PeterD
Post by Bella Jones
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Oh? So how do the sides join the bottom? If that's not a corner, you
have some mighty strange cookware.
Or they're all woks.

Cheers,

Chris
PeterD
2005-11-29 10:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ridd
On 28/11/05 9:09, in article
Post by PeterD
Post by Bella Jones
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Oh? So how do the sides join the bottom? If that's not a corner, you
have some mighty strange cookware.
Or they're all woks.
Yes very good Pike.

But as any fule no, a wok is entirely unsuitable as a deflective
headpiece for mindcontrol rays. In fact it is remarkably similar to the
parabolic dishes used to focus emr, and would most likely increase the
effectiveness of the guvmint control.
--
Pd
David Kennedy
2005-11-28 21:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterD
Post by Bella Jones
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Oh? So how do the sides join the bottom? If that's not a corner, you
have some mighty strange cookware.
They call it a wok.....
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Bella Jones
2005-11-28 21:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterD
Post by Bella Jones
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Oh? So how do the sides join the bottom? If that's not a corner, you
have some mighty strange cookware.
You can't call one round inner edge a corner, surely?
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
Roger Merriman
2005-11-29 19:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bella Jones
Post by PeterD
Post by Bella Jones
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Oh? So how do the sides join the bottom? If that's not a corner, you
have some mighty strange cookware.
You can't call one round inner edge a corner, surely?
apparently he can! of coarse wether he is right or not is matter for
discution or not as case may be but can certinaly call it a corner.

roger
Bella Jones
2005-11-30 07:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by Bella Jones
Post by PeterD
Post by Bella Jones
I was sufficiently concerned to examine all the saucepan-related items
in my kitchen, and I can report that they are all of a round shape, that
is, without corners.
Oh? So how do the sides join the bottom? If that's not a corner, you
have some mighty strange cookware.
You can't call one round inner edge a corner, surely?
apparently he can! of coarse wether he is right or not is matter for
discution or not as case may be but can certinaly call it a corner.
Bah, say I.
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
Gwynne Harper
2005-12-01 15:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bella Jones
their ease of removal by either (a) a single
rigid appendage known as
golly...
Post by Bella Jones
a 'handle'
...phew

Gwynne
--
My real email is net, not line.
Mark Conrad
2005-11-28 02:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
But denying wave/particle duality in cosmic rays is a bit
extreme, don't you think?
No more extreme than denying that a "radio wave" is a "radio particle",
which would likely set well even with you.<g>

The wave/particle duality discussion ignores the fact that particles
like electrons can be made to go slower than the speed of light, in a
vacuum.

Electromagnetic waves can _not_ be made to go slower than the speed
of light, in a vacuum.

The speed of cosmic particles like neutrons, can be measured.

In all cases that speed measurement turns out to be _less_ than the
speed of light, in a vacuum, thereby establishing that the object being
measured is a particle, _not_ an electromagnetic wave.


Perpetuating the bastardized term "cosmic ray" causes misunderstanding
among students trying to learn the difference between electromagnetic
waves and particles.

It is too easy to confuse the legitimate term "X-ray" with the
illigitimate term "cosmic ray".

They are two entirely different things.

One can be described in terms of frequency and wavelength, the other
can not.

Mark-
marcb
2005-11-27 21:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Yes, I am aware of all that. I admit I went overboard with criticism
against you, regarding my personal bias against the term "cosmic ray".
Thanks for that.
Post by Mark Conrad
Wave-particle duality, yes indeed, however one characteristic that
_particles_ like nuclei of atoms have, also particles like neutrons,
protons, electrons, have - - - is the ability to travel slower than the
speed of light.
The wave-particle duality is actually a phenomenon predicted by quantum
mechanics - that a particle can exhibit the properties of a wave. This
has been borne out by the double slit experiment in which a single
electron has been shown to produce a wave interference pattern. This
experiment is said to be the most beautiful of all and is well worth
reading about.

'The double-slit experiment exemplifies the wave-particle duality of
light, as well as quantum physics itself. It demonstrates that light
interferes with itself in passing through a pair of slits. It also shows
that even single electrons - proceeding one by one - interfere. Richard
Feynman is said to have remarked that it contains everything you need to
know about quantum mechanics.'

