On 21/11/2021 17:00, Java Jive 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

Because the science is at best equivocal, and you are ignoring other
important factors that people have repeatedly pointed you to. There is
no clear answer, as much as you would like such to be the one of your
choice in order to shore up your untenable position.

--
Spike

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
>

No we don’t. We can go along with the notion that we don’t yet know and
multiple avenues are still worth investigating. It’s not a civil court
case.

On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
> 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.

It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.

And the science says "We don't know enough about the issue".

--
Spike

On 21/11/2021 17:26, Tweed wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No we don’t. We can go along with the notion that we don’t yet know and
> multiple avenues are still worth investigating. It’s not a civil court
> case.

No, we don’t support ideas that fly in the face of the what evidence is
known, that is unscientific.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/11/2021 17:25, Spike wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2021 17:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin
>
> Because the science is at best equivocal,

FALSE! Equivocal means literally "equal voices" or more colloquially
equally likely, but the science is not equivocal, the balance of it is
firmly against the lab-leak conspiracy theory.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.

Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so badly:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

> And the science says "We don't know enough about the issue".

The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse gas
emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called 'Climategate' with
denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions
as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were on the Berkeley
Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that
global warming is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU
are not frauds. It means it’s not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over
temperature so that we can focus on the part of the debate that really
matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
What should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation between
CO2 and temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <mdakpghnssjvif070k8raohg890069fpsc@4ax.com>,
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

> >
> >> Oddly in another group his posts were always sensible.
> >
> >Which group is that?

> URG

That is?... Sorry but for all I know it means Unicorns Ranching Group!

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 <sndi7i$3ac$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.

Oddly, when I used to read Linux mags I routinely saw news reports in them
about big companies (and indeed so Goverments) switching to linux becase
they decided it was preferred.

And I can recall Mac-ers saying that modern versions of that are nix
variant based, yet various organisations seem to use it.

So I guess it depends on whose news/PR you're reading... and which ones you
aren't.

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 21/11/2021 15:38, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> In article <mdakpghnssjvif070k8raohg890069fpsc@4ax.com>,
> Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> URG
>
> That is?... Sorry but for all I know it means Unicorns Ranching Group!

LOL! ... and you certainly don't want to go *there*, if you want to
avoid the acute discomfort of one of those horns up yer jacksie!

Rather reminds me of the just about the only schoolboy elephant joke
that I ever found funny ...

"How do you know when you've passed an elephant"

"You get a burning sensation and tears in yer eyes!"

--

Fake news kills!

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

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <sndi7i$3ac$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Oddly, when I used to read Linux mags I routinely saw news reports in them
> about big companies (and indeed so Goverments) switching to linux becase
> they decided it was preferred.
>
> And I can recall Mac-ers saying that modern versions of that are nix
> variant based, yet various organisations seem to use it.
>
> So I guess it depends on whose news/PR you're reading... and which ones you
> aren't.
>
> Jim
>

Any company, and organisation for that matter, I’ve encountered of size is
Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers like
Macs). It’s nowt to do with news or PR, it’s what I observe.

On 21/11/2021 16:36, Java Jive 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.
>
Again the use of "conspiracy theory" to justify your closed mind. As
for "false evidence", read on.

When I wrote the paragraph quoted above the information came from a
consensus of the various papers I read at the time. I started looking
out of curiosity as soon as Wuhan was mentioned as an epidemic centre
for the very first time because someone I knew had suffered mild
Covid-type symptoms at the end of December 2019 which he described as "a
bad cold that won't shift" for about 5 weeks; yet the pandemic wasn't
declared until March.

The information quoted above is too damning of the Chinese Government to
have been left for those slower than me to find. There has been plenty
of time since then for papers to have been removed from public view, or
apparently left in place though suitably edited. I don't suppose the
authors will be easy to trace either!

It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure
laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which
has been your position. There is currently no way of telling whether
the evidence was false then or is false now, though I don't remember
seeing an unambiguous heredity tree in that paper in 2020. I didn't keep
copies (I wish I had, in hindsight). I have always had a pretty good
memory, and when I followed the link you offered and re-read the paper
it didn't seem to be as familiar as I expected it to be, which puzzled
me at the time.

But having seen how the Chinese protects a member of its Government from
criticism by removing a world class tennis player from anything other
than unconvincing video footage, my bet is that it wasn't false early in
2020 and is sanitised now so that you read the amended version and
invited me to read the same one. I still can't find now any of the other
papers I read then via any of the search engines, so there has been some
sort of clean-up activity.

I have to admire your filing system though, that can quickly turn up
stuff from early last year. I do have to wonder why you thought it might
be necessary?

Jim

On 21/11/2021 16:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> 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.
>
A quick proof of the pudding -

I have a friend who has a home laptop she doesn't use a great deal, but
it does allow her to keep in touch by e-mail and to buy online tickets
for events or travel, and to write letters. It ran Vista.

