On 24/10/2016 21:53, tony sayer wrote:

God Pam what have you done thats so wonderful?, this is getting a tad
boring now;(...


Best leave tnp alone, everyone here can see he has been an arse since so
many disagreed with his brexit position. He has started to get more and
more abusive ever since. It happens with some when they realise that
most of the world doesn't have the same views.

dennis@home wrote
tony sayer wrote

God Pam what have you done thats so wonderful?,
this is getting a tad boring now;(...

Best leave tnp alone,

Wrong.

everyone here can see he has been an arse since
so many disagreed with his brexit position.

He was a complete arse LONG before that.

Very incomplete arse actually, nothing viable between the ears.

He has started to get more and more abusive ever since.

BULL****. He always was that, long before BRexit, most
obviously with socialists and all sorts of other ****.

It happens with some when they realise that
most of the world doesn't have the same views.

That was always true of politics, stupid.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:19:16 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 25/10/2016 00:42, Clive George wrote:
On 25/10/2016 00:32, T i m wrote:

Again, I'm not suggesting it isn't but like many things (and for many
people) I think I'd like some proof, even if only imperial.

John's giving you imperial proof - he's telling you how it is, you will
believe him or be executed :-)

My storm troopers are on their way with a bag of mints ;-)

LOL (Clive / Jonny / John).

Yes, I typed my best go at empirical but may have put impirical (even
after looking it up to make sure it meant what I thought it did, and
it did (but you can see why I then might prefer using a GUI over the
'typists CLI' eh g ...)) and then the spullchocker probably offered
imperial and I missed it (that dialogue box has quite a small font and
I'm not sure I can change it)?

But yes, let's just say I'd like to avoid any Imperial entanglements
.... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

En el artículo , Vir
Campestris escribió:

Modern systems have lost the stuff we used to do, where we'd fiddle with
the interleave for performance, not have sector 1 in the same place on
each track, or skew the sectors across cylinders so a seek took you to
the new track just at the right place to sync up and read.

There were tools to determine the optimum interleave, but memory fails
me. I think the original SpinRite may have been one?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Monday, 24 October 2016 20:41:09 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

See: "DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study"
research.google.com/pubs/archive/35162.pdf

See above.

That is an interesting approach to data integrity.

Dont need anything more than that with most data.

A brave approach perhaps.

Nothing brave about not being completely anal.

So do you disbelieve the results that Google published?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:35:00 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:14:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:27:45 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/2016 09:44, alan_m wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:23, David Paste wrote:
am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the
user
interface?)


When I replaced a traditional hard disk in my 5 year old laptop
with
a
SSD I noticed a faster start up but for day to day use no
overall
difference in speed.

Hmm! that hasn't been my experience. I've changed several
laptops
to
SSDs
and *everything* is much snappier.

Only with the laptops that dont have enough physical memory.

Bull****.

We'll see...

My desktop has 32GB and the SSD still makes an enormous
difference.

Not to anything except the time to start from a full reboot and
with launching apps that are very disk intensive when starting..

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

Anyone with even half a clue only reboots every few months and
doesnt
close apps at all.

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already

Nope.

- if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed the
program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway,

Wrong when you have done anything useful with your
data like watch some movies or recorded TV etc.

and still open fast.

Doesnt work like that with the slowest opening **** like firefox.

With my SSD, that's fast the first time anyway.

Still slower than not closing it, just switching to it.

No, it appears instantly as far as my brain's concerned. There's no point in loading a program in less than 20ms.

I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program
after
the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk access..

Still no point in closing apps you wont be using for a while. The act of
closing
it and opening it again is completely pointless even if it is instant.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:35:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:14:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:27:45 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/2016 09:44, alan_m wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:23, David Paste wrote:
am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of
the
user
interface?)


When I replaced a traditional hard disk in my 5 year old
laptop
with
a
SSD I noticed a faster start up but for day to day use no
overall
difference in speed.