See http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/2
Post by Mark Conrad
That ability is not shared by electromagnetic _waves_, which always
travel at the speed of light.
This is only true in a vacuum, I believe.
Post by Mark Conrad
That is a very good reference, many eye-opening facts, especially the
one about the 1000x variance in soft error rates (SER) depending on
who manufactured the RAM module !!!
Also, very consoling to know that SER has dropped over the years, that
fact will no doubt influence many users to choose non-ECC ram in order
to save money.
I _am_ glad that Apple is offering ECC ram on the new G5s, for
certain I will be one of the few who will take advantage of the
admittedly slightly added reliability of the ECC ram.
Agreed.

M.
Mark Conrad
2005-11-28 02:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
Wave-particle duality, yes indeed, however one characteristic that
_particles_ like nuclei of atoms have, also particles like neutrons,
protons, electrons, have - - - is the ability to travel slower than the
speed of light.
That ability is not shared by electromagnetic _waves_, which always
travel at the speed of light.
This is only true in a vacuum, I believe.
Of course, that is understood, or should be understood, by both of us.

Never the less, the ability of a particle to travel slower than the
speed of light in a vacuum, is still a good definitive test as to
whether it is a particle _or_ an electromagnetic wave.

Your duality discussion of electrons in no way negates the above
statement of mine, unless you have definitive references to the
contrary.

An electron _can_ be made to go much slower that the speed of light,
in a vacuum.

X-rays, light, radio waves, and all other electromagnetic waves, can
_not_ be made to go slower than the speed of light, in a vacuum.



Cosmic particles are just that, namely particles.

Their speed can be measured, and in all cases it is less than the speed
of light, in a vacuum.



Perhaps you are getting the bastardized term "cosmic ray" confused with
the legitimate term "gamma ray".

Gamma rays are indeed electromagnetic waves, not particles like
electrons. Gamma rays are merely hard X-rays, no difference at all.

Gamma ray frequencies are typically 2.42 EHz

Their wavelength is typically 124 pm

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma%5Fray>



FWIW, this discussion with you has certainly been enjoyable from my
standpoint. I have saved all the references you supplied.

What little knowledge I have was acquired the hard way, not through a
formal education, but rather by actually working in an aerospace
research facility for 34 years.

(don't panic, my rude lurkers, I will not mention details least it be
interpreted as beating my chest)

Mark-
marcb
2005-11-28 20:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
Perhaps you are getting the bastardized term "cosmic ray" confused with
the legitimate term "gamma ray".
Nope - just pointing out that in the world of quantum mechanics some
very strange things happen.

Actually, recalling my university physics further, you should also know
that electromagnetic radiation - including gamma rays and light - is
made of massless particles called photons that exhibit both particle and
wave behaviour.

M.
Woody
2005-11-25 17:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
BSc - Physics and philosophy
That is a wierd subject to have a degree in. Has a good ring to it
though
--
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd
marcb
2005-11-25 20:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
Post by marcb
BSc - Physics and philosophy
That is a wierd subject to have a degree in. Has a good ring to it
though
It was philosophy and sociology of science mainly, combined with physics
and engineering. mostly the interesting bits. The actual title was
Liberal Studies in Science - it's now called something else I think.

M.
X Kyle M Thompson
2005-11-25 23:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Woody
Post by marcb
BSc - Physics and philosophy
That is a wierd subject to have a degree in. Has a good ring to it
though
It was philosophy and sociology of science mainly, combined with physics
and engineering. mostly the interesting bits. The actual title was
Liberal Studies in Science - it's now called something else I think.
I like the idea of a liberal studies in everything degree. Friend
in Canadada is started her 8th year as a fresher, starting
something different. Would drive me mad, being at uni for so long
with no end in sight.

kt.
Richard P. Grant
2005-11-27 16:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
It was philosophy and sociology of science mainly, combined with physics
and engineering. mostly the interesting bits. The actual title was
Liberal Studies in Science - it's now called something else I think.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"No bloody science at all"? Or would that be too honest?
--
I was a guest in another house, where one particularly sleepy morning,
I poured the boiling water into the instant coffee jar. It was brand
new and full too. -- Tim Connors, asr
marcb
2005-11-28 22:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard P. Grant
Post by marcb
It was philosophy and sociology of science mainly, combined with physics
and engineering. mostly the interesting bits. The actual title was
Liberal Studies in Science - it's now called something else I think.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"No bloody science at all"? Or would that be too honest?
The course was a third straight science. phys/eng, chem or biology. I
was bored out my skull doing science A-levels and wanted a mixed course.
It was a pioneering course in its day - majored on things like the great
debate on how science is done - Karl Popper vs Thomas Kuhn.

