On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 10:01:01 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>xposting trimmed
>
>In article <XnsADE7DC789D2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
><pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?
>
>> Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
>> foil when I use the computer?
>
>I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now having
>'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate what sorts of
>machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
>
>The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
>
>Jim

If Microsoft doesn't either relax their system requirements for
Windows 11 or extend their support for existing Windows 10
installations, 2025 might be the year I'm finally pushed over the edge
and decide to abandon Windows entirely. I'm ready when they are.

Rod.

xposting trimmed

In article <sncuts$9l8$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
> of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
> and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
> of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
> high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.

It is certainly correct to say that many factors affect/change climate. And
that many aren't 'man made'. That's one reason I keep recommending the book
about the topic that I've mentioned at times.

I can't be certain off-hand, but it may help you resolve your question. One
of its aims is to help people 'untangle' understanding the various climate
drivers, etc. Both man-made and 'natural'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <6a6kpgdudi283vltq2bsaabdtiocujh741@4ax.com>,
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> >You're right that his posts seem so surreal that he couldn't possibly
> >beleive what he says.
> >
> >On the other hand, there are some deeply troubled individuals out
> >there who live in an alternate reality to the rest of society.

> Oddly in another group his posts were always sensible.

Which group is that?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <dg6kpgp42ohg7hvkf304ggs83gkl7qea16@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now
> >having 'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate
> >what sorts of machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
> >
> >The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
> >
> >Jim

> If Microsoft doesn't either relax their system requirements for Windows
> 11 or extend their support for existing Windows 10 installations, 2025
> might be the year I'm finally pushed over the edge and decide to abandon
> Windows entirely. I'm ready when they are.

I always thought it was a poor OS and a PITA to use. So only ever used it
when it was unavoidable. Until Ubuntu's impact on the experience of newbies
to Linux I could understand why many preferred doze - particularly when
habituated to it by work requirements or school. But from a few years after
the impact of Ubuntu I've become baffled why so many stay captive to doze.
Maybe it is acclimatisation and the need to have 'industry standard'
software as driven by the way MS behave wrt application software. Which has
often made information transfer hard to do between platforms.

I guess the reality is that well over 90% of desktop/laptop computer users
are actually simply users of Word/Excel/etc with no real grasp of more
general computing let alone programming. Trained at school or office, not
educated about computing more generally. Magic box effect. Similar to
'phone' users who have no idea how it works provided they know how to use
it and the 'apps'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 10:24:03 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <6a6kpgdudi283vltq2bsaabdtiocujh741@4ax.com>,
> Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>> >You're right that his posts seem so surreal that he couldn't possibly
>> >beleive what he says.
>> >
>> >On the other hand, there are some deeply troubled individuals out
>> >there who live in an alternate reality to the rest of society.
>
>> Oddly in another group his posts were always sensible.
>
>Which group is that?

URG
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <dg6kpgp42ohg7hvkf304ggs83gkl7qea16@4ax.com>, Roderick
> Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now
>>> having 'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate
>>> what sorts of machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
>>>
>>> The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
>>>
>>> Jim
>
>> If Microsoft doesn't either relax their system requirements for Windows
>> 11 or extend their support for existing Windows 10 installations, 2025
>> might be the year I'm finally pushed over the edge and decide to abandon
>> Windows entirely. I'm ready when they are.
>
> I always thought it was a poor OS and a PITA to use. So only ever used it
> when it was unavoidable. Until Ubuntu's impact on the experience of newbies
> to Linux I could understand why many preferred doze - particularly when
> habituated to it by work requirements or school. But from a few years after
> the impact of Ubuntu I've become baffled why so many stay captive to doze.
> Maybe it is acclimatisation and the need to have 'industry standard'
> software as driven by the way MS behave wrt application software. Which has
> often made information transfer hard to do between platforms.
>
> I guess the reality is that well over 90% of desktop/laptop computer users
> are actually simply users of Word/Excel/etc with no real grasp of more
> general computing let alone programming. Trained at school or office, not
> educated about computing more generally. Magic box effect. Similar to
> 'phone' users who have no idea how it works provided they know how to use
> it and the 'apps'.
>
> Jim
>

And that’s exactly how a computer to be used as a tool to get run of the
mill tasks done should be. A general phone/computer user should worry about
how their device works about as much as how they worry about how their TV
works. And as to programming, that’s utterly irrelevant to most of the
population.