Hmm! that hasn't been my experience. I've changed several
laptops
to
SSDs
and *everything* is much snappier.

Only with the laptops that dont have enough physical memory.

Bull****.

We'll see...

My desktop has 32GB and the SSD still makes an enormous
difference.

Not to anything except the time to start from a full reboot and
with launching apps that are very disk intensive when starting.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

Anyone with even half a clue only reboots every few months and
doesnt
close apps at all.

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave
all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already

Nope.

- if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed
the
program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway,

Wrong when you have done anything useful with your
data like watch some movies or recorded TV etc.

and still open fast.

Doesnt work like that with the slowest opening **** like firefox.

With my SSD, that's fast the first time anyway.

Still slower than not closing it, just switching to it.

No,

Yep.

it appears instantly as far as my brain's concerned.

Still more clicks involved.

There's no point in loading a program in less than 20ms.

Try that again in english, I dont read gobbledegook.

I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program
after the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk
access.

Still no point in closing apps you wont be using for a while. The act
of
closing it and opening it again is completely pointless even if it is
instant.

It tidies your taskbar so you can find what you need.

Wrong, as always. Anyone with even half a ****ing clue launches the apps
they use much at all from the pinned icon on the taskbar, so
closing it has no effect what so ever on what icons are on the taskbar.

That's the first very annoying thing I turn off.

Yes, you are that terminal a ****wit. No surprise that
you have always been completely unemployable.

It makes it look like a mac,

Even sillier than you usually manage. Macs dont have anything like that.

hard to distinguish between what's running and what isn't.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Just hover over it shows you if its
running or
not. Not that anyone but a terminal ****wit needs to know that very often
anyway.

As in real life, things I'm not currently in the middle of go away in the
drawer, not left lying on the desk.

Yes, you actually are that terminal a ****wit.

On 25/10/2016 10:31, pamela wrote:
Hi Andy. I once did a bit of work with some hard drive developers
over in Havant (initially IBM then Xyratex then Seagate). I wonder
if you ever crossed paths with them or maybe even worked there?

I'm ex-ICL. We were a Seagate customer. I think the only disc people I
ever spoke to were at Rodime and Micropolis.

Andy

in 1532937 20161025 103105 pamela wrote:
On 22:00 24 Oct 2016, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 24/10/2016 19:49, John Rumm wrote:
SNIP
Now in the case of a HDD there *may* be a relatively close
mapping of LBAs to physical sectors, such that as you step
through sequential LBAs it maps that to a physical address
efficiently - addressing adjacent sectors first, then heads,
and finally cylinders. However even here there is scope for
redirection since the drives support bad sector remapping etc.
So two sequential LBAs may actually be stored in completely
different areas of the disk even with a HDD.
/SNIP
While logically adjacent sectors may be away off in the spares
they're not likely to be. I don't think I've ever seen as many
as 1% faulty disc. You can assume that most of the time they'll
be next to each other.

Way back in the 1980s we had a report from QA that the new
faster disc drives were running slower than the old ones. On
closer examination this turned out to be one of the machines
only. And it had a spare track in the middle of the directory...
which with CP/M is the _only_ directory...

Modern systems have lost the stuff we used to do, where we'd
fiddle with the interleave for performance, not have sector 1 in
the same place on each track, or skew the sectors across
cylinders so a seek took you to the new track just at the right
place to sync up and read.

(not all at once!)

Andy

Hi Andy. I once did a bit of work with some hard drive developers
over in Havant (initially IBM then Xyratex then Seagate). I wonder
if you ever crossed paths with them or maybe even worked there?

After making all sorts of promises to the workforce, Seagate has now
decided to close Havant Plant.

En el artículo , Bob Martin
escribió:

After making all sorts of promises to the workforce, Seagate has now
decided to close Havant Plant.

After quintupling their profits, too.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/19/seagate_1q2017_earnings/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:21:24 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:35:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:14:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:27:45 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/2016 09:44, alan_m wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:23, David Paste wrote:
am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of
the
user
interface?)


When I replaced a traditional hard disk in my 5 year old
laptop
with
a
SSD I noticed a faster start up but for day to day use no
overall
difference in speed.

Hmm! that hasn't been my experience. I've changed several
laptops
to
SSDs
and *everything* is much snappier.

Only with the laptops that dont have enough physical memory.

Bull****.

We'll see...

My desktop has 32GB and the SSD still makes an enormous
difference.

Not to anything except the time to start from a full reboot and
with launching apps that are very disk intensive when starting.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

Anyone with even half a clue only reboots every few months and
doesnt
close apps at all.

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave
all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already

Nope.

- if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed
the
program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway,

Wrong when you have done anything useful with your
data like watch some movies or recorded TV etc.

and still open fast.

Doesnt work like that with the slowest opening **** like firefox.

With my SSD, that's fast the first time anyway.

Still slower than not closing it, just switching to it.

No,

Yep.

it appears instantly as far as my brain's concerned.

Still more clicks involved.

But less junk in my way when doing other things. Say I use 20 programs during a week. Leaving them all cluttering up my taskbar would be stupid. I want to know what I'm using.

There's no point in loading a program in less than 20ms.

Try that again in english, I dont read gobbledegook.

MILLISECONDS.

I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program
after the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk
access.

Still no point in closing apps you wont be using for a while. The act
of
closing it and opening it again is completely pointless even if it is
instant.

It tidies your taskbar so you can find what you need.

Wrong, as always. Anyone with even half a ****ing clue launches the apps
they use much at all from the pinned icon on the taskbar, so
closing it has no effect what so ever on what icons are on the taskbar.

That's the first very annoying thing I turn off.

Yes, you are that terminal a ****wit. No surprise that
you have always been completely unemployable.

Most people customize their interface immediately. The standard form M$ is stupid.

It makes it look like a mac,

Even sillier than you usually manage. Macs dont have anything like that.

They're exactly like that. They have no ability to distinguish between running programs and links to programs, except a little arrow above it.

hard to distinguish between what's running and what isn't.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Just hover over it shows you if its
running or

Why would I want to have to hover?

not. Not that anyone but a terminal ****wit needs to know that very often
anyway.

A running program and a link to a program are entirely different things, and shouldn't look similar.

As in real life, things I'm not currently in the middle of go away in the
drawer, not left lying on the desk.

Yes, you actually are that terminal a ****wit.

You never put things away?

--
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:21:24 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:35:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:14:53 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in
message
news On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:27:45 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/2016 09:44, alan_m wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:23, David Paste wrote:
am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of
the
user
interface?)


When I replaced a traditional hard disk in my 5 year old
laptop
with
a
SSD I noticed a faster start up but for day to day use no
overall
difference in speed.

Hmm! that hasn't been my experience. I've changed several
laptops
to
SSDs
and *everything* is much snappier.

Only with the laptops that dont have enough physical memory.

Bull****.

We'll see...

My desktop has 32GB and the SSD still makes an enormous
difference.

Not to anything except the time to start from a full reboot and
with launching apps that are very disk intensive when starting.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

Anyone with even half a clue only reboots every few months and
doesnt
close apps at all.

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave
all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt
swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already

Nope.

- if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed
the
program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway,

Wrong when you have done anything useful with your
data like watch some movies or recorded TV etc.

and still open fast.

Doesnt work like that with the slowest opening **** like firefox.

With my SSD, that's fast the first time anyway.

Still slower than not closing it, just switching to it.

No,

Yep.

it appears instantly as far as my brain's concerned.

Still more clicks involved.

But less junk in my way when doing other things.

Nothing in the way with stuff you use much pinned to the taskbar.

In fact that is by far the best way to launch stuff if you are actually
stupid enough to close app when you stop using them.

Say I use 20 programs during a week. Leaving them all cluttering up my
taskbar would be stupid.

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you have
those you use much pinned there so it is easier to launch them.

I want to know what I'm using.

And even you should be able to either hover over the icon
if you can't manage to remember what is still running, and
could get real radical and see the list of what is running in
the task manager if you are too stupid to hover.

There's no point in loading a program in less than 20ms.

Try that again in english, I dont read gobbledegook.

MILLISECONDS.

I know what ms means, the rest is gobbledegook.

I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program
after the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk
access.

Still no point in closing apps you wont be using for a while. The act
of
closing it and opening it again is completely pointless even if it is
instant.

It tidies your taskbar so you can find what you need.

Wrong, as always. Anyone with even half a ****ing clue launches the
apps
they use much at all from the pinned icon on the taskbar, so
closing it has no effect what so ever on what icons are on the taskbar.

That's the first very annoying thing I turn off.

Yes, you are that terminal a ****wit. No surprise that
you have always been completely unemployable.

Most people customize their interface immediately. The standard form M$
is stupid.

Irrelevant to how stupid it is to turn the taskbar off.

It makes it look like a mac,

Even sillier than you usually manage. Macs dont have anything like that.

They're exactly like that.

Wrong, as always.

They have no ability to distinguish between running programs and links to
programs, except a little arrow above it.

Win doesnt do it like that.

hard to distinguish between what's running and what isn't.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Just hover over it shows you if its
running or

Why would I want to have to hover?

To see if its running if you are so stupid you can't actually
manage to remember if you have used it since the reboot.

And anyone with even half a clue has the system start
all the stuff they use much on a full reboot anyway so
there is no need to know what is running, it must be
if you have set it up to start on a full reboot.

not. Not that anyone but a terminal ****wit needs to know that very often
anyway.

A running program and a link to a program are entirely different things,
and shouldn't look similar.

They dont. Nothing happens if you hover and it isnt running.

As in real life, things I'm not currently in the middle of go away in
the
drawer, not left lying on the desk.

Yes, you actually are that terminal a ****wit.

You never put things away?

I dont put everything away that I'm not in the middle of.

I'm not that stupidly anal. I've got much better things to do with my time.

[sorry if this appears in the wrong place in the thread, most of it has
expired off my local spool]

I came across this IBM Developer Works page while looking for something else.
It's a clear and concise description of how partition misalignment can impact
on drive performance. The graphs provided show at a glance just how bad this
can be. The writer benchmarks three different drives with various
filesystems, with some surprises in the results.

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-linux-on-4kb-sector-disks/

Note the emphasis in the article is on AF (4k sector) hard disks, but the same
principles apply to SSDs.

TNP: don't bother replying, I won't see it and care even less.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:41:18 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

[sorry if this appears in the wrong place in the thread, most of it has
expired off my local spool]

I came across this IBM Developer Works page while looking for something
else. It's a clear and concise description of how partition misalignment
can impact on drive performance. The graphs provided show at a glance
just how bad this can be. The writer benchmarks three different drives
with various filesystems, with some surprises in the results.

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/l...-sector-disks/


Note the emphasis in the article is on AF (4k sector) hard disks, but
the same principles apply to SSDs.

I noticed an interesting note about EB alignment for SSDs. However, the
mention of 3MiB EBs seems rather fanciful. The 1 and 2 MiB EB sizes seem
more believable if not too likely even today, 2 years on from the date of
that article.

Since we're discussing SSDs and Ubuntu, here's another site I'd like to
recommend.

https://sites.google.com/site/easyli...TEN-ESSENTIAL-
ACTIONS:

Unfortunately, the owner has borked the page with an anti- Ad blocker
giving visitors the choice of excluding his pages from Adblock plus or
else make a donation. The page is borked because even after disabling
Adblock plus in either Opera or (spit!) Firefox, I'm still met with that
"Paywall" nonsense.

When I last visited this site about a year ago, there was no such paywall
nonsense and it was quite a good source of useful and vital post install
configuration tasks to apply forthwith to the various popular Debian
derivatives such as Ubuntu and Linux Mint.