M.
Richard P. Grant
2005-11-29 09:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
The course was a third straight science. phys/eng, chem or biology. I
was bored out my skull doing science A-levels and wanted a mixed course.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"I wasn't very good at it"
--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 MRC Lab of Mol Biol
rpg 'at' mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
What do they know of England who only England know? - Billy Bragg
marcb
2005-11-29 10:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard P. Grant
"I wasn't very good at it"
Well, that wasn't the case - I've long thought that too much specialisation
at A level is silly and too restrictive - i shouldn't have had to give up
English for example. The baccalaurate system would have suited me - and many
others I reckon - much better.

M.
Woody
2005-11-29 18:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard P. Grant
Post by marcb
The course was a third straight science. phys/eng, chem or biology. I
was bored out my skull doing science A-levels and wanted a mixed course.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I wasn't very good at it"
Not necessarily. I have done some things that i could do pretty well,
but found them boring.
--
Woody

www.alienrat.com
John Swinbank
2005-11-28 13:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
Post by marcb
BSc - Physics and philosophy
That is a wierd subject to have a degree in. Has a good ring to it
though
It's reasonably popular at Oxford: we have maybe a tenth as many
students doing that as straightforward Physics (which is quite a lot,
since it's the biggest physics department in the country). It's a
challenging course: they cover the same theoretical & mathematical work
as their peers on the physics course, but are also expected to be fluent
in philosophy. Sounds very satisfying, though.
--
John Swinbank
Richard P. Grant
2005-11-25 10:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
As opposed to Aieeee, argh, ack?
--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/

Oh Give me a home, Where the buffalo roam | Jasper
And I'll show you a house full of cowshit | Carrott
Bella Jones
2005-11-25 17:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard P. Grant
Post by Mark Conrad
IEEE, AAAI, ACM
As opposed to Aieeee, argh, ack?
Or WEEE man?

<http://gallery117685.fotopic.net/p15445845.html>
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
PeterD
2005-11-25 05:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcb
Post by Mark Conrad
Otherwise, get the ordinary RAM and take your chances, generally the
odds are in your favor.
You also wear a lead helmet to stop cosmic rays hitting your brain ram.
Modern manufacturing techniques mean that even ordinary kitchen grade
cooking foil is perfectly adequate to shield against both cosmic rays
and mind control radiation, if made into a simple beanie and worn during
cosmic ray storms or peak governmental activity. If worn during
thinktime, it can also prevent them from intercepting your thoughts.
--
Pd
Wunce I culdnt spel enjuneir, now i are wun.
Peter Ceresole
2005-11-25 08:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterD
Modern manufacturing techniques mean that even ordinary kitchen grade
cooking foil is perfectly adequate to shield against both cosmic rays
and mind control radiation, if made into a simple beanie and worn during
cosmic ray storms or peak governmental activity. If worn during
thinktime, it can also prevent them from intercepting your thoughts.
According to my brother's Cheltenham contacts, this is FUD put out by
GCHQ to lull you into a false sense of security-through-panic. It *is*
still just possible to make a helmet that they can't pierce through, but
if you wore it it would break your kneck.

If you needed any proof think on this; Blair, after making the single
worst misjudgement in modern British history, is still Prime Minister.
You think that this happens by accident? Because his opponents are
dunderheads? Because the public are dunderheads? (Getting warm there)

Be afraid.
--
Peter
PeterD
2005-11-25 08:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
According to my brother's Cheltenham contacts, this is FUD put out by
GCHQ to lull you into a false sense of security-through-panic.
My uncle used to work at GCHQ, and my cousin used to but now contracts
to them. I should have mentioned that you need to fold the foil at half
the wavelength of the lambda radiation that the mind-controllers use.
Post by Peter Ceresole
It *is* still just possible to make a helmet that they can't pierce
through, but if you wore it it would break your kneck.
If you needed any proof think on this; Blair, after making the single
worst misjudgement in modern British history, is still Prime Minister.
You think that this happens by accident? Because his opponents are
dunderheads? Because the public are dunderheads? (Getting warm there)
Well, they've managed to convince you[0] and Tony that nuclear power is
a sensible option, so their beams obviously have remarkable penetration.

[0] If I remember rightly, you're a proponent of nucular power.
--
Pd
Peter Ceresole
2005-11-25 09:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterD
If I remember rightly, you're a proponent of nucular power.
Well, it's more fun.
--
Peter
X Kyle M Thompson
2005-11-25 13:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by PeterD
If I remember rightly, you're a proponent of nucular power.
Well, it's more fun.
Someone at school once said there was a million to one chance of
a nuclear reactor blowing up, and I thought there *must* be a
million of them in world, which means one is blowing up all the
time.

But perhaps my reasoning is faulty.

The Ex works oop north at one, top dog nuclear physicist that she
is. Not sure what she will do for a job come 2014. Simply for her
sake I hope we build a new one, otherwise she'll be out of work.

kt.
Peter Ceresole
2005-11-25 13:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
The Ex works oop north at one, top dog nuclear physicist that she
is. Not sure what she will do for a job come 2014. Simply for her
sake I hope we build a new one, otherwise she'll be out of work.
When I was doing a Horizon on (among other things) the decision to close
the nuclear physics part of the Daresbury lab (as opposed to the X-Ray
synchrotron, also there) the director said 'When we need nuclear
physicists in the future, I suppose we can always get them from Iraq'.
--
Peter
PeterD
2005-11-27 11:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by X Kyle M Thompson
Someone at school once said there was a million to one chance of
a nuclear reactor blowing up, and I thought there *must* be a
million of them in world, which means one is blowing up all the
time.
But perhaps my reasoning is faulty.
Since the partial meltdown at Canada's Chalk River nuclear power plant
in 1952 which released radioactive gas into the atmosphere, and resulted
in a million gallons of radioactive water being dumped in trenches near
the Ottawa River, there have been over 250 nuclear incidents involving
at least the leakage of radioactive material into the environment.

The famous accidents like Three Mile Island, Windscale, Chernobyl, Chalk
River are only the tip of the iceberg, and where the atomic power
industry has been unable to maintain secrecy. A radioactive water
spillage into the Manzares river near Madrid was successfully kept out
of the public eye for 24 years. At the time, farmers using the water to
irrigate fields were told their sudden crop die-off was because of
diesel spillages.

I'm not suggesting that continued generation of power by burning fossil
fuels is any better, just that swapping fossil fueled power for nuclear
fueled power is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
--
Pd
David Kennedy
2005-11-27 12:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterD
I'm not suggesting that continued generation of power by burning fossil
fuels is any better, just that swapping fossil fueled power for nuclear
fueled power is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Terry Pratchett on TV this morning was definitely in favour of the Nuke.
--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
Graeme Wall
2005-11-25 10:14:50 UTC
Permalink
In message <1h6koq1.ldg0tsgo9x3zN%***@cara.demon.co.uk>
***@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

[snip]
Post by Peter Ceresole
Be afraid.
Britain needs Fraids
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Jon B
2005-11-22 15:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Horne
Hi all,
Really tempted to buy a new g5 dual 2.3 GHz now, been doing some homework,
but a couple of questions if I may, any help would be greatly appreciated
1 - ram, is crucial's ram good? 2 x 512 MB for £70 is there any real
difference between the 2 below?
DDR2 PC2-4200 • CL=4 • UNBUFFERED • NON-ECC • DDR2-533 • 1.8V • 64Meg x 64
or
DDR2 PC2-5300 • CL=5 • UNBUFFERED • NON-ECC • DDR2-667 • 1.8V • 64Meg x 64
Crucial normally give a good guide to the differences between ram, and
anything it picks will normally be suitable for system, if both those
have come up the PC2-4200 will be fine, the 5300 is faster ram but the
G5 won't be able to use the speed boost.

I always use Crucial over Apple memory as it is often a fraction of the
price, and depending on the month and ram prices Apple often use Micron
memory (Crucial) anyway
Post by Andrew Horne
2- displays, I have 2 x 15" ADC displays with one ADC to DVI convertor
running on my g4.
If i bought the dual 2.3 GHz g5 can i run a new apple display (20" DVI) and
still use one of my 15" ADC with the convertor?
Do you mean DVI-ADC converter ;) but otherwise yes sounds fine.
Post by Andrew Horne
3-SATA drives, how much roughly (£ or $), and what model should I use, to
install a second internal drive in a g5, I suppose I want to know what Apple
use themselves, is it hitatchi etc?
Same as memory depends on the month and who's selling cheapest.
Personally I go with Seagate drives, and avoid Maxtors.
--
Jon B
real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com
Bonge Boo!
2005-11-22 17:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odie Ferrous
For the time being, Maxtor should be avoided like the plague.
Especially if they are supplied in an external housing. They top my
list of drives that come in for recovery. By a long, long margin.
Is that because they drive has failed, or the case? I mean, we all know
cases fail left, right and centre but that is no reflection on the quality
of the drive.

Personally I use Seagate, but that only because the dead stack is lower. But
past performance is no guaranty of future performance...
m***@gmail.com
2005-11-26 09:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Horne
If i bought the dual 2.3 GHz g5 can i run a new apple display (20" DVI) and
still use one of my 15" ADC with the convertor?
Echoing one of the other posters, if you are thinking of getting an
Apple 20" display take a look at the Dell 2005FPW. That is the same
resolution as the Apple 20" and has a clear crisp and responsive
display. I bought one from Dell a month or so back when they had a
special offer - £350 as against £549 for the Apple Display. I run it
off my PowerBook via the DVI interface (it has DVI, VGA, S-video and
composite connections).

One other thing I should mention about this display. It has a 90 degree
swivel (landscape-portrait) feature but this does not work on my Mac -
they only supply Windows drivers (this is Dell, after all). It would be
nice to have this via Mac OS X but it doesn't bother me too much as I
plan to run a Windows PC into the VGA input and I can, as it were,
swivel on that.

Anyway, having looked at 20" Apple Displays I think the Dell display
really is very nice - and much cheaper.


macfizz.
--
Stimpy
2005-11-26 16:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Anyway, having looked at 20" Apple Displays I think the Dell display
really is very nice - and much cheaper.
...but the Apple Cinema displays look *so* nice on the desk. The way the
little silver apple logo catches the light <sigh...>
Mike Jenkins
2005-11-26 20:28:43 UTC
Permalink
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<Dell 2005FPW>
Post by m***@gmail.com
One other thing I should mention about this display. It has a 90 degree
swivel (landscape-portrait) feature but this does not work on my Mac -
they only supply Windows drivers (this is Dell, after all). It would be
nice to have this via Mac OS X but it doesn't bother me too much as I
plan to run a Windows PC into the VGA input and I can, as it were,
swivel on that.
That's odd - I have a 2001FP and it supports rotation. Maybe Apple will
fix it for the 2005FPW at some later date.
--
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast / Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F20712757
Woody
2005-11-26 20:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jenkins
<Dell 2005FPW>
Post by m***@gmail.com
One other thing I should mention about this display. It has a 90 degree
swivel (landscape-portrait) feature but this does not work on my Mac -
they only supply Windows drivers (this is Dell, after all). It would be
nice to have this via Mac OS X but it doesn't bother me too much as I
plan to run a Windows PC into the VGA input and I can, as it were,
swivel on that.
That's odd - I have a 2001FP and it supports rotation. Maybe Apple will
fix it for the 2005FPW at some later date.
I would imagine the 2005FPW would look odd rotated! As you say it is
enabled for the 2001FP, which is what is in front of me now since the
leg fell off the formac (which I have now found is not covered in the 3
year warantee??).
Anyway, if you want swivelling on the 2005FPW you can allways hold down
option when opening the display control panel, which will enable
rotation for anything.
Unless there is a reason (as in the driver not supporting 1680x1080 in
portrait).
--
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...