When Microsoft declared the end of support for Vista, she asked me what
she should do, and I said I would upgrade it for her. She dropped the
laptop off at my house so that I could do that.

I dumped off all her personal files (usefully defaulted to "My
Documents" "My Music" etc, so nothing complicated there) to a pen drive.
Then I installed Linux Mint, which wiped the disc of Vista, and then I
configured it to look exactly like the Vista desktop she was used to,
and I restored all her personal files under her familiar desktop links.
I configured LibreOffice to open and save in .DOC and .XLS formats, and
set Thunderbird to remember her username and password, so that when she
clicks on the email icon on the desktop it goes straight to the most
recent entries in the Inbox.

I added an auto-answer configuration of AnyDesk, so that I could connect
in and run OS updates and she has no need to know the admin password.
She thinks I have given myself access to her computer so that if she is
not sure of something I can look at her screen and see what she is
looking at. She asks me to use it occasionally so that I can do just that.

I gave it back to her simply saying I have updated it, and even a couple
of years later she still thinks she is running "upgraded Vista". I
haven't disillusioned her.

Jim

On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 16:36, Java Jive 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.
>
> Again the use of "conspiracy theory" to justify your closed mind.  As
> for "false evidence", read on.

I don't have a closed mind, then and now I was following the evidence,
including that which you yourself had linked, and said the opposite of
what you had assumed. Much of what you were posting at the time was
conspiracy theory in nature.

> When I wrote the paragraph quoted above the information came from a
> consensus of the various papers I read at the time. I started looking
> out of curiosity as soon as Wuhan was mentioned as an epidemic centre
> for the very first time because someone I knew had suffered mild
> Covid-type symptoms at the end of December 2019 which he described as "a
> bad cold that won't shift" for about 5 weeks; yet the pandemic wasn't
> declared until March.

Yes, but, like the Bradford choir, there's no telling if you haven't
been tested. In time they were, and what they had all suffered from
around Christmas 2019 to early 2020 turned out not to have been covid.

> The information quoted above is too damning of the Chinese Government to
> have been left for those slower than me to find.  There has been plenty
> of time since then for papers to have been removed from public view, or
> apparently left in place though suitably edited. I don't suppose the
> authors will be easy to trace either!

This sounds to me just like more conspiracy paranoia, but what's to stop
you looking back through your history and comparing articles that you
can still find now with their archives on the Wayback Machine for the time.

> It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure
> laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which
> has been your position.  There is currently no way of telling whether
> the evidence was false then or is false now,

Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let me
remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:

BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6

18:50

"For 15 years we have been saying in every single paper we've published
that these bat coronaviruses are a high risk for the next pandemic. We
should stop eating bats. We should close down the wildlife trade. That
if we're not careful we shall see a pandemic of a bat origin coronavirus
from China. Repeatedly. John Reese (spelling?) said it, I've said it,
and many others have said it ... the people who said that are now being
accused of starting the outbreak. It's absolutely preposterous!"

27:22

"I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years, and I do
that with my eyes wide open, I realise that behind of all that is an
authoritarian regime, but I've listened to everything they've said to me
for fifteen years, I've worked with them, I've eaten dinner with them,
I've been in the lab, we've had staff embedded in their labs, they've
visited the US, and Europe, and other places, I've never heard anything
said by anybody that in any way was suspicious, or we've later found out
to be untruthful. These are just scientists doing their job, just like
scientists all round the world. There's nothing unusual about this work
at all."

> though I don't remember
> seeing an unambiguous heredity tree in that paper in 2020. I didn't keep
> copies (I wish I had, in hindsight). I have always had a pretty good
> memory, and when I followed the link you offered and re-read the paper
> it didn't seem to be as familiar as I expected it to be, which puzzled
> me at the time.

More paranoia, the paper is *STILL THERE* at the link I gave then, again
up thread, and again now, and it still says *EXACTLY* what it said when
you first raised this, see Figure 1, which quite clearly shows that
SARS-Cov-2 and pangolin Covs are on different leaves of the tree, in
other words that SARS-Cov-2 didn't come to us via pangolins.

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463

> But having seen how the Chinese protects a member of its Government from
> criticism by removing a world class tennis player from anything other
> than unconvincing video footage,

That is very unfortunate, and she deserves better treatment, but she did
accuse someone who was previously the second most powerful man in a
communist state, and, as we've seen with the Russian and East German
exploitative doping scandals of the past, I'm afraid the sort of
treatment that she's received is depressingly par for the course.

> my bet is that it wasn't false early in
> 2020

More conspiracy paranoia, see the above reports from early in 2020. The
WIV has a *long* history of collaboration with foreign personnel and
foreign labs, particularly one in France and one in the US.

> and is sanitised now so that you read the amended version and
> invited me to read the same one. I still can't find now any of the other
> papers I read then via any of the search engines, so there has been some
> sort of clean-up activity.

There is some evidence of an attempt to make some Chinese papers from
the period hard to find, but the scope for doing that is very limited,
because of facilities like the Wayback Machine, so it's almost certainly
been far less successful than you imagine.

> I have to admire your filing system though, that can quickly turn up
> stuff from early last year. I do have to wonder why you thought it might
> be necessary?

It's called a Sent folder.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>> 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.

>> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.

> Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so badly:

> https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
What is it that they are afraid of?

But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't know,
we've got climate change sussed?

That's a brave position to take.

> The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse gas
> emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called 'Climategate' with
> denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
> 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions
> as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were on the Berkeley
> Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that
> global warming is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU
> are not frauds. It means it’s not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over
> temperature so that we can focus on the part of the debate that really
> matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
> What should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation between
> CO2 and temperature in their findings:

> http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:

"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your
research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
"Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".

The other way goes like this:

"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to go along
and present the picture of the plight of polar bears caused by climate
change". "I can't do that, because polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm
sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you won't be able to go".

--
Spike

On 21/11/2021 17:37, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 17:25, Spike wrote:

>> On 21/11/2021 17:00, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin

>> Because the science is at best equivocal,

> FALSE! Equivocal means literally "equal voices" or more colloquially
> equally likely, but the science is not equivocal, the balance of it is
> firmly against the lab-leak conspiracy theory.

You moron. You're confusing the /derivation/ of the word with its /meaning/!

But anyway, can we now be clear that you are confirming that there is no
scientific evidence whatsoever that supports a WIV lab leak?

--
Spike

On 21/11/2021 17:33, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 17:26, Tweed wrote:

>> No we don’t. We can go along with the notion that we don’t yet know and
>> multiple avenues are still worth investigating. It’s not a civil court
>> case.

> No, we don’t support ideas that fly in the face of the what evidence is
> known, that is unscientific.

But do you support the science that throws doubt on the view of WIV
being benign?

--
Spike

On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:

>> It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure
>> laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which
>> has been your position.  There is currently no way of telling whether
>> the evidence was false then or is false now,

> Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let me
> remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:

> BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6

Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.

> "I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'

That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
blowing,

Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific evidence
that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?

--
Spike

In article <sndos3$g77$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> Yes, you will see from my comment above that I recognised it was
> unlikely to happen. My "too big an overhead" is the clue.

The prolem is to a fair extent a perception fed by lack of awareness or
even interest in learning within the 'computing support' staff. Odd, given
how much money it cans save. Not to mention disruptions when MS 'improve'
something. 8-]

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 <sndq47$ooq$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <sndcth$1e7$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>

> >
> > 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?

Nope. But I expect IT staff and support to know about the options and be
able to advise if a given method isn't the best.

And if people had been educated rather than 'trained' at school they'd also
have already seen alternatives and could judge.

I'm not talking about people being able to write their own code. But about
them knowing there are more ways than they realise to write a document, use
a spreadsheet, etc. And have a desktop GUI that is simple to use *and*
suits them. Indeed, without having to pay for it quite often, or find
machines 'have to upgrade' and they face unwanted changes.

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 <1hrkpgpitfclqv0ns47kpd77vitabup7g3@4ax.com>, 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.

Actually there are a range of 'file managers' for Linux. I use one that
behaves more like RISC OS, along with one that is more Linux-common. Free
choice.

> 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.

Yes. The problem is that most people never even think of trying this,
though. And others have no idea it is even possible. Because of how they
get taught at school and the behaviour of many firm's 'support' for IT.

> 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.

Yes.

--
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 2021-11-19, Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>
> "Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
>>>>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
>>>>
>>>> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
>>>> circumstances at the time.
>>>
>>> I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
>>> narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
>>>
>>> This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
>>> with - are either lying or have been mislead.
>>>
>>>
>> Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!
>
> All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the flu
> and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.

That could work both ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsLfFJJcFvg

On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.

On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

>> 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.

> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.

I wonder what what side Java Jive would have taken in the battle between
the proponents of chlorine being an element, and those who supported its
being a compound.

The difficulty sprang from the atomic weight of chlorine being 35.45,
which didn't fit the knowledge of the time that the atomic weights of
the elements were whole numbers.

In the case of the WIV, there is science supporting both sides, as Java
Jive repeatedly admits.

--
Spike

On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
> I don't have a closed mind, then and now I was following the evidence

<sigh>

The evidence is just a probability not a certainty.

Reading: GOOD
Writing: GOOD
Comprehension: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

You might enjoy banging continuously on the same drum, but I now have
more important things to do with my time than to try to educate a closed
mind.

So I won't bother. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Jim

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

>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.

+1
--

Martin in Zuid Holland