One of the vitally important changes when you're booting from an SSD is
to reduce the *default* swappiness from its rather quaint value of 60
down to a more appropriate 1. Very few people are going to be installing
a modern distro on a ram starved system - the swappines figure of 60
becomes a source of performance loss and, even worse, not good with swap
partitions (or files if you're a lazy *******) located on an SSD.

There were a couple of other settings relating to SSD issues but that's
the only one I can recall off the top of my head right now that doesn't
involve partition alignment issues.

There are probably alternative sites offering the same or similar advice
to the Linux newbie but ICBA to go searching right now, especially since
I may get a few pointers off the back of this follow up (if I'm lucky) to
save me the trouble. :-)


TNP: don't bother replying, I won't see it and care even less.

It seems that TNP's 'audience' is dwindling rapidly. I've had him
killfiled for the past 6 months or longer, initially because I was
getting heartily sick of his "potty-mouthed" political references. His
ghostly remains that keep popping up in follow up postings don't engender
a desire to remove him from my killfile filter either.

--
Johnny B Good

On 02/11/16 14:41, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

[sorry if this appears in the wrong place in the thread, most of it has
expired off my local spool]

I came across this IBM Developer Works page while looking for something else.
It's a clear and concise description of how partition misalignment can impact
on drive performance. The graphs provided show at a glance just how bad this
can be. The writer benchmarks three different drives with various
filesystems, with some surprises in the results.

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-linux-on-4kb-sector-disks/

Note the emphasis in the article is on AF (4k sector) hard disks, but the same
principles apply to SSDs.

TNP: don't bother replying, I won't see it and care even less.

Sigh. There you go, in denial again. The article CLEARLY refers to hard
disks, not SSDS.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

En el artículo , Johnny B Good
escribió:

I noticed an interesting note about EB alignment for SSDs. However, the
mention of 3MiB EBs seems rather fanciful

Spotted that. It seemed odd, not being a factor of 2. Not sure I
believe it either.

https://sites.google.com/site/easyli...TEN-ESSENTIAL-
ACTIONS:

[...]

The page is borked because even after disabling
Adblock plus in either Opera or (spit!) Firefox, I'm still met with that
"Paywall" nonsense.

Tried it in three browsers with adblock and ghostery disabled, and get
the same message. Suspect he's misconfigured his setup and won't be
seeing much ad revenue from anyone. Idiot.

It seems that TNP's 'audience' is dwindling rapidly

It's very noticeable when I expand threads and see that no one is
replying to him. No great loss IMO.

Thanks Johnny.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:41 25 Oct 2016, pamela wrote:

On 21:53 24 Oct 2016, tony sayer wrote:

In article , pamela
scribeth thus
On 22:24 23 Oct 2016, John Rumm wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in
by people who don't understand how SSDS actually work ,
and carried over from hard drives, where the problem does
exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not
actually found any documentation that explicitly supports
your position, and its one based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times.
When pressed for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and
you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a
source of information that would be educational, or even a
recommendation of a SSD that does this hypothetical on the
fly realignment.

Turnip's got a degree in something called Electrical Sciences
which turns out to be a more general degree than one in
Electrical or Electronic Engineering. Explains a lot.

Maybe he knows a bit about electrical power distribution and
generation but his knowledge doesn't really extend as far as
semiconductor storage.

He makes the right noises which fooled me for a while but not
any longer.

God Pam what have you done thats so wonderful?, this is getting
a tad boring now;(...

Tony, I don't like to parade my engineering qualifications but,
as you ask so pointedly, they're significantly better a wishy
washy degree in "electrical sciences".

From what I see, I suspect Turnip hasn't even got himself a EUR
ING. You could ask him although I expect nothing but bluster in
reply.

Tony did you get a reply from Turnip about his engineerig
qualifications or did you just get bluster?

He did spell that out a while ago, should be findable using groups google.

Oxford or Cambridge from memory, likely the last. I can't be bothered
myself.

In article , pamela
scribeth thus
On 09:41 25 Oct 2016, pamela wrote:

On 21:53 24 Oct 2016, tony sayer wrote:

In article , pamela
scribeth thus
On 22:24 23 Oct 2016, John Rumm wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in
by people who don't understand how SSDS actually work ,
and carried over from hard drives, where the problem does
exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not
actually found any documentation that explicitly supports
your position, and its one based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times.
When pressed for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and
you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a
source of information that would be educational, or even a
recommendation of a SSD that does this hypothetical on the
fly realignment.

Turnip's got a degree in something called Electrical Sciences
which turns out to be a more general degree than one in
Electrical or Electronic Engineering. Explains a lot.

Maybe he knows a bit about electrical power distribution and
generation but his knowledge doesn't really extend as far as
semiconductor storage.

He makes the right noises which fooled me for a while but not
any longer.

God Pam what have you done thats so wonderful?, this is getting
a tad boring now;(...

Tony, I don't like to parade my engineering qualifications but,
as you ask so pointedly, they're significantly better a wishy
washy degree in "electrical sciences".

From what I see, I suspect Turnip hasn't even got himself a EUR
ING. You could ask him although I expect nothing but bluster in
reply.

Tony did you get a reply from Turnip about his engineerig
qualifications or did you just get bluster?

Pam why are you so obsessed with NP, do you fancy him or something?..
--
Tony Sayer

On 03/12/16 22:34, tony sayer wrote:
In article , pamela
scribeth thus
On 09:41 25 Oct 2016, pamela wrote:

On 21:53 24 Oct 2016, tony sayer wrote:

In article , pamela
scribeth thus
On 22:24 23 Oct 2016, John Rumm wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in
by people who don't understand how SSDS actually work ,
and carried over from hard drives, where the problem does
exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not
actually found any documentation that explicitly supports
your position, and its one based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times.
When pressed for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and
you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a
source of information that would be educational, or even a
recommendation of a SSD that does this hypothetical on the
fly realignment.

Turnip's got a degree in something called Electrical Sciences
which turns out to be a more general degree than one in
Electrical or Electronic Engineering. Explains a lot.

Maybe he knows a bit about electrical power distribution and
generation but his knowledge doesn't really extend as far as
semiconductor storage.

He makes the right noises which fooled me for a while but not
any longer.

God Pam what have you done thats so wonderful?, this is getting
a tad boring now;(...

Tony, I don't like to parade my engineering qualifications but,
as you ask so pointedly, they're significantly better a wishy
washy degree in "electrical sciences".

From what I see, I suspect Turnip hasn't even got himself a EUR
ING. You could ask him although I expect nothing but bluster in
reply.

Tony did you get a reply from Turnip about his engineerig
qualifications or did you just get bluster?

Pam why are you so obsessed with NP, do you fancy him or something?..

I threaten people who think they are smart, because throwing false
modesty to the winds, I am actually quite smart. I've been around the
block a few times, had three separate careers, and run a couple of
companies.


Its very necessary that those people find some way to ad hominem me,
because I can clearly demonstrate that they are talking nonsense.

Pamela has been shown to be a total arsehole, and like my Ex wife, will
never forgive me for showing her up.

Its that simple.

She probably even has the same personality disorder.

--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 23:26 3 Dec 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Pamela has been shown me to be a total arsehole

FTFY.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 04/12/16 17:25, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

On 23:26 3 Dec 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Pamela has been shown me to be a total arsehole

FTFY.

Oh go and have a wank you sad sick ****.
Has your GF left you again?


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

En el artículo , pamela
escribió:

Can you imagine spending an evening in a bar with Turnip with his
boorish comments and self-congratulatory remarks

I'd rather not, thanks. I've already told him he's the NG equivalent of
the loud-mouthed know-it-all bore you can find in any pub.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")