What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of
desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.

On 21/11/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> xposting trimmed
>
> In article<sncuts$9l8$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
>> of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
>> and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
>> of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
>> high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.
>
> It is certainly correct to say that many factors affect/change climate. And
> that many aren't 'man made'. That's one reason I keep recommending the book
> about the topic that I've mentioned at times.

I bought the book and am part way through it, but real life has a habit
of eating into my reading time.
>
> I can't be certain off-hand, but it may help you resolve your question. One
> of its aims is to help people 'untangle' understanding the various climate
> drivers, etc. Both man-made and 'natural'.

I will keep on reading then.
>
> Jim
>

On 21/11/2021 12:09, Tweed wrote:

> What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
> operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
> IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of
> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
>
I think some Linux distros are now sufficiently manageable at scale. The
problem is that "at scale" implies a large user population, all of which
are familiar with the OS currently provided by the company, and the
training overhead of getting used to different a system appearance and
different terminology in error messages is too big an overhead for most
businesses which need to remain functional and profitable businesses.

Jim

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 12:09, Tweed wrote:
>
>> What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
>> operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
>> IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of
>> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
>>
> I think some Linux distros are now sufficiently manageable at scale. The
> problem is that "at scale" implies a large user population, all of which
> are familiar with the OS currently provided by the company, and the
> training overhead of getting used to different a system appearance and
> different terminology in error messages is too big an overhead for most
> businesses which need to remain functional and profitable businesses.
>
> Jim
>
>

Not manageable at scale including the applications business demands. Very
large companies, which know the cost of everything in detail, and pay huge
sums to Microsoft each year, have shown no interest whatsoever in switching
to Linux on the desktop.

On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 00:54, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 20/11/2021 22:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/11/2021 17:34, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/11/2021 11:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what's new?  I've never claimed otherwise!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
>>>>>>> "balance of probability" can justify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> rational evidence to the contrary".
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are
>>>>> aiming at
>>>>> a wrong target.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I said was
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
>>>>> realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
>>>>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible
>>>>> answer.
>>>>> <end quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that you didn't mention bio-weapons specifically, but see
>>>> your
>>>> posts quoted below, which show a clear signal of subscribing to
>>>> conspiracy theories about a lab-leak origin of covid, and further a
>>>> suggestion that perhaps military work was being undertaken at what is
>>>> actually a civilian institution
>>>
>>> Not so. I didn't say I subscribed to any particular point of view.
>>
>> The quotes I gave strongly suggest an adherence to a particular
>> conspiracy point of view, and I don't think I need to be lectured on
>> 'The Scientific Method' by a climate denialist either.
>
> You do, because you are a closed mind and therefore an irrelevant
> irritation to those who are not.

I could say the same with more truth about you.

> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
> of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
> and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
> of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
> high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.

For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's time
here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of which you
could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable research online.

> If you continue with your "my way or the wrong way" attitude, you will
> continue to be seen as less of a guru and more of an obsessive. That is
> your loss, not mine.

I could say the same with more truth about you and conspiracy theories:
Who was it a year and a half ago who first brought up covid coming to us
via pangolins, but when I found the original paper you'd read based on
your information it actually said exactly the opposite. Then just
recently, you made the same mistake all over again, and had to be
reminded of the actual facts all over again. *That* is a sign of a
closed mind.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/11/2021 13:40, Tweed wrote:
> Indy Jess John<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 12:09, Tweed wrote:
>>
>>> What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
>>> operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
>>> IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of
>>> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
>>>
>> I think some Linux distros are now sufficiently manageable at scale. The
>> problem is that "at scale" implies a large user population, all of which
>> are familiar with the OS currently provided by the company, and the
>> training overhead of getting used to different a system appearance and
>> different terminology in error messages is too big an overhead for most
>> businesses which need to remain functional and profitable businesses.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
> Not manageable at scale including the applications business demands. Very
> large companies, which know the cost of everything in detail, and pay huge
> sums to Microsoft each year, have shown no interest whatsoever in switching
> to Linux on the desktop.
>
Yes, you will see from my comment above that I recognised it was
unlikely to happen. My "too big an overhead" is the clue.

I was trying to make the distinction between the technical capabilities
of the current Linux offerings and the practicality (or rather lack of
it) of taking advantage of that progress.

The exception could be new start-up companies who might be inclined to
challenge the "the answer is Microsoft, now what is the question"
attitude that they might be given by their advisers.

Jim

In article <sndcth$1e7$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> And that's exactly how a computer to be used as a tool to get run of the
> mill tasks done should be.

For run of the mill, perhaps, yes. cf below.

> And as to programming, that's utterly irrelevant to most of the
> population.

Yes, waste of time educating people or expecting them to learn or improve
how they work, etc, eh? Just dumn footsoldiers make less fuss I guess. :-)

> What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
> operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a
> central IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or
> thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at
> scale.

Erm, more than ones place where I'vwe worked quite happily has an IT dept
that supported various other OSs. Indeed, often more than one.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sndekn$bjr$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 12:09, Tweed wrote:

> > What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
> > operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a
> > central IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or
> > thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at
> > scale.
> >
> I think some Linux distros are now sufficiently manageable at scale. The
> problem is that "at scale" implies a large user population, all of
> which are familiar with the OS currently provided by the company, and
> the training overhead of getting used to different a system appearance
> and different terminology in error messages is too big an overhead for
> most businesses which need to remain functional and profitable
> businesses.

Largely agree. The problem starts in schools that simply 'train how to use
the 'standard' OS and main progs like Word/Excel/etc. The thought of
helping the students to learn how things *work* and become able to make
their own choices, etc, gets ignored all too often.

Rot set in when political changes allowed local businessmen to sit on
School boards and dictate they wanted 'trained' workers, not people who
could program or understand how computers actually worked and could be
altered to improve anything much. Plus local businessmen who sold 'PCs' to
the school, and got on-board to do so.

The results were pretty obvious at Uni as we saw fresh cohorts of 1st years
turn up.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <snde2j$8g7$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > xposting trimmed
> >
> > In article<sncuts$9l8$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> > <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the
> >> drivers of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently
> >> modelled, and look forward to further research which might explain
> >> why the start of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of
> >> centuries of abnormally high temperatures, even before mankind
> >> evolved.
> >
> > It is certainly correct to say that many factors affect/change
> > climate. And that many aren't 'man made'. That's one reason I keep
> > recommending the book about the topic that I've mentioned at times.

> I bought the book and am part way through it, but real life has a habit
> of eating into my reading time.

I know the feeling! :-) I usually have a 'to do' list with tasks that have
been waiting for months or years and keep trying to get more round tuits!
:-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <sndcth$1e7$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> And that's exactly how a computer to be used as a tool to get run of the
>> mill tasks done should be.
>
> For run of the mill, perhaps, yes. cf below.
>
>
>> And as to programming, that's utterly irrelevant to most of the
>> population.
>
> Yes, waste of time educating people or expecting them to learn or improve
> how they work, etc, eh? Just dumn footsoldiers make less fuss I guess. :-)
>
>> What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
>> operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a
>> central IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or
>> thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at
>> scale.
>
> Erm, more than ones place where I'vwe worked quite happily has an IT dept
> that supported various other OSs. Indeed, often more than one.
>
> Jim
>

Do you honestly expect my wife who works in the law to take an interest in
programming? For her the computer is a tool for getting the work done. It’s
like saying the user of a desk should be interested in carpentry. She is by
no means a dumb foot soldier, and nor are the other countless millions that
use a computer to get work done. Do you think all the workers in an airport
ought to be interested in how their computers work? Do you think the pilots
care how their plane control systems are implemented, other than hoping it
has been done properly?

I too work in an organisation that supports multiple OSs, but the non
Windows estate is for the specialist use cases where the users take an
interest.

On 21/11/2021 13:49, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 00:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2021 22:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/11/2021 17:34, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/11/2021 11:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
>>>>>>>> "balance of probability" can justify.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against
>>>>>>> all rational evidence to the contrary".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are
>>>>>> aiming at a wrong target.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I said was
>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>> I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
>>>>>> realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
>>>>>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible
>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>> <end quote>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that you didn't mention bio-weapons specifically, but see
>>>>> your
>>>>> posts quoted below, which show a clear signal of subscribing to
>>>>> conspiracy theories about a lab-leak origin of covid, and further a
>>>>> suggestion that perhaps military work was being undertaken at what is
>>>>> actually a civilian institution
>>>>
>>>> Not so. I didn't say I subscribed to any particular point of view.
>>>
>>> The quotes I gave strongly suggest an adherence to a particular
>>> conspiracy point of view, and I don't think I need to be lectured on
>>> 'The Scientific Method' by a climate denialist either.
>>
>> You do, because you are a closed mind and therefore an irrelevant
>> irritation to those who are not.
>
> I could say the same with more truth about you.
>
>> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
>> of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
>> and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
>> of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
>> high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.
>
> For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's time
> here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of which you
> could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable research online.
>
>> If you continue with your "my way or the wrong way" attitude, you will
>> continue to be seen as less of a guru and more of an obsessive. That is
>> your loss, not mine.
>
> I could say the same with more truth about you and conspiracy theories:
> Who was it a year and a half ago who first brought up covid coming to us
> via pangolins, but when I found the original paper you'd read based on
> your information it actually said exactly the opposite. Then just
> recently, you made the same mistake all over again, and had to be
> reminded of the actual facts all over again. *That* is a sign of a
> closed mind.
>
I haven't wasted "everybody's time", you chose to waste yours.
You found one of *several* papers I read last year, and I hadn't claimed
it came to us via pangolins, I merely queried how traces of pangolin DNA
was identified in the human virus that was supposed to have been a
natural mutation received from bats.

The choice of "conspiracy theories" rather than "possibilities" shows
your closed mind not mine. I have never denied probability, but I
remain opposed to the view that most_probable=certainty.

Feel free to waste even more of your time pointlessly arguing that
"balance of probability" is the same as proof sufficient to debunk every
other possibility.

Jim

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 12:09:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
>operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
>IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of
>desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.

But if you only have to manage your own computer it makes not a jot of
difference. I already use Firefox and Libre Office, and for email and
usenet I could easily change to Thunderbird, all of which like many
other software applications also have Linux versions or similar
programs the do the same things. Even the Linux file manager works
pretty much the same way as the Windows one, so if I decided to change
my main system tomorrow I'd hardly have to learn anything new.

It's not even difficult, and it's a lot quicker, to install any of the
modern Linux distributions, and you can install it alongside Windows
or just run it from the DVD or USB stick without changing anything on
your computer to try it out.

Buyers for business or education are spending other people's money so
will naturally go for what's superficially easiest, but when support
for Windows 10 runs out in 2025 a lot of home users will have
expensive computers with years of life left in them. It would be nice
to think some of them could be persuaded to try a new system that
would obviate the need for all those computers to end up as landfill.

Rod.

On 21/11/2021 16:00, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> I haven't wasted "everybody's time", you chose to waste yours.
> You found one of *several* papers I read last year, and I hadn't claimed
> it came to us via pangolins, I merely queried how traces of pangolin DNA
> was identified in the human virus that was supposed to have been a
> natural mutation received from bats.
>
> The choice of "conspiracy theories" rather than "possibilities" shows
> your closed mind not mine.  I have never denied probability, but I
> remain opposed to the view that most_probable=certainty.

On 07/04/2020 22:53, Indy Jess John wrote:

> "Virologists have identified elements of bat RNA and also pangolin
RNA in the virus now infecting the world which is a pretty clear
indication that it was engineered in a laboratory rather than arising
naturally; the suggestion that it originated in a Chinese "wet" market
is a useful bit of fake news to conceal the involvement of the Chinese
Government. It was supposed to be incapacitating rather than fatal, and
in fact the first "field trial" in Wuhan, where China's only secure
laboratory for studying deadly diseases is located, was relatively
benign but within weeks it had mutated from the original "S" variant to
the current "L" variant killer virus, and had escaped from Chinese control."

That is a conspiracy theory based on false evidence, and when I read the
paper that you suggested the information might have come from, recently
linked again up thread, it said the opposite, that the covid virus
contained no pangolin segments of virus, and contained a clear and
unambiguous hereditary tree showing that.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 12:09:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
>> operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
>> IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of
>> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
>
> But if you only have to manage your own computer it makes not a jot of
> difference. I already use Firefox and Libre Office, and for email and
> usenet I could easily change to Thunderbird, all of which like many
> other software applications also have Linux versions or similar
> programs the do the same things. Even the Linux file manager works
> pretty much the same way as the Windows one, so if I decided to change
> my main system tomorrow I'd hardly have to learn anything new.
>
> It's not even difficult, and it's a lot quicker, to install any of the
> modern Linux distributions, and you can install it alongside Windows
> or just run it from the DVD or USB stick without changing anything on
> your computer to try it out.
>
> Buyers for business or education are spending other people's money so
> will naturally go for what's superficially easiest, but when support
> for Windows 10 runs out in 2025 a lot of home users will have
> expensive computers with years of life left in them. It would be nice
> to think some of them could be persuaded to try a new system that
> would obviate the need for all those computers to end up as landfill.
>
> Rod.
>

Oh I’m with you every inch of the way in respect of not needing to junk
home computers in 2025. The determining factor on whether or not Microsoft
will need to row back on this is how many non Windows 11 compliant
computers are actually still in service by 2025.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 16:00, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> I haven't wasted "everybody's time", you chose to waste yours.
>> You found one of *several* papers I read last year, and I hadn't claimed
>> it came to us via pangolins, I merely queried how traces of pangolin DNA
>> was identified in the human virus that was supposed to have been a
>> natural mutation received from bats.
>>
>> The choice of "conspiracy theories" rather than "possibilities" shows
>> your closed mind not mine.  I have never denied probability, but I
>> remain opposed to the view that most_probable=certainty.
>
> On 07/04/2020 22:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> "Virologists have identified elements of bat RNA and also pangolin
> RNA in the virus now infecting the world which is a pretty clear
> indication that it was engineered in a laboratory rather than arising
> naturally; the suggestion that it originated in a Chinese "wet" market
> is a useful bit of fake news to conceal the involvement of the Chinese
> Government. It was supposed to be incapacitating rather than fatal, and
> in fact the first "field trial" in Wuhan, where China's only secure
> laboratory for studying deadly diseases is located, was relatively
> benign but within weeks it had mutated from the original "S" variant to
> the current "L" variant killer virus, and had escaped from Chinese control."
>
> That is a conspiracy theory based on false evidence, and when I read the
> paper that you suggested the information might have come from, recently
> linked again up thread, it said the opposite, that the covid virus
> contained no pangolin segments of virus, and contained a clear and
> unambiguous hereditary tree showing that.
>

Can’t you accept that there are a number of plausible but currently non
provable theories as to how covid came about? I suspect a number of well
funded western governmental agencies are putting significant effort and
resource into this. Banging on about it here isn’t going to move things
forwards.

On 21/11/2021 16:52, Tweed wrote:
>
> Can’t you accept that there are a number of plausible but currently non
> provable theories as to how covid came about? I suspect a number of well
> funded western governmental agencies are putting significant effort and
> resource into this. Banging on about it here isn’t going to move things
> forwards.

Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance
of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to
debunk it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 16:52, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Can’t you accept that there are a number of plausible but currently non
>> provable theories as to how covid came about? I suspect a number of well
>> funded western governmental agencies are putting significant effort and
>> resource into this. Banging on about it here isn’t going to move things
>> forwards.
>
> Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
> instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance
> of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to
> debunk it.
>

No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.

On 21/11/2021 13:49, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:

>> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
>> of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
>> and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
>> of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
>> high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.

> For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's time
> here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of which you
> could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable research online.

There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the
climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed,
and which, given their far greater effect on the climate than trace
gasses, is astonishing.

Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need to
make.

--
Spike

On 21/11/2021 17:11, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
>> instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance
>> of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to
>> debunk it.
>
> No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.

No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>
> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the
> climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
> numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
> known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
> contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
> never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed,
> and which, given their far greater effect on the climate than trace
> gasses, is astonishing.
>
> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need to
> make.

The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of our
uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it doesn't call
into question the scientific evidence supporting AGW.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk