On 11/14/2022 12:47 PM, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:25df8a4d-397b-4801...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 3:12:15 AM UTC-5, Ninapenda
>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>> news:tksm5h$18d7$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>>> My car is 28 years old, and I've had it for 24 of those
>>>>> years.
>>>> My car is a lot newer than that, and is completely unaware of
>>>> what the date is. So I'm pretty sure it won't care about 2038,
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> It's always struck me as funny how the non-networked clocks in
>>> cars don't even care if it's AM or PM. Even after they'd
>>> switched to digital... I can't imagine they are getting
>>> customized circuits that run only twelve-hour cycle, maybe they
>>> just don't care to display it. I had to change my Mom's car,
>>> the controls are such that instead of being able to fall back an
>>> hour I had to spring forward 11; well, at least it wasn't 23. I
>>> might attribute it to having convenient access to windows to see
>>> if it is day or night, but we are coming on a time when it will
>>> be equally dark at both sixes and sevenses. More likely the
>>> psychological fact that most folk will have a rough idea of the
>>> time of day before getting in the car -- indeed, that is often
>>> the impetus for them to get in the car to go somewhere.
>>>
>> There are a lot of cars these days that do know the date, and it
>> can matter greatly if it crashes. Any car that updates itself
>> automatically (like Teslas) could easily have problems if not
>> updated before 2038, for instance. On the other hand, there's 16
>> more years to go, and even if it crashes, it might be any worse
>> than any other day for a Tesla owner.
>>
> In this context, when you refer to a car "crashing" does this mean some
> sort of computer glitch, or do you mean an actual crash, i.e. collision of
> the car with some physical object such as another vehicle?
>
Considering Tesla's history probably the first leading to the second.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 6:26:29 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 12:47 PM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:25df8a4d-397b-4801...@googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 3:12:15 AM UTC-5, Ninapenda
> >>> Jibini wrote:
> >>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:tksm5h$18d7$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
> >>>
> >>>>> My car is 28 years old, and I've had it for 24 of those
> >>>>> years.
> >>>> My car is a lot newer than that, and is completely unaware of
> >>>> what the date is. So I'm pretty sure it won't care about 2038,
> >>>> either.
> >>>
> >>> It's always struck me as funny how the non-networked clocks in
> >>> cars don't even care if it's AM or PM. Even after they'd
> >>> switched to digital... I can't imagine they are getting
> >>> customized circuits that run only twelve-hour cycle, maybe they
> >>> just don't care to display it. I had to change my Mom's car,
> >>> the controls are such that instead of being able to fall back an
> >>> hour I had to spring forward 11; well, at least it wasn't 23. I
> >>> might attribute it to having convenient access to windows to see
> >>> if it is day or night, but we are coming on a time when it will
> >>> be equally dark at both sixes and sevenses. More likely the
> >>> psychological fact that most folk will have a rough idea of the
> >>> time of day before getting in the car -- indeed, that is often
> >>> the impetus for them to get in the car to go somewhere.
> >>>
> >> There are a lot of cars these days that do know the date, and it
> >> can matter greatly if it crashes. Any car that updates itself
> >> automatically (like Teslas) could easily have problems if not
> >> updated before 2038, for instance. On the other hand, there's 16
> >> more years to go, and even if it crashes, it might be any worse
> >> than any other day for a Tesla owner.
> >>
> > In this context, when you refer to a car "crashing" does this mean some
> > sort of computer glitch, or do you mean an actual crash, i.e. collision of
> > the car with some physical object such as another vehicle?
> >
> Considering Tesla's history probably the first leading to the second.

You're referencing the claims of Dan O'Dowd, owner of Green Mountain
Software, who has a competing set of car automation software. He's been
trying to discredit Tesla claiming they're unsafe. Problem is, his videos showing
Tesla's fault are either irreproducible, or crude fakes, obvious to anyone
familiar with Tesla screens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTEP-DURtkg

Pt

On 11/14/2022 6:34 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 6:26:29 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 11/14/2022 12:47 PM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:25df8a4d-397b-4801...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 3:12:15 AM UTC-5, Ninapenda
>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:tksm5h$18d7$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My car is 28 years old, and I've had it for 24 of those
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> My car is a lot newer than that, and is completely unaware of
>>>>>> what the date is. So I'm pretty sure it won't care about 2038,
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's always struck me as funny how the non-networked clocks in
>>>>> cars don't even care if it's AM or PM. Even after they'd
>>>>> switched to digital... I can't imagine they are getting
>>>>> customized circuits that run only twelve-hour cycle, maybe they
>>>>> just don't care to display it. I had to change my Mom's car,
>>>>> the controls are such that instead of being able to fall back an
>>>>> hour I had to spring forward 11; well, at least it wasn't 23. I
>>>>> might attribute it to having convenient access to windows to see
>>>>> if it is day or night, but we are coming on a time when it will
>>>>> be equally dark at both sixes and sevenses. More likely the
>>>>> psychological fact that most folk will have a rough idea of the
>>>>> time of day before getting in the car -- indeed, that is often
>>>>> the impetus for them to get in the car to go somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of cars these days that do know the date, and it
>>>> can matter greatly if it crashes. Any car that updates itself
>>>> automatically (like Teslas) could easily have problems if not
>>>> updated before 2038, for instance. On the other hand, there's 16
>>>> more years to go, and even if it crashes, it might be any worse
>>>> than any other day for a Tesla owner.
>>>>
>>> In this context, when you refer to a car "crashing" does this mean some
>>> sort of computer glitch, or do you mean an actual crash, i.e. collision of
>>> the car with some physical object such as another vehicle?
>>>
>> Considering Tesla's history probably the first leading to the second.
>
> You're referencing the claims of Dan O'Dowd, owner of Green Mountain
> Software, who has a competing set of car automation software. He's been
> trying to discredit Tesla claiming they're unsafe. Problem is, his videos showing
> Tesla's fault are either irreproducible, or crude fakes, obvious to anyone
> familiar with Tesla screens.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTEP-DURtkg
>
First I've heard of O'Dowd. There have been plenty of accidents, some
fatal, caused by Musk/Tesla touting their "auto drive" system which
isn't actually any such thing and failures in the driver-assist
software, largely in the video recognition software.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 11:26:03 PM UTC-5, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 6:34 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 6:26:29 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> On 11/14/2022 12:47 PM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:25df8a4d-397b-4801...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 3:12:15 AM UTC-5, Ninapenda
> >>>>> Jibini wrote:
> >>>>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:tksm5h$18d7$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> My car is 28 years old, and I've had it for 24 of those
> >>>>>>> years.
> >>>>>> My car is a lot newer than that, and is completely unaware of
> >>>>>> what the date is. So I'm pretty sure it won't care about 2038,
> >>>>>> either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's always struck me as funny how the non-networked clocks in
> >>>>> cars don't even care if it's AM or PM. Even after they'd
> >>>>> switched to digital... I can't imagine they are getting
> >>>>> customized circuits that run only twelve-hour cycle, maybe they
> >>>>> just don't care to display it. I had to change my Mom's car,
> >>>>> the controls are such that instead of being able to fall back an
> >>>>> hour I had to spring forward 11; well, at least it wasn't 23. I
> >>>>> might attribute it to having convenient access to windows to see
> >>>>> if it is day or night, but we are coming on a time when it will
> >>>>> be equally dark at both sixes and sevenses. More likely the
> >>>>> psychological fact that most folk will have a rough idea of the
> >>>>> time of day before getting in the car -- indeed, that is often
> >>>>> the impetus for them to get in the car to go somewhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>> There are a lot of cars these days that do know the date, and it
> >>>> can matter greatly if it crashes. Any car that updates itself
> >>>> automatically (like Teslas) could easily have problems if not
> >>>> updated before 2038, for instance. On the other hand, there's 16
> >>>> more years to go, and even if it crashes, it might be any worse
> >>>> than any other day for a Tesla owner.
> >>>>
> >>> In this context, when you refer to a car "crashing" does this mean some
> >>> sort of computer glitch, or do you mean an actual crash, i.e. collision of
> >>> the car with some physical object such as another vehicle?
> >>>
> >> Considering Tesla's history probably the first leading to the second.
> >
> > You're referencing the claims of Dan O'Dowd, owner of Green Mountain
> > Software, who has a competing set of car automation software. He's been
> > trying to discredit Tesla claiming they're unsafe. Problem is, his videos showing
> > Tesla's fault are either irreproducible, or crude fakes, obvious to anyone
> > familiar with Tesla screens.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTEP-DURtkg
> >
> First I've heard of O'Dowd. There have been plenty of accidents, some
> fatal, caused by Musk/Tesla touting their "auto drive" system which
> isn't actually any such thing and failures in the driver-assist
> software, largely in the video recognition software.
> --

WaPo did a piece on O'Dowd, 13 Nov, 2022

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/13/dan-odowd-challenges-tesla-musk/

--
Kevin R

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:4d259aa3-5941-4991-a988-11d5d1bf4392n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 11:26:03 PM UTC-5, Dimensional
> Traveler wrote:
>> On 11/14/2022 6:34 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 6:26:29 PM UTC-6, Dimensional
>> > Traveler wrote:
>> >> On 11/14/2022 12:47 PM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC-6, Jibini
>> >>> Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>> news:25df8a4d-397b-4801...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 3:12:15 AM UTC-5,
>> >>>>> Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> >>>>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>> news:tksm5h$18d7$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> My car is 28 years old, and I've had it for 24 of those
>> >>>>>>> years.
>> >>>>>> My car is a lot newer than that, and is completely
>> >>>>>> unaware of what the date is. So I'm pretty sure it won't
>> >>>>>> care about 2038, either.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It's always struck me as funny how the non-networked
>> >>>>> clocks in cars don't even care if it's AM or PM. Even
>> >>>>> after they'd switched to digital... I can't imagine they
>> >>>>> are getting customized circuits that run only twelve-hour
>> >>>>> cycle, maybe they just don't care to display it. I had to
>> >>>>> change my Mom's car, the controls are such that instead
>> >>>>> of being able to fall back an hour I had to spring
>> >>>>> forward 11; well, at least it wasn't 23. I might
>> >>>>> attribute it to having convenient access to windows to
>> >>>>> see if it is day or night, but we are coming on a time
>> >>>>> when it will be equally dark at both sixes and sevenses.
>> >>>>> More likely the psychological fact that most folk will
>> >>>>> have a rough idea of the time of day before getting in
>> >>>>> the car -- indeed, that is often the impetus for them to
>> >>>>> get in the car to go somewhere.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> There are a lot of cars these days that do know the date,
>> >>>> and it can matter greatly if it crashes. Any car that
>> >>>> updates itself automatically (like Teslas) could easily
>> >>>> have problems if not updated before 2038, for instance. On
>> >>>> the other hand, there's 16 more years to go, and even if
>> >>>> it crashes, it might be any worse than any other day for a
>> >>>> Tesla owner.
>> >>>>
>> >>> In this context, when you refer to a car "crashing" does
>> >>> this mean some sort of computer glitch, or do you mean an
>> >>> actual crash, i.e. collision of the car with some physical
>> >>> object such as another vehicle?
>> >>>
>> >> Considering Tesla's history probably the first leading to
>> >> the second.
>> >
>> > You're referencing the claims of Dan O'Dowd, owner of Green
>> > Mountain Software, who has a competing set of car automation
>> > software. He's been trying to discredit Tesla claiming
>> > they're unsafe. Problem is, his videos showing Tesla's fault
>> > are either irreproducible, or crude fakes, obvious to anyone
>> > familiar with Tesla screens.
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTEP-DURtkg
>> >
>> First I've heard of O'Dowd. There have been plenty of
>> accidents, some fatal, caused by Musk/Tesla touting their "auto
>> drive" system which isn't actually any such thing and failures
>> in the driver-assist software, largely in the video recognition
>> software. --
>
> WaPo did a piece on O'Dowd, 13 Nov, 2022
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/13/dan-odowd-ch
> allenges-tesla-musk/
>
Which does not make the string of accidents, some fatal, that are
well documented.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:04:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:50:19
>>> +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>
>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many cases
>>>> they're difficult or impossible to even fix. :-(
>>>
>>> Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>> installation
>>> in mind. Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of the
>>> spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>
>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off the motor
>> mounts to access the spark plugs?
>
>My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air cleaner to
>get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8. When I changed the plugs
>at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the back two plugs had never been
>changed as the electrodes were totally burnt off.

Did that improve it's performance or did they turn out to be
superfluous?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:09:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-11-14 15:04, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:50:19
>>>> +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written  the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many cases
>>>>> they're difficult or impossible to even fix.  :-(
>>>>
>>>>       Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>>>       installation
>>>> in mind.  Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of the
>>>> spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>
>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off the motor
>>> mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>
>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air cleaner to
>> get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8.  When I changed the plugs
>> at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the back two plugs had never been
>> changed as the electrodes were totally burnt off.
>
>A buddy of mine was working on Ford pickup for his son to replace some
>broken exhaust manifold studs...
>
>(A KNOWN problem with this particular truck)
>
>...because the official Ford repair procedure involved...
>
>...REMOVING THE ENTIRE CAB!

Well, if it's under warranty so Ford is paying for it, that /might/ be
OK.

If not, then a known problem combined with a perhaps overly-elaborate
repair procedure doesn't speak well for Ford.

But then, my dad, not a Ford fan, gave two "explanations" for the
name:
Found On Road Dead
Fix Or Replace Daily
and who can say he was wrong?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> schrieb:
> On 11/12/2022 2:35 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> dvandom@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) wrote in
>
>>> Dave Van Domelen, really tired of the attitude people have
>>> that if a
>>> problem is fixed, then it was never a problem in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>> Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, really tired of idiots who assume
>> that because professionals did their job once, they can't possibly do
>> so again.
>>
>> It's not a big deal if those professionals keep doing their jobs, and
>> - this is the part you're apparently too stupid to understand -
>> *doing* *their* *jobs* *isn't* *a* *big* *deal* *either*.
>>
>> It's *routine.*
>
> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.

There hasn't been an issue of RISKS for quite some time.
(I'm a reader, and very occasionally a contributor).

In <tl0k9m$3cde4$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

[snip]

>> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.

>There hasn't been an issue of RISKS for quite some time.
>(I'm a reader, and very occasionally a contributor).

Just got one last night. PGN is most certainly
still distributing it.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> schrieb:
>> On 11/12/2022 2:35 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> dvandom@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) wrote in
>>
>>>> Dave Van Domelen, really tired of the attitude people have
>>>> that if a
>>>> problem is fixed, then it was never a problem in the first
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>> Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, really tired of idiots who assume
>>> that because professionals did their job once, they can't possibly do
>>> so again.
>>>
>>> It's not a big deal if those professionals keep doing their jobs, and
>>> - this is the part you're apparently too stupid to understand -
>>> *doing* *their* *jobs* *isn't* *a* *big* *deal* *either*.
>>>
>>> It's *routine.*
>>
>> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.
>
>There hasn't been an issue of RISKS for quite some time.
>(I'm a reader, and very occasionally a contributor).

There is one every week. The latest is 33.52, published
November 13, 2022. 33.51 was published November 9,2022.

See comp.risks.

RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Sunday 13 November 2022 Volume 33 : Issue 52

On 15.11.22 19:07, danny burstein wrote:
> In <tl0k9m$3cde4$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.
>
>> There hasn't been an issue of RISKS for quite some time.
>> (I'm a reader, and very occasionally a contributor).
>
> Just got one last night. PGN is most certainly
> still distributing it.
>
>
>
Yep. weekly issues.
Read all of them.

On 11/15/2022 1:45 PM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> On 15.11.22 19:07, danny burstein wrote:
>> In <tl0k9m$3cde4$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> Thomas Koenig
>> <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.
>>
>>> There hasn't been an issue of RISKS for quite some time.
>>> (I'm a reader, and very occasionally a contributor).
>>
>> Just got one last night.  PGN is most certainly
>> still distributing it.
>>
>>
>>
> Yep. weekly issues.
> Read all of them.

For those who need to catch up: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/

For those who only see "stupid people" doing stupid things there: don't
bother.

--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which
by reasoning he never acquired: for in the course of things,
men always grow vicious before they become unbelievers.
- Jonathan Swift

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:r7i7nhdctpodl8os23hmft381i7tv0iobo@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:09:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-11-14 15:04, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> wrote:
>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022
>>>>> 16:50:19 +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written� the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many
>>>>>> cases they're difficult or impossible to even fix.� :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> ����� Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>>>> ����� installation
>>>>> in mind.� Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of
>>>>> the spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off
>>>> the motor mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>
>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air
>>> cleaner to get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8.� When
>>> I changed the plugs at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the
>>> back two plugs had never been changed as the electrodes were
>>> totally burnt off.
>>
>>A buddy of mine was working on Ford pickup for his son to
>>replace some broken exhaust manifold studs...
>>
>>(A KNOWN problem with this particular truck)
>>
>>...because the official Ford repair procedure involved...
>>
>>...REMOVING THE ENTIRE CAB!
>
> Well, if it's under warranty so Ford is paying for it, that
> /might/ be OK.
>
> If not, then a known problem combined with a perhaps
> overly-elaborate repair procedure doesn't speak well for Ford.
>
> But then, my dad, not a Ford fan, gave two "explanations" for
> the name:
> Found On Road Dead
> Fix Or Replace Daily
> and who can say he was wrong?

The other old saw is, of course, First On Race Day, which has about
as much basis in history (which is to say, a tiny bit, but not
much.)

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 11/15/2022 11:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:04:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:50:19
>>>> +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many cases
>>>>> they're difficult or impossible to even fix. :-(
>>>>
>>>> Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>>> installation
>>>> in mind. Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of the
>>>> spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>
>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off the motor
>>> mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>
>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air cleaner to
>> get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8. When I changed the plugs
>> at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the back two plugs had never been
>> changed as the electrodes were totally burnt off.
>
> Did that improve it's performance or did they turn out to be
> superfluous?

Gas mileage changed from 5 mpg to 6 mpg.

Lynn

In article <XnsAF5076CFCB35Ctaustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:r7i7nhdctpodl8os23hmft381i7tv0iobo@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:09:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-11-14 15:04, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022
>>>>>> 16:50:19 +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written� the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many
>>>>>>> cases they're difficult or impossible to even fix.� :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ����� Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>>>>> ����� installation
>>>>>> in mind.� Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of
>>>>>> the spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off
>>>>> the motor mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>>
>>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air
>>>> cleaner to get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8.� When
>>>> I changed the plugs at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the
>>>> back two plugs had never been changed as the electrodes were
>>>> totally burnt off.
>>>
>>>A buddy of mine was working on Ford pickup for his son to
>>>replace some broken exhaust manifold studs...
>>>
>>>(A KNOWN problem with this particular truck)
>>>
>>>...because the official Ford repair procedure involved...
>>>
>>>...REMOVING THE ENTIRE CAB!
>>
>> Well, if it's under warranty so Ford is paying for it, that
>> /might/ be OK.
>>
>> If not, then a known problem combined with a perhaps
>> overly-elaborate repair procedure doesn't speak well for Ford.
>>
>> But then, my dad, not a Ford fan, gave two "explanations" for
>> the name:
>> Found On Road Dead
>> Fix Or Replace Daily
>> and who can say he was wrong?
>
>The other old saw is, of course, First On Race Day, which has about
>as much basis in history (which is to say, a tiny bit, but not
>much.)
>

I found an entire Ford Joke Book at my aunt's house once. Probably
from the 1920s:

Did you know Ford is mentioned in the Bible?

Really?

Well, what other car could Ascend to Heaven on 'High'?

Did you know all Fords must now be painted red?

No, why?

Because the law says any tin-can filled with gasoline must
be painted red!

--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 11/12/22 5:09 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:o0idnQslu6gLie3-nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On 11/12/22 11:32 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>
>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>
>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>
>>> How many appliances with embedded processors running today do
>>> you actually believe will still be functional in another 16
>>> years?
>>>
>>> https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>>>
>>
>> Do not misunderstand. The Y2K problem was very real, and started
>> causing serious damage at least as early as August 16, 1972
>> (9999 days before Y2K), when tapes on IBM mainframes that were
>> supposed to be marked “retain forever” started to be marked
>> "ready for recycling” instead.
>
> Serious, perhaps, but not especially wide spread.

Really? Tell me, are you saying that IBM mainframes were uncommon in
1972, or that few of them used 2400-foot tapes?

>> (It was also about that time that our operating system—to be
>> fair to IBM, it was a beta—started crashing every day at
>> exactly 7:00PM EST. It turned out to be caused by a zero divide
>> in the rollover-GMT code—7:00PM EST is midnight, GMT. And why
>> the zero divide? Ultimately, because one IBM coder was aware
>> that, in the Gregorian Calendar, AD 1900 had skipped leap year,
>> while another coder was blissfully unaware of it.)
>>
> And did hellfire rain down from the heavens, with cats and dogs
> living together, heralding the end of human civilization? No.
> Nobody kicked your dog, either. Professionals fixed it, and life
> went on.
>
> And we know 2038 is coming. Decades in advance.
>

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>In article <XnsAF5076CFCB35Ctaustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:r7i7nhdctpodl8os23hmft381i7tv0iobo@4ax.com:

>>> Well, if it's under warranty so Ford is paying for it, that
>>> /might/ be OK.
>>>
>>> If not, then a known problem combined with a perhaps
>>> overly-elaborate repair procedure doesn't speak well for Ford.
>>>
>>> But then, my dad, not a Ford fan, gave two "explanations" for
>>> the name:
>>> Found On Road Dead
>>> Fix Or Replace Daily
>>> and who can say he was wrong?
>>
>>The other old saw is, of course, First On Race Day, which has about
>>as much basis in history (which is to say, a tiny bit, but not
>>much.)
>>
>
>I found an entire Ford Joke Book at my aunt's house once. Probably
>from the 1920s:
>
> Did you know Ford is mentioned in the Bible?
>
> Really?
>
> Well, what other car could Ascend to Heaven on 'High'?
>
> Did you know all Fords must now be painted red?
>
> No, why?
>
> Because the law says any tin-can filled with gasoline must
> be painted red!

Yet, the Model T, Model A and pony cars are quite highly sought after,
even today.

My Ranger was rock solid until a dereecho dropped a tree on it (18 years
after purchase).

John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote in
news:aLqcnXaJr_WAau7-nZ2dnZfqn_oAAAAA@giganews.com:

> On 11/12/22 5:09 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:o0idnQslu6gLie3-nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 11/12/22 11:32 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>
>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>
>>>> How many appliances with embedded processors running today do
>>>> you actually believe will still be functional in another 16
>>>> years?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do not misunderstand. The Y2K problem was very real, and
>>> started causing serious damage at least as early as August 16,
>>> 1972 (9999 days before Y2K), when tapes on IBM mainframes that
>>> were supposed to be marked “retain forever” started to be
>>> marked "ready for recycling” instead.
>>
>> Serious, perhaps, but not especially wide spread.
>
> Really? Tell me, are you saying that IBM mainframes were
> uncommon in 1972, or that few of them used 2400-foot tapes?

By comparison to today, yes, they were uncommon. And they were all
being handled by people who knew what they were doing. And few
businesses relied on them to the degree that most businesses do
today, so that if they're without it for a short time, it's not a
catastrophe.

Can you point me to a single news story about how catastrophic a
problem it was? No? Why do you suppose that is?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-11-15 11:45, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:aLqcnXaJr_WAau7-nZ2dnZfqn_oAAAAA@giganews.com:
>
>> On 11/12/22 5:09 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:o0idnQslu6gLie3-nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 11/12/22 11:32 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many appliances with embedded processors running today do
>>>>> you actually believe will still be functional in another 16
>>>>> years?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do not misunderstand. The Y2K problem was very real, and
>>>> started causing serious damage at least as early as August 16,
>>>> 1972 (9999 days before Y2K), when tapes on IBM mainframes that
>>>> were supposed to be marked “retain forever” started to be
>>>> marked "ready for recycling” instead.
>>>
>>> Serious, perhaps, but not especially wide spread.
>>
>> Really? Tell me, are you saying that IBM mainframes were
>> uncommon in 1972, or that few of them used 2400-foot tapes?
>
> By comparison to today, yes, they were uncommon.

If by allowing personal computers into the comparison...

> And they were all
> being handled by people who knew what they were doing.

LOL!

> And few
> businesses relied on them to the degree that most businesses do
> today, so that if they're without it for a short time, it's not a
> catastrophe.

LOL!

>
> Can you point me to a single news story about how catastrophic a
> problem it was? No? Why do you suppose that is?

Because people reacted with appropriate seriousness to the problem.

Just like how at least some of the people in charge reacted with
appropriate serious to COVID-19 when you were dismissing it as nothing
more than a bad flu season.

You remember that, right?

In article <tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>xkcd: Y2K and 2038
> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>
>It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>
>Explained at:
> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038

(Hal Heydt)
The *nix world is well into the shift to 64-bit date variables.

On 11/15/2022 6:09 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>
>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>
>> Explained at:
>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> The *nix world is well into the shift to 64-bit date variables.

Yup. But has the client software been upgraded ?

Thanks,
Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 11/15/2022 6:09 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>
>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>>
>>> Explained at:
>>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> The *nix world is well into the shift to 64-bit date variables.
>
>Yup. But has the client software been upgraded ?

For the most part, yes.

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> schrieb:
> In <tl0k9m$3cde4$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.
>
>>There hasn't been an issue of RISKS for quite some time.
>>(I'm a reader, and very occasionally a contributor).
>
> Just got one last night. PGN is most certainly
> still distributing it.

Ah, seems I accidentally unsubscribed.

Thanks for helping me out!

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 11/15/2022 6:09 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>
>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>>
>>> Explained at:
>>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> The *nix world is well into the shift to 64-bit date variables.
>
> Yup. But has the client software been upgraded ?

Recompile and you're done, unless your code made some seriously
bad assumptions about pointers. With the 64-bit Unices which are
used today, sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) still holds, same as
in the day of the VAX.

Apparently, some people thought that sizeof(int) == sizeof(void *)
would be guaranteed for all times in the future. That turned out
not to be the case.

And as for big-endian vs. little-endian - that has been won by
little-endian.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:40:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:r7i7nhdctpodl8os23hmft381i7tv0iobo@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:09:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-11-14 15:04, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022
>>>>>> 16:50:19 +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written  the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many
>>>>>>> cases they're difficult or impossible to even fix.  :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>>>>>       installation
>>>>>> in mind.  Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of
>>>>>> the spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off
>>>>> the motor mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>>
>>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air
>>>> cleaner to get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8.  When
>>>> I changed the plugs at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the
>>>> back two plugs had never been changed as the electrodes were
>>>> totally burnt off.
>>>
>>>A buddy of mine was working on Ford pickup for his son to
>>>replace some broken exhaust manifold studs...
>>>
>>>(A KNOWN problem with this particular truck)
>>>
>>>...because the official Ford repair procedure involved...
>>>
>>>...REMOVING THE ENTIRE CAB!
>>
>> Well, if it's under warranty so Ford is paying for it, that
>> /might/ be OK.
>>
>> If not, then a known problem combined with a perhaps
>> overly-elaborate repair procedure doesn't speak well for Ford.
>>
>> But then, my dad, not a Ford fan, gave two "explanations" for
>> the name:
>> Found On Road Dead
>> Fix Or Replace Daily
>> and who can say he was wrong?
>
>The other old saw is, of course, First On Race Day, which has about
>as much basis in history (which is to say, a tiny bit, but not
>much.)

I don't recall every hearing that one.

Perhaps, not being a Fan of Ford, my dad ... ignored it